I've been meaning to ask this for a few years now... what's with the StuG IV?

[mandead]

I'll just paste this from Steam:


[SB] mandead: you have the StuG IV tier 3, and Panzer IV tier 4 right
[SB] mandead: but the StuG has better armour, and it's sloped
[SB] mandead: same gun historically
[SB] mandead: it's just an assault gun version of it
[SB] mandead: cheaper to make
[SB] mandead: why did they not have the Panzer III or StuG III for T3?
[SB] mandead: and PIV for T4?
[SB] mandead: it just makes so much more sense
[SB] mandead: you've got a light/medium tank or assault gun
[SB] mandead: and then a more advancd medium tank with a much better gun
[SB] mandead: at T4
[SB] mandead: and then even in OF they never thought to add the Panzer III for the PE
[SB] mandead: which again I find odd
[SB] mandead: such a mint and iconic tank (it was THE tank that represented Blitzkrieg)
[SB] mandead: and yet it's not in at all
[SB] mandead: just seemed odd
[SB] "pook": yeah
[SB] "pook": thats what I was going on about
[SB] "pook": with the StuG
[SB] "pook": you've heard me bitch about it before
[SB] "pook": easily the biggest failing of CoH in my experience but yeah
[SB] "pook": thats my experience
[SB] mandead: I mean the StuH 42 makes sense, it has an epic gun and it can blast its way through anything (plus its a call in unit)
[SB] "pook": I'd easily imagine its as simple as someone has a hard on for the StUG
[SB] "pook": the same reason we do a few mint things
[SB] mandead: but I'd have had the StuG III at T3, and then the PIV at T4

Thoughts?

If this has been discussed before (though I've never heard mention of it) then I apologise, but it's just been bugging me lately. I don't understand why what is effectively the same unit (minus a turret) is split between two different tiers - and the Panzer III being completely missing is unforgivable.

[klaymen_sk]

It is the same as with "why my Tiger doesn't destroy Sherman just by looking in its general direction?".
CoH != realism and Relic guys did whatever they saw fit.

[Zallis]

Well, that and the stug's gun doesn't perform the same as the PIV's. It's better against shermans, if I remember correctly, but sucks against infantry, whereas the PIV's gun is a generalist weapon effective against all targets.

[DeafMute]

I dont see many games were AT Tanks are shooting infantry. Mainly trying to run over groups of them.

As the 2nd post said. This is a game. Things are done to fit balance or close as. If you want more realism. I think there be mod tools so by all means go adjust things =o)
Just keep inmind for this possible realism mod of youres. Axis Tank Commanders laughed at American Shermans but quickly grew conserned at British FireFlies

[Imperial Dane]

Hmm.. Where to begin and in what way ?

@Klaymen: Not quite actually. It would be more like "Why is my Tiger alright against armour but completely and utterly terrible against infantry ?" Except it isn't actually.

The trouble with the StuG is not that it's not as powerful as it was in the war. The trouble with the StuG IV is that it isn't actually a StuG. It can't deal with infantry since it's AOE is rubbish. So it's currently a tank destroyer and not so much an assault gun. And if Relic had wanted that. Then why not add the Jagdpanzer IV then instead of throwing in the StuG IV ? To which i have no idea.

But i do know that currently the StuG is not a StuG and i'd rather see that fixed.

As to the Panzer III. It's Normandy 1944, the Panzer III had been phased out of production in 1942-1943 while the Panzer IV took up the mantle of the main Medium tank of the Panzerwaffen. And while there were some Panzer IIIs in Normandy and holland. They were for the most part with panzer replacement and training battalions and i think a few might have been with the 116th Panzer Division.

As to the StuG III, well as far as i know most of the StuG IIIs were sent to the eastern front while the StuG IVs got sent to the western and italian front.

So there you go. And if one was to make a comparison with the StuG it should be more like the sherman except without a turret since that is rather the role it had within the wehrmacht, ie, Infantry support mainly. Of course due to a lack of armoured vehicles it was also substituted as a Panzer and a tank destroyer.

[mandead]

Thanks for the replies!

I just assumed that owing to the pretty huge production of the StuG III (9,000 vs 1,000 for the StuG IV) it would have been a better choice. And I agree that it pretty much fails as an assault gun - I do wonder why Relic didn't design it with HE shells in mind, so it had less penetration vs. heavy armour but a greater AoE and therefore a better infantry support unit ala the Sherman.

It does seem to have noticeably better armour than the Panzer IV, though, which is the root of my query I suppose.

[PrivateNoHope]

In terms of gameplay, the Stug is very strong compared to other T3 vehicles (stuart, greyhound and staghound) and does well against heavier tanks like the Sherman and Churchill.
The Stug is best used as a tank hunter, the Puma is available at the same time which is extremely good vs infantry so 2x anti-infantry type units and 0x anti-armour type units would be very restrictive for the Wehr player. You could never skip T2 if the Stug was primarily anti-infantry.

It would be good to see a Panzer III on the field though.

[Imperial Dane]

Except if it did as well as a Panzer IV it would still be alright in terms of an anti tank role as well. The difference would just be the StuG was weaker and needed more cooperation with infantry.

Never mind that the Puma is not a frontline unit really. And honestly, the StuG is not even a tank hunter, it's a roadbump and it's really the only way i'd suggest using it. Basically to cause the enemy armour to stop up and then have the rest of the forces focus on it. And again. if it's singular purpose when being added in times back was to give a tank destroyer. Why not add the Jagdpanzer IV then ? At least there would not be anything lost there. Whereas currently we have an assault gun which is not an assault gun. And a Hetzer just for the fun of it. Which is even worse than the StuG against tanks.

[PrivateNoHope]

Not sure I follow Dane, if the Stug gets a buff vs infantry then it should be T4, its front armour seems better than the P4. IMO the Hetzer and Stug are fine vs armour, they regularly penetrate Shermans, Cromwells and Churchills plus they do heavy damage to Greyhounds and Stuarts. Their weakness is being circled but good players support them with schrek equipped infantry or PAKs. I have seen you deal with shermans quite nicely using this combination.

Which T3 unit would you consider to be a "front line unit"? The Stug would be the closest and the Puma goes ok near the front line mid game as it is dreadfully hard to hit when moving, not so good late game though.

Finally, I would like to see the Jagdpanzer IV in the game, more vehicles the better.

[Q77]

[SB] mandead: why did they not have the Panzer III or StuG III for T3?
[SB] mandead: and PIV for T4?
[SB] mandead: it just makes so much more sense

I just assumed that owing to the pretty huge production of the StuG III (9,000 vs 1,000 for the StuG IV) it would have been a better choice.

From the about 9000 made Stug III's close to 8000 were Stug III Ausf G, i.e. model G wich was the last model. They made about 1200 Stugs IV's wich is more than all other Stug III models combined, cept for that Ausf G.
The only difference the Stug IV has with Stug III Ausf G is that the driver was placed separate from the crew more.

So yeah, basicly they could have picked the name Stug III ausf G better but it had the same stats as the Stug IV (cept for the drivercompartment being pushed to the side more) so for performance it wouldnt matter much.

[SB] mandead: and then even in OF they never thought to add the Panzer III for the PE
[SB] mandead: which again I find odd
[SB] mandead: such a mint and iconic tank (it was THE tank that represented Blitzkrieg)

I agree that the PIII would have been an excellent choice, however it didnt see that great service. During the Blitzkrieg there were only 381 in service and they lost 135 of them in it. If you add all Ausf (versions) from A to M then they only made Ausf J over 1000 , all others were mostly converted and experimented with. basicly the PIII was already to be replaced by the P4 before the war.
But the PIII did see a long servicetime overall, from '37 to '43 so it would have been a good choice for coh indeed.

[mandead]

Thanks again for your replies, especially the last one. I think the issue here is that the StuG is a bit of an odd unit in terms of its actual role vs. its in-game role. At the moment the StuG has absolutely dire accuracy vs. infantry (watch any replay and it will usually not hit a group of infantry until about the third shot) - I personally think that this should be corrected, and perhaps it given a slightly larger area of effect; have it so that the StuG is basically always firing HE rounds so it's good vs. infantry, light vehicles and garrisoned buildings and it becomes a pretty awesome assault gun. The downside (and thus the balance) is that it would have poor-to-average penetration vs. armoured units and would generally lose to them, especially if flanked. Ideally it'd also be the StuG III (if anything just for unit variation) but obviously the unit model is of secondary importance to its actual role/stats.

So at T3 the Wehrmacht get:

- Puma (Awesome vs. infantry but only moderately armoured - can upgrade to a 50mm (?) AT gun which has decent penetration vs. armoured cars and some tanks, but is negligible vs. infantry - so you have to decide whether to upgrade it, as it basically switches the role of the Puma)

- Halftrack. (Not an issue here.)

- StuG III/IV (Reasonably accurate HE rounds, good AoE and heavily armoured but is slow, easy to flank, has poor LoS, requires infantry support to be effective and one-on-one will generally lose to medium or heavy tanks due to having no AP rounds.)

At the moment I find the StuG the one genuine weak link in CoH balance (I know the patch will fix a lot of the other issues, but this won't be) because it's far too good vs. most tanks and I genuinely question the role of the Panzer IV; the StuG is much better protected and you may as well just wait for the bit of extra MP for a Panther once you get to T4.

My suggestions would balance the Wehrmacht's T3 and make the Panzer IV the genuinely superb all-round tank it is and ought to be - it's more accurate vs. grouped infantry and has better gun penetration, mobility and a turret/MG/skirts.

(For what it's worth I would give the StuG an MG but not skirts, but that's just my opinion).

Thoughts?

[Susurrus]

i) Wehr don't get HT at t3.

ii) Stug performs AT role for t3. If it didn't do that, then t3 would have no AT, making one of t2/4 essential, further hampering it as a strat.

PIII is not accurate for time of CoH - i.e. late in the war. Even by Afrika, it was thought of as a deathtrap by its crews.

[mandead]

Sorry, I was thinking of my mod. (about the HT.... I know it's Barracks now...)

[Imperial Dane]

@Privatenohope: Well It wouldn't be Tier 4 because it's lacking a turret and has only about half health of a Panzer IV ,but i'd be glad to compromise and see an increase in cost for the StuG if only for some decent HE shells being given on top. And yes it can be used to deal with shermans at the moment. But that's not really the problem, the problem is beyond being a door stop for Shermans.. It's dead weight more or less since it can't deal with infantry in any coherent fashion.

@Mandead: Don't half the penetration of the StuG, would only be silly, if something must be done, just increase the cost, possible lessen the damage bonus against Shermans.

@Susurrus: What about the Puma gun ?

[PrivateNoHope]

Im still not sure that the Stug would be balanced if it were better vs infantry plus increased cost. The idea of increase cost would see it hit the field later which is good but this would be nullified because you probably wouldnt need to build a Puma first and therefore the Stug would actually hit the field earlier. Intersting about the health, front on the Stug seems stronger than the PIV (before skirts anyway). I guess this is why the AT gun does good damage to the Stug.
I dont believe the Stug should be a door stop for Shermans as Shermans are the heaviest T4 tanks for yanks (excluding doctrine Pershing). IMO, for balance reasons only, the Stug should be a defensive counter to other T3 vehicles which it is for the most part. There is plenty of other units to deal with Shermans (PAK, Panther, Schreks).
Here is a completely different angle - Buff the Stug vs infantry, nerf vs Shermans, leave the cost the same and make it the alternate unit to the Puma, have the Gessy as the mandatory unit?
This is a very contrsuctive discussion about the little old Stug.

[Susurrus]

You've got to be REALLY careful with the stug though. At vet 2 it also has a waaa suppression cannon on the top, so that a buff vs. inf would start being OP. Note that it would also mean that the StuH was pretty much obsolete.

[mandead]

I don't necessarily advocate upping the price of the StuG (especially not significantly) as it would affect balance and, as has been mentioned, the StuG should not be appearing on the battlefield much later than it is now; also, having the StuG appear later would result in the Panzer IV appearing earlier, thus greater emphasising my point about the usefulness of the latter.

If anything needs to be done, it is to improve the accuracy of the StuG vs. infantry - it can kill groups of them, but only if it hits them and at the moment it tends to take two or three shots to do so, by which time they've either disabled you or retreated.

As has been said by others above, it is Relic's choice of the StuG name and model in contrast to the actual use of the unit that annoys me most - why indeed not opt for a Jagdpanzer IV if you wanted a well-armoured anti-tank unit based on the Panzer IV chassis? Why the StuG, an urban assault gun, when it is clearly of very limited use as one in-game?

As I said here:

StuG III/IV (Reasonably accurate HE rounds, good AoE and heavily armoured but is slow, easy to flank, has poor LoS, requires infantry support to be effective and one-on-one will generally lose to medium or heavy tanks due to having no AP rounds.)

You don't need to change the price of the StuG to balance the unit in this way - it would still be your first and primary T3 line of defence against armoured cars, light tanks and dug in/garrisoned infantry (the StuG's role) but would still represent a threat to T4 tanks without being OP; it's practical flaws such as being easy to flank and having no turret will still be self-evident.

The Panzer IV would still be invaluable to the Axis (as it really ought to be, and right now it isn't) because it would have a much better ability to penetrate armour as well as a reasonably accurate gun vs. soft targets - the main difference being it wouldn't have HE rounds so the StuG would still remain a better choice vs. groups of infantry.

I've been watching a lot of replays lately - to try and get back into decent form for playing automatches - and I can't tell you how many games I've seen where not a single Panzer IV has been built; it's just StuG, Ostwind and then Panther, and then you call in the Tiger/King Tiger to finish things off. That in itself is a genuine balance issue, as the Panzer IV being considered a secondary or even redundant unit (particularly in contrast to the StuG, which was only favoured due to its cost) represents in major loophole in T3-T4.

Just my thoughts...

[Susurrus]

I can't imagine what sort of game you were watching where both Stugs and Panthers were built in a competitive match. Maybe StuHs, the blitz call-in unit. There's too much fuel investment to build both.

I often build PIVs. They can take out tanks with a little help, and are far better vs. inf than a panther...

[mandead]

I've watched plenty of games where StuGs and Panthers are built.

[Imperial Dane]

@Privatenohope: Well nothing wrong in acting as a door stop, if it can act as anything else. But that is the thing. That is the only thing it seems capable of, one tiny little not very useful role. I don't mind a lessening of the anti-sherman capabilities have, but not a total removal, not that necessary unless you go head to head with the StuG and with the high velocity barrel upgrade the Sherman easily overpowers the StuG anyways. But it needs better anti infantry capabilities.

@Susurrus: waa ? It's an MG that is alright but it does require that the infantry get's somewhat close and decides to remain infront of the StuG And i am not asking for Tiger like capabilities, just something nearing the Panzer IV so it can actually have a more varied role and more importantly, actually act like a bloody assault gun.

@Mandead: Well one more thing to note is that if you check the website description and ye old manual you'll see the StuG there is given the exact same role as that of the sherman. That as support. Not a tank destroyer or something like that.

[mandead]

Dane, just reading the CoH website now (for unit info) - very mixed... quite odd. I think some of the unit costs have been updated for the beta patch, but most haven't - and for example the Calliope is still listed as having its 75mm gun as a weapon.

[Imperial Dane]

Oh i won't deny it's full of faults and flaws as well. But it does also show that the intended role of the StuG is not the crippled mess it is in at the moment.

[Carl]

@Mandead; I almost can't help feel your seeing this from an Ami perspective. Stripping the STuG of any more AT firepower would basically nullify Wher T3 totally. This was what happened back in pre-OF days effectively. The sheer expense of T3 meant most of the units where past their window of opportunity by the time it became available. If you where going to go past T2 it was always best to jump straight to T4, because it was A not AI you needed. Here it would have the same effect, without T2 you just wouldn’t have the AT to deal with an armored car harass/rush.

These days it's hurt by the fact that the only truly effective AT support is another, better tank, or a PaK, (both of which can do the job well enough to render the STuG a waste). When OF was released they tried to address the Balance issue of Shreks burst damage killing Ami Amour by nerving the Accuracy. Which to me was a totally ass backwards way of doing it. The issue was the burst damage, the effective range was fine. All we've ended up with is a shrek that’s good for warding off vehicles if massed, but totally ineffective at supporting other AT.

@Imperial_Dane: I'm sure other can find the quotes, but Relic has been stating they want the STuG as early tank based AT since I joined in the 1.51 patch, and stating so with the same reasons everyone else has been saying. It would otherwise infringe too heavily on the Puka and STuH and defeat its purpose as cheap early AT heavy amour.

It would help if they went and applied a damage reduction to AT guns vs the STuG as well, as currently it's a high armor low health unit, so anything that can reliably cut through it's armor is rather effective. In the case of the M26 and Up-gunned Sherman this isn’t so bad, but in the case of the AT gun it gives the Amis an extremely hard counter before or around the time it hits the field.

[Imperial Dane]

Right let's just examine that bit.. Infringe too heavily on the Puma and StuH.. Infringe in what ways ? One's an armoured car, that's a rather different role from the assault gun. The armoured car is supposed to be swift and acting in the flanks and rear areas, and usually without much infantry support. An assault Gun like the StuG is supposed to work with the infantry in well.. Assaults, it's an infantry support weapon and so far i think we can pretty safely assume that the bit of it working only as "tank based" AT which is a pretty weird concept anyways, has failed it quite nicely since it's not really a role it's meant for nor actually given the means to perform and finally. It's completley overshadowed by the Geschutzwagen in this regard.

So a few holes there already.

As to the StuH42, that's an assault howitzer. More specifically meant to blow up clusters of infantry and buildings. If this somehow get's "too heavily infringed on" by the StuG, that might be because some joker had the idea of giving the StuH42 compressed air shells i mean the shots at times will literally do no damage all despite being a direct hit. Seen it happen with a building, StuH shell hits. And the building has not lost a single hit point. Never mind that the StuH42 is taking the anti-infantry concept to the more extreme parts. the StuG is more moderate in those regards and not really asking for a lot. Just for it to fit alongside the Panzer IV. And i certainly don't hear a lot of complaints about the gun of it, never mind see it a lot already in the first place. So i don't see the issue there either as such. Not asking for the AoE of the Tiger here.

What i am asking for is StuG which is an actual StuG, not this warped idea that some seem to have of it being "a mobile AT gun" which so far has majestically failed the StuG and rendered it the second least useful unit of the Sturm Armoury. The candidate for that title of most useless being the Officer who's quite schizophrenic and with no clear purpose of how's actually supposed to make a contribution to the war effort.

Currently the StuG only performs as a road-bump to sherman tanks. Already that ought to be a clear sign that something is not right.

I'm willing to make concessions, increase the price a bit, performs less of a bonus against shermans. But make it useful against infantry or it'll continue to be a mockery of an actual StuG.

[Carl]

Here's the problem, your punching holes in the argument based on IRL, not actual in game reality. The reality is you rarely in game want to be sending your Puma into the rear area's and flanks because that means it goes unsupported, you yourself in your own replays rarely seem to send it off away from your main infantry too much. As such a STuG with improved AI firepower just ends up doing the same thing on a rather more durable platform. True occasionally the Puma’s extra speed is going to be dammed handy, but most of the time the more direct support and durability of the STuG would be better.

I agree the STuH has issues, (like all guns it's got a slight accuracy modifier vs infantry to stop it's AoE from auto hitting everyone in range, but unlike other tank guns these modifiers are quiet severe, it really needs them changed to damage modifiers, and the slow reload exacerbates things), but that’s a bug with the STuH. It's also an effective AI platform despite that, by giving the STuG more AI firepower you lessen it's advantage still further.

The biggest problem I have with your argument though is your complaining it's just a roadblock for a sherman. It's a 50F tank, what do you expect. A sherman is almost double the cost it shouldn’t be losing to a STuG solo. Like I said the issue is the panzershrek. Back pre-OF you had 3 ways of getting AT at preT4 F levels.

Go Pak's for the defensive option.

Go Mass Shreks for the Offensive option at the cost of AI firepower.

Mix A couple of Shreks and Fuasts in with a STuG for the high AI firepower option.

When OF came out and nerfed the Shreks long range all to hell it left the infantry totally unable to provide effective support to the STuG. The STuG is merely supposed to hard counter MP, and provide effective AT support to your Infantry, it's not supposed to counter heavy armor alone. I'm not saying a littlie tweak upwards might not be out of order, but expecting them to handle Shermans alone isn't realistic with the availability of the unit. The issue here is it actually does require support to take on significantly moiré expensive armor, something Wher lacks.

Your comment about not giving it PzIV AoE is all well and good, but as it is they have better health, armor and AT power in pairs, and are quite cheap enough to take in pairs if the extra MP isn't a big issue. Let them kill even 1 rifleman a shot average and they out do PzIV's on AI as well. You also have to be careful tweaking their AT due to the Panther as well.

Really the STuG falls afoul of the fact that it no longer has the infantry AT to support it present in the Wher arsenal. Without that it's totally inadequate for doing more than slowing armor down as you don't have the capability to really pound the target hard without taking more than ideal damage on the STuG, leaving you unable to give even slight chase to finish a target off, the issue with the 57mm just compounds things.

[AntiCommie]

Currently the StuG only performs as a road-bump to sherman tanks. Already that ought to be a clear sign that something is not right.

This isnt really accurate. The StuG is only a road bump to a 76mm Sherman. A 75mm AI sherman will generally lose to a StuG unless the StuG is out-microed. No unit should be buffed because its out-microed or unlucky. A StuG also does fine against M10s and M18s when used defensively (How real life StuGs were employed out of neccesity against Armor). Combine this with the earlier/cheaper price of a StuG, and your StuG should almost never face a Sherman76 1v1. If you are, you did something wrong.

I'm not saying the StuG is perfect, against RRs and 57mms, its dead meat. Thats because RRs and 57mm APs penetrate too much, removing the only plus of a StuG(Its Armor).

[Imperial Dane]

Not necessarily considering the price of the 76mm gun upgrade. So i think you might be taking things a bit too far there. Nor am i talking about buffing it against shermans. I'm talking about making it more than just the roadbump which it currently is .. or at least i felt it was. After having paid attention to a StuG during a recent propagandacast i might concede it's not as badly of as it is. Although a small accuracy buff against infantry might be in order. Otherwise.. yeah, not as bad as it is and seems capable of acting as an assault gun to a certain degree.

[Dymo]

The use of Attack Ground works as well for the StuG as it does for the StuH. Although it has a much smaller AOE and does less damage, the use of AG will put that AOE where it needs to be instead of over everyone's head. Despite seeming more micro intensive, it is rare to have 3-4 StuGs active at one time, thus focusing that AOE will be rewarded. The simple act of disrupting enemy Infantry can be very useful in allowing your support Inf to gain the much wanted upper hand.