The STuG Thread: Is this honey badger too sweet?

monkspider · Post by **monkspider** » Fri Nov 11, 2011 12:47 am

deducter wrote: I also recommend reducing the power of the StuG IIIB for v1.05, unless for some reason no one else agrees it is overpowered...

monkspider wrote: Deduct, I really didn't think the STUG was overpowered, it is quite useful, yes, but they still get slaughtered pretty easily by T-34s and even the light Soviet tanks seem like they can do a number on them. The amount of STUGs I went through in the campaign should speak to that. Do you have any particular experiences that stand out in making you think that they are overpowered? It is definitely a unique unit I will grant you, I don't think the Soviets or other nations have an analogous unit that I can think of.

deducter wrote:
My StuG IIIB were all 3 stars, so that's 13 GD vs. 8 HA for T34/40. Once, one of mine was attacked twice by tanks and once by conscripts, when it was in a swamp, and it still survived (with 3 str). The other thing is their insane firepower that is amazing when covering my own tanks, so that any attempts to attack me were just crushing defeats for the Soviets. They also have 8 ammunition and 110% rate of fire, and cost a mere 221 prestige. Maybe I'm just using them in a particularly effective way though...

Longasc wrote:The StuG IIIB is a really good unit, almost worth its own thread though.

Other nations need something like that as well, put a StuG in the middle of infantry or tanks and you raise their survivability and support their offense immensely through artillery fire and extra fort busting capabilities.

As I really <3 this unit I don't want to nerf it but I have to agree with deducter, it's too good. I had this impression several times during the 41 campaign, there is almost no situation where the StuG IIIB isn't an extremely valuable helper.

P.S. Infantry attacking a StuG IIIB might not fire a single shot. Boom! Suppressed. The same for units defended by the StuG.

Kerensky wrote:If you want to talk StuG, I recommend a new thread.

Some points to keep in mind about the StuG:

It has drawbacks, especially very poor artillery range. It's hardly an artillery unit at all, its a support unit.

Sure it's great in 1941 when it's brand new, but what happens when T34/43s, T34/85s, and other heavier armor starts to show up?
What will become of your StuG IIIBs, upgrade into StuH42 I assume, but what makes you think the StuH42 is going to be good at supporting units against armored attack?
So as great as the IIIB, what will become of it in the future? Somehow I don't see it being overpowered, let alone useful, in 1942 or 1943 or beyond.

(Part of why Im thinking the StuH42 needs an overhaul, maybe it *should* be the direct upgrade over the StuGIIIB.)

As Comrade General Kerensky requested, here is the dedicated STuG thread. I think we are all fans of the STuG now. I really appreciate how it serves such a unique role and I think it can serve as a model for rehabilitating all sorts of underused units.

I tended to lose STuGs easily, so I wasn't convinced of their OP'ed status but better players than I like Deducter and Longsac seemed to use them to especially devastating effect. I wonder if they could lose their artillery function of defensive fire and serve as a new paradigm of"support class" units that can take close range pot shots with without risking return fire. It sounds like part of what makes them possibly overpowered is their ability to back up panzers with defensive barrages and as Kerensky said, it is meant as a support unit, not an artillery unit.

monkspider · Post by **monkspider** » Fri Nov 11, 2011 12:50 am

Doh, I was beaten to the punch, sorry guys.

Kerensky · Post by **Kerensky** » Fri Nov 11, 2011 12:55 am

But I like this title so much better. lol

Longasc · Post by **Longasc** » Fri Nov 11, 2011 8:34 am

I wanted to write "StuG in the 1941 Mud" but Habermann's saucy secretary doesn't like wordplays.

kjeld111 · Post by **kjeld111** » Mon Nov 14, 2011 9:21 am

My opinion about the recent changes to the STuGIIIB strictly about the single player (campaign) experience, as I do not play MP, so I can't comment on the balance there.

Do I want to include a STuG (or 3) in my core ? Yes
Does it fills a niche, bring something new and helpful ? Yes

Do I want to build an anormal number of STuG ? No. It is still arty, it still doesn't kill things. I'll still buy more infantry, fighters, panzers IVs thant StuGs, to do the actual fighting ... I won't "spam" them.
Do they replace or make obsolete units in other categories ? No, see above.
Do they replace or make obsolete units in the same categorie ? Not even. I will still buy towed and self propelled long range artillery, for obvious reasons.

Is it OK to have this previously unused unit have its place into my core ? Yes, yes, yes for the sake of variety and diversity. There are already a lot of units (towed AT, self propelled AA ...) that are almost completely unused in a campaign (they are cost efficient so they have a probably a use in MP, but they are not "core slot" efficient). There are a lot of redundant units that fail to bring something other units can't do better (ATs unit before late war, fighter-bombers ...). Everything that brings something else to the table than the infantry/tank/arty "holy trinity" is cool.

(OK, I was forced to post this as my icon <== is vulnerable to STuG fortkiller trait, please don't hurt me )

Kerensky · Post by **Kerensky** » Mon Nov 14, 2011 6:46 pm

You said holy trinity and I flashed back to the idea of "Tank, heals, and DPS"
lols

Dalinski · Post by **Dalinski** » Mon Nov 14, 2011 10:02 pm

You could make SPAA more useful by making it able to attack ground targets. They were frequently employed in this role. Also give them more Soft attack.

kjeld111 · Post by **kjeld111** » Mon Nov 14, 2011 11:00 pm

Kerensky wrote:You said holy trinity and I flashed back to the idea of "Tank, heals, and DPS"
lols

That was actually intended

(Back in the days, EQ original, the holy trinity was actually tank, heal and crowd control heh)

Kerensky · Post by **Kerensky** » Mon Nov 14, 2011 11:27 pm

Dalinski wrote:You could make SPAA more useful by making it able to attack ground targets. They were frequently employed in this role. Also give them more Soft attack.

In the future, I hope we can have this. The problem that stops us currently is the need for additional art for their switch modes.

Happycat · Post by **Happycat** » Tue Nov 15, 2011 12:56 am

Kerensky wrote:
Dalinski wrote:You could make SPAA more useful by making it able to attack ground targets. They were frequently employed in this role. Also give them more Soft attack.
In the future, I hope we can have this. The problem that stops us currently is the need for additional art for their switch modes.

Why would you need to change the art?

Longasc · Post by **Longasc** » Wed Nov 16, 2011 11:46 am

kjeld111 wrote:
Kerensky wrote:You said holy trinity and I flashed back to the idea of "Tank, heals, and DPS"
lols
That was actually intended
(Back in the days, EQ original, the holy trinity was actually tank, heal and crowd control heh)

Kudos to you, Kjeld. Sick and tired of the casual gamer WoW crowd who thinks the entire genre should be like WoW and got invented by it.
There are people who really narrow down a whole genre to the predominant type of MMO created by WoW and its take on the trinity and it bugs me immensely.