MarKr wrote: ↑02 Jul 2020, 17:10
Warhawks97 wrote: ↑02 Jul 2020, 16:53
The question of how many stugs should be in this game is another one. I am just saying that esspecially the stug III is a really underrepresented tank while it should play a bigger role in axis gameplay.
Why is the current StuG distribution among doctrines insufficient?
From a realism perspective he kinda has a point. As far as gameplay, the StuG is fine in it's current state. For 2 CP you get a tank that has a considerable amount of armor, a gun with good pen and HE, camo, rapid firing position, and decent speed. It's like a slightly better 76 sherman, but not enough so that it needs a price/CP increase or anything like that. That's not to say that I think 0 CP availability of StuGs would be a bad thing, as I would honestly not mind if they were a 0 CP unit who's abilities were locked behind the current CP paywall. Without the abilities/upgrades in question, namely ambush, skirts, and rapid fire position, the StuG III and IV are basically just panzer 4 F2's without the smoke or turret. They'd still be worthwhile to build before the ability/upgrade unlock in my opinion, as they could still rack up some early vet while supported by units and abilities that the CP could instead be spent on. Overall, balance wouldn't really change, as a comparable unit is already available to the docs that currently have StuGs and Defense doc would be a lot more entertaining with the StuG III as an option (although I can't really comment on how balanced def doc StuG III's would be). It would make the game more fun IMO, but to try and frame it as a vital change is kinda ridiculous. That being said, I still support it if others want it implemented.
It was brought up because somehow having the M10 start as a 0CP unit with the special shells, camo, and flank speed all being locked behind a CP paywalls is somehow equivalent to a 0 CP StuG with all it's abilities. Nevermind the fact that every axis doc already has access to a tank with a long barrel 75mm for 0CP, whereas US only has a 76mm tank for 0CP in one doc despite generally being faced with more heavily armored opponents than an axis player would be faced with. The entire point of my initial suggestion on the other threads was that US does't have a tank or vehicle at 0CP that can aggressively contend with a panzer 4 F2, meaning the game grinds to a crawl as the US player waits to get the CP to do so, assuming they didn't just pick the M10 as their first doctrinal unlock since a 76mm is a necessity for aggressive play. I never said the game is impossible to win, I said that claiming US inf and AB docs are on even ground with axis because they have a halftrack with a 57mm is ridiculous.
The 57mm can barely pen a panzer 4, nevermind anything larger. Meanwhile, marders can pen all but the heaviest allied tanks (churchills), even killing pershings with relative ease. They also have HE and sometimes even MG's to defend themselves. Panzer 4 F2's are on an entirely different level of usefulness, as not only can their guns pen the majority of targets they'll run into and blow away inf, but they actually have armor and mobility, nevermind actually useful smoke. The HT is a decent specialist if you don't factor in scaling, but scaling is a large factor to leave out, and if you include it in your judgement of the 57 HT and marder, the former is comparatively hot garbage. Sure, it's cheap. Kettenkrads are also cheap but I don't see them holding positions solo. Cost efficiency alone isn't a good metric to go off of for comparing these 2 units.
============================================================================================================================
I really wish Wald hadn't made a post out of this idea I presented in the other thread, as while I assume he had good intentions, neither he nor Hawks has done a great job of defending the idea because they are arguing from a different perspective than me and focusing on the less important details of the issue. That's not to say that they are incapable of arguing a point, as both are reasonable people: it is just difficult to argue someone's point for them if you do not have a relatively similar perspective on the matter. Wald generally plays axis a lot more often than allies, and Hawks hasn't been playing regularly for the majority of this beta due to hardware issues, so I would argue that neither share my perspective and I think the point I was originally trying to convey in the other thread only got across partially here at best. I have not had time to sit on this forum and actively defend the idea or I would've just posted it myself, and since I have not been able to be active in responding to all the objections with my counterarguments, I do not feel that this thread adequately got my point across to those who might've seen it.
This was not an attack on these 2 people, I'm just disappointed that I couldn't have defended my stance on this issue better. Sorry if it came across as negative @Wald and @Hawks.
It's just a game, and it doesn't really matter in the long run so I'm not sure why this pissed me off so much other than the fact that I do not like being spoken for.
