[1.3 Axis Balance] STuGs not nerfed?

[Blacksand]

Based on labbing earlier tonight with Bent - I've concluded the STuG performs as consistently as it did in 1.2.

Tests were performed with STuGs against Calliopes and Shermans that were vanilla, then upgunned.

To the claims that a vanilla Sherman now easily beats a STuG - unfounded thus far. The two are still on a relatively equal footing, without taking micro and assisting units into account.

Upgunned Shermans still rape the STuG.

STuG now has a decided advantage on the Calliope, in a front to front battle.

This is basically what I expected - the frontal armor seems about the same as it was prepatch, to me.

I am going to attribute claims that Shermans simply roll over the STuG to superior micro/supporting units, unless someone is going to offer a replay that contradicts my findings.

[Iron]

good to hear.

[KlavoHunter]

The only "StuG Nerf" I heard of was 10 extra seconds of buildtime.

What are YOU talking about?

[Timeless]

Odd, I'm one of those that also (before I read any posts) felt that the stug was weaker somehow and it was in some team game vs a guy who didn't micro - of course, I massed enough and rolled over him, but I was shocked to see my stug drop so quickly in health. This happened a couple of times. Since CoH is full of random events, I'm sure it could have been that, but what convinced me was seeing others also posting about it both here and at gr.org.

Actually, maybe it's my head playing tricks on me, but there appears to be a lot of random dice rolls happening now, come to think of it. My MP40 volks seem to get a lot of ridiculous head shots, dropping full squads nearly instantly, for example. Again, I need more sampling because of the random nature of this game.

[Victrix Legio]

I and few others have experienced what appears to be a decrease in the StuG's performance against Shermans ever since the patch was released. I have not done any scientific testing on the matter, so I am willing to consider the possibility that this perceived nerf does not, in fact, exist. Indeed, more than likely, the deficiency which I have observed over the course of a few games is the placebo effect in reverse, the contrivance of the gods of chance, the light of Venus reflecting off swamp gas, or something else of that nature. Given the rather... dubious nature of some of the changes made, however, I am quite wary of ruling anything out at this juncture.

[Vorlock]

Is it possible that the reduction in the 5% invincibility event happening is attributing to the feeling that stugs were weakened?

[Blacksand]

I have noticed a general decrease in STuG effectiveness against infantry, but this is mainly to do with troops moving in and out of cover and buildings, ect.

However, this does not bother me at all and merely reinforces the STuG's role, which is nothing more than a (very)mobile AT platform.

If it feels weaker or less effective, it might merely be the fact that it is now more of a specialized unit.

[Vicious_CB]

That can attributed to inf being more sturdy in general against tank fire in cover. Ive noticed a HUGE difference with ostwinds against inf in cover. Rangers actually have a decent chance to take one out now

[Timeless]

Which is odd because my grens, even in cover, were getting blown to bits by Shermans today. Going to try again tomorrow, see what I see.

[Fitz]

Lets have some replays posted folks. I'll do some labbing tonight as well.

[0mar]

Stugs have played fine for me in 1.3 so far. I haven't noticed anything one way or another yet other than the absurdly long build time!

[Falaris]

Just long, not absurdly long.

I figure that this is actually the result of a subtle shift. Puma's cost a little more fuel - just a little - build time is a little longer. THat means that you'll run into your first sherman(s) faster, and usually at slightly worse odds. THat's quite enough to shift the balance a bit, though.

[AntiCommie]

I havent labbed anything, but to me the Stug wasnt nerfed as much as its now being outperformed. The new Panther is/seems so much more powerful now that I find Stugs to be lacking. Maybe its just me...

PS: I'm not saying anything about nerfing/buffing, just a perception.

[SiegUnoc]

So... you're saying a Panther tank shouldn't outperform a StuG?

Start building Panzer IVs.

[exe163]

Flank > Stug

i notice stug have low hp (pioneer repair speed noticablely faster than engies on sherman) while having mighty front armor. its like a pak with wheels, need support with infrantry or AC to make it effective tank support, sticky owns stug, allie AT give death to stug if it tries to turn back

[Demonic Spoon]

StuGs make good infantry support. Basically, mobile AT guns and HMG killers. I'd go for Panzer IVs if you want tanks to have a heavier role in your army, and Panthers if you can afford it.

[Cabsav]

Ive seen the Panzer much more used over the Stug now since it is much better against infantry + the accuracy bonunes. Ive had several shermands destroyed by panzers.

[Unlikely]

I think a lot of people jump to the conclusion that there were undocumented patch changes when simply the roll of the dice provided an unusual result.

[Mutters]

Stugs feel nerfed to many as they die quicker. They definately changed the 5% health armour bonus making many taks unkillable from the front on 5% health. Now they die as they should, and the stug was probably the worst offender of this inmabalance.

Other than that the stug seems to be the best infantry killer of the axis tanks (except the tiger which kills 3 men at a time), better than the puma for me which seems far less OP than before. Porbably effects of the cover changes and the vehicle vs inf changes.

Conclusion, a very well balanced patch.

[STALKER - Arach]

I find pumas slaughter infantry out in the open a hell lot more, and its anti-air abilities make it just below a flak panzer.

[Demonic Spoon]

I think a lot of people jump to the conclusion that there were undocumented patch changes when simply the roll of the dice provided an unusual result.

I'm gonna call BS on this one. I tested this multiple times, and played with P4s against shermans in multiple games. No way in hell it was merely a stroke of luck.

[TarlSS]

Stugs can no longer do the turn on a dime and fire stunt, which contributes alot to the lack of effectiveness.

[Dm5er]

Anyone also notice the slow reload time of stugs? There are times where it would just sit there and it feels like eternity before it unloads a shot which most cases would misses its target and the cycle of waiting begins again.

[AntiCommie]

@Seigunoc: Panthers have always outperformed stugs 1v1, but for cost stugs were the better deal, since 2v1 stugs would win(Not to mention cost of upgrade to T4). The panther got a buff, but the stug got a nerf. Now I feel the panther is the more cost effective one. PVIs still suck, but not quite as bad as before. I usually dont build them until I max my vets, then they survive a little longer.

[Skyward]

Offtopic:


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v482/Blacksand/blacksandsig2.jpg

Are you perhaps the same AbandonAllHope who played warcraft3 and got a stat reset? Just curious.

[Blacksand]

Offtopic:

No, it's a reference both to Dante's Divine Comedy, specifically Dante's Inferno, and to Space: Above and Beyond.

In Dante's Inferno - inscribed on the gates of Hell is the phrase "Abandon all Hope, ye who enter here."

In Space: Above and Beyond - there was an alien ace flying a more advanced fighter who shot down many many human pilots, the words "Abandon all Hope" were painted across the ship. He was eventually shot down, in quite possibly the two greatest episodes of a sadly underrated show.

Now, back to talking about STuGs!