gters

Assault Gun/CS can destroy...

38 posts in this topic

14 hours ago, stankyus said:

I have found that the CS units really are not useless.  I have blinded stugGs and Tigers with them to where they were ineffectual.

My expectation is, the future of successful attacking in WWIIOL will be to work as a team that includes at least one smoke-capable unit; fire smoke to mask the defenders as early as possible, before they do the same to you; and close with them while they're kept masked.

It will be hard for a non-smoke-capable defender to counter this form of attack prior to the attackers getting to close range and/or moving onto flanks, except by the defending unit rapidly re-locating and avoiding being masked again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/6/2018 at 9:15 AM, dre21 said:

With the FBs, it would turn into FB ping pong of yesteryear, 

No, only if the damage cumulative was as low as yesteryear
If it was high, high enough that it look a fairly large amount of bomb hits to take down
but the per hit threshold was low enough that say 37mm HE and up was able to contribute, then you shouldnt have ping pong
cause it wont die that fast.

Just say for example, it took the combined joules of 80 SC250 bombs, 40 per spawn.
That would be alot of tank HE hits.

In yesteryear 1 or 2 75mm from the B1 or Stug took them down in seconds

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11.6.2018 at 5:11 PM, stankyus said:

I have found that the really are not useless.  I have blinded stugGs and Tigers with them to where they where ineffectual.. The Tiger I smoked constantly got flanked and destroyed by a Cru3 and we only had T2 BEF tanks avail.

Try to do that with a StuH. It carries 3 smoke rounds. And no MG. And got like 20 seconds reload time.

There is no use for this vehicle, even if the HE rounds will get a bit more lethal. Any other tank with an MG is better suited to kill EI.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems to me that a few rounds of HE should put a CP in the damaged state and killed anyone inside.  They should be much more effective that satchels in destroying structures due to physics.

Seems to me that a few rounds of HE should put a CP in the damaged state and killed anyone inside.  They should be much more effective that satchels in destroying structures due to physics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎6‎/‎13‎/‎2018 at 0:16 PM, vanapo said:

Try to do that with a StuH. It carries 3 smoke rounds. And no MG. And got like 20 seconds reload time.

There is no use for this vehicle, even if the HE rounds will get a bit more lethal. Any other tank with an MG is better suited to kill EI.

The Germans did not have CS tanks that I am aware of.  However the LV 75s you have do have more smoke than the StuH.. so 4D and stugB.  I think all our mindsets are going to have to change to allow basically mobile artillery in the form of a tank for what it really is intended.  The 105 on the StuH prob is going to have the best HE on any of our current AFVs. I think once the kinks are worked out they will be more appreciated.. same with the adjustments to the current smoke to be larger, thicker and more persistent.  TBH I think all HE rounds of 75mm and greater should be treated in a way that has effect beyond the current LOD render ranges so HE will be more useful for shelling on the squishies. MB applying what ever solution works best to increase the drop altitude for planes so mb SPGs like the StuH, StugB and the 4D, Char, S75, CH7 mb the 234 and Priest in the future could be better utilized for what they where designed for. I do put the S75 and CH7 in that category simply because the S75 had its AP ammo cut by just over half and the CH7s AP ammo is down by almost 2/3rd its prior loadout.  ATM it seems bad, in the long run the entrance of the M36, Firefly can make up the primary tanks for tank combat.  Its just a portion of a whole and while it sucks ATM, I think it will make more sense once the rest of kit and fixes are in.  Just my opinion, but I'm choosing to be more optimistic about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 14.6.2018 at 9:22 PM, stankyus said:

I think all our mindsets are going to have to change to allow basically mobile artillery in the form of a tank for what it really is intended. 

No offense, but you are basically saying that we should perceive and think of the current tank as how it could be some day if a lot of things have changed. That's a very idealistic view on a badly implemented element of a game. I see why CRS wanted to implement more HE-driven weapons on every side, but looking at the basic performance layout of the StuH I'd say that everybody could have aniticipated that it's not suited for the war we fight in game. We got no propper artillery gameplay and it's just a howitzer in an armored box with very scarce ammo.

I never said that the StuH was useless in WW2. I said that inside the current game boundaries it's the most useless AFV of the whole game.It does not perform well in all the roles you propose it should perform in well in the future. And to be honest, I don't see these changes coming soon and in such a scale, the StuH will be a well liked piece of an assault. The worst thing is, it allready has a role it has to fullfill: It's the counterpart to the new allied CS vehicles, all of which are equipped with a turret, MGs and most of them fielding a lot more smoke which axis tier3 tanks lack badly. The StuH is not fulfilling this role at all. You can question how well the allied vehicles perform, but you can't question they perform a lot better than the StuH.

I don't disagree with you on the "how it should be" side. But that's not how it is right now. And that leaves the question why we got such a useless tank in the first place. After all, they had to put work into it. It's like implementing the T34 Calliope without having functual rockets in game. I thank you for your efford, but I'd prefer something else in that case.

I don't want to whine about imbalance or anything. I'm just a bit confused about who thought this would be a good addition to the game, by which criteria and if anybody put that to a test. Let's move on to other stuff but not forget what should be taken into consideration when implementing new stuff into the game: Will it be usefull? Will it be fun? Because if it won' bet, people like me start to complain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, vanapo said:

No offense, but you are basically saying that we should perceive and think of the current tank as how it could be some day if a lot of things have changed. That's a very idealistic view on a badly implemented element of a game. I see why CRS wanted to implement more HE-driven weapons on every side, but looking at the basic performance layout of the StuH I'd say that everybody could have aniticipated that it's not suited for the war we fight in game. We got no propper artillery gameplay and it's just a howitzer in an armored box with very scarce ammo.

I never said that the StuH was useless in WW2. I said that inside the current game boundaries it's the most useless AFV of the whole game.It does not perform well in all the roles you propose it should perform in well in the future. And to be honest, I don't see these changes coming soon and in such a scale, the StuH will be a well liked piece of an assault. The worst thing is, it allready has a role it has to fullfill: It's the counterpart to the new allied CS vehicles, all of which are equipped with a turret, MGs and most of them fielding a lot more smoke which axis tier3 tanks lack badly. The StuH is not fulfilling this role at all. You can question how well the allied vehicles perform, but you can't question they perform a lot better than the StuH.

I don't disagree with you on the "how it should be" side. But that's not how it is right now. And that leaves the question why we got such a useless tank in the first place. After all, they had to put work into it. It's like implementing the T34 Calliope without having functual rockets in game. I thank you for your efford, but I'd prefer something else in that case.

I don't want to whine about imbalance or anything. I'm just a bit confused about who thought this would be a good addition to the game, by which criteria and if anybody put that to a test. Let's move on to other stuff but not forget what should be taken into consideration when implementing new stuff into the game: Will it be usefull? Will it be fun? Because if it won' bet, people like me start to complain.

Nothing you said I don't disagree with.  I think the StuH ATM is not sufficient.. I preface that also with the cut in the Sherman and CH7 AP ammo supply also. It does not serve the game properly especially when the S75 in T2 is supposed to go H2H with the P4G which retains IIRC 92(?) AP rounds or mb its 72.. and the CH7 which is our only real counter to the Tiger has 29 AP rounds.. A MASSIVE shock to the Allied PB.  All along with the infantry damage model. So if you think the StuH is useless... well that's not entirely true ATM but its also not as useful as it should be for many reasons. However can you imagine if the P4G lost half of its AP? or the Tiger losing 2/3rds of its AP rounds and being replaced by HE with the current infantry DM? I would say the allies have a HUGE and much more understandable reason to complain than the StuH ATM. You all still have your AP ammo count on your MBTs WHICH currently like you said is more congruent to the game NOW and not in the future. TBH I am trying to be fair with the Axis complaint, but its really hard for me to be sympathetic given what we lost. Like I said I am trying to choose to be optimistic to the FUTURE... otherwise I would have already unsubbed with the current set up and my disillusionment with the game as a whole ATM.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, vanapo said:

I'm just a bit confused about who thought this would be a good addition to the game, by which criteria and if anybody put that to a test. Let's move on to other stuff but not forget what should be taken into consideration when implementing new stuff into the game: Will it be usefull? Will it be fun? Because if it won' bet, people like me start to complain.

As you said, it is meant to be the counterpart to the Allied CS tanks. The CS tanks and the StuH were meant to be very impactful to gameplay given the HE audit making it a serious contender for anti-infantry tactics, and its 105mm HEAT is able to do some serious damage if you manage to hit just about any enemy where the penetrating core the HEAT round will damage important internals.

The unforseen problem was that the infantry damage model is screwy, and what tests QA ran were unknowingly in a "best case scenario", where frags acted like they should even when they normally don't. There was also some back and forth on "New HE code vs Old HE code", which was NOT the audit. That also messed with some testing, as changes had to be made in regards to that during QA testing.

Once the infantry damage model is corrected, things *should* be much better, both for Allied CS tanks and their Sherman 75s, and for the Axis StuH. If it's not, then additional tweaks may need to be made.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I love the the new StuH even though I don't use it much. (thinking of how squad might be able to change play to use it more)

The main problem as I see it, is every allied CS tank has MGs and can mow down infantry and suppress CP/SP.  And allies currently have 14 in a brit flag.

While axis has 4 smoke tanks and 2 w/o MGs.

 

So, effectively allies have 12 more tanks that can destroy infantry up close - that is a big deal imo.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, delems said:

So, effectively allies have 12 more tanks that can destroy infantry up close

Tanks close to infantry can be smoked, then sapped or (eventually) HEAT RGed.

I think CRS's design expectation based on testing and knowledge of weapon effects is that forward-going there will be significantly less use of tanks "up close", because a lot more smoke will be used and infantry will be dominant up close.

At a distance, OTOH, infantry will be shredded by HE.

Ordinary 75mm low velocity HE will be good at that. The StuH 105mm will be extra good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, delems said:

I love the the new StuH even though I don't use it much. (thinking of how squad might be able to change play to use it more)

The main problem as I see it, is every allied CS tank has MGs and can mow down infantry and suppress CP/SP.  And allies currently have 14 in a brit flag.

While axis has 4 smoke tanks and 2 w/o MGs.

 

So, effectively allies have 12 more tanks that can destroy infantry up close - that is a big deal imo.

 

We also have one with HEAT.  ATM the use of CS tanks is not at full swing but the potential of effectual use is there.  However please do not discount that overall the allied AT capabilities have also been cut with the ammo count quite sugnificantly. The CS tanks have not been given to us for free. We paid a high price for them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But  absolutely, assault guns should have loader MGs, and infantry should be able to move and take positions on them.

DSC02773.jpg

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the expectation is that eventually there will be significantly less tank-to-tank gameplay, simply because tanks won't be survivable against infantry if the infantry is too close.

Having more HE ammo will prepare tanks for surviving longer in an infantry-nearby environment. Surviving longer will increase the odds of engaging other tanks.

Kind of like the actual war.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.