Slitherine

Does anybody use this unit in the German Blitzkgrieg/Panzerkrieg campaigns? In my opinion, at 5 CPs, it is not worth it, as it is worse than a tank and worse than an artillery.

Historically it was one of the most common armor used by the Germans, but only because it was a cheaper replacement for tanks. But here as it is takes almost as a full tank in terms of CP, it defeats this purpose. IMO it should be reduced to 4 or even 3 CPs, so you can deploy 2 of these instead of a single tank, what do you think?

3 would be far too few.

4 CP, why not, but 3 no. That would unbalance things too much, and we’d end up with nothing but StuG III units on the map. One of the advantages of the StuG is precisely that it can act as both an armored unit and artillery in the same scenario. That can be very useful at times, and it is something you pay for in CP

Yes, I guess 4 CP is the most balanced change.

Another issue is the powerful 17cm K18 artillery with a range of 7 is available right from the start of the game, while historically it entered service in 1941.

These units are inexpensive and can be easily switched to an anti-tank role.

In campaigns resource points are not an issue, command points limit is more important.

And for the CP cost of Stugs relative to other units, they are simply not worth it. As tanks they are quite weak and cannot hold the front (vulnerable to flanking) and as artillery they are still subpar compared to classic artillery. Even the small 75 mm leIG 18 is more valuable per CP point.

LE: I am not talking about the later anti-tank variants, but the early variants, switchable to tanks.

In campaigns at times resource can be an issue, they were in my playthrough of Sandstorm, but for the most part they are not. Its true command points force you to field units with the most utility. My experience in using the StuG, assault gun, self propelled gun, whatever you want to call them is with the StuG III D and the StuH 42. I tried out the StuGIII D because of its high damage vs inf. 16 and 12 for close assault, which it much higher that most armored vehicles of the same time period, 1941. The high infantry damage makes them useful for what they were designed for, infantry support and fortification busting. The IIID while not a good AT unit is a serviceable one in emergencies. The ability to be used as artillery is useful for when you come up on an infantry stronghold that is well supported by AT guns. As for vulnerability to flanking attacks its easy to avoid, support them with infantry. I suppose the problem is people want to use them as if they are tanks.

Every "switch" unit has to cost extra CP, in my opinion. I wouldn't use the StuG spearheading an attack, but their high inf. attack stats are great to finish off infantry units, and their high vehicle defense stats make them hold their ground against enemy tanks. And an extra artillery is always usable.

I have used the StuG III "captured" unit in the "Allied" campaigns throughout. Never regretted it.

But yeah, as the early (German) versions are put into the "tank" class and the latter into the "anti-tank" makes upgrading impossible. I've changed that im my mod.

EDIT: But don't get me wrong: The "anti-tank" StuGs are way better/useful than the "tank" StuGs

GabeKnight wrote: Wed Aug 26, 2026 2:47 am But yeah, as the early (German) versions are put into the "tank" class and the latter into the "anti-tank" makes upgrading impossible. I've changed that im my mod.

The link to your mod has been dead for a long time

IRL, stug 3 assault gun version (before F) was surprising good with high frontal armor (compared to early panzer 3/4) and high rate of fire. They were best in dealing with fortification and well digging infantries.

I suggest it’s best to make early Stug ability somewhat 50% of engineer.