why stug III B overpriced?

[ThanatosLT]

why stug III B costs more and has the same population as panzer IV F1 in campaign and skirmish but it is worse in every way (no turret or mgs and has the same gun)?

[M4F10S0]

It has slighty better armour and lower silhouette.

[Sinclair]

Originally posted by M4F10S0:

It has slighty better armour and lower silhouette.

it's still a TD (with all its cons compared to tanks) which is slightly better then the pz4, it shouldnt be more expensive.
I never get the stug 3 myself, as its just a very bad buy

It would be more historical correct if it was a good buy (as it was irl), so people will use it a lot more

[Cryptic]

The stug historically had the most amount of tanks destroyed by it in the war for the Germans and I believe the entire war (might need to fact check the latter) but in this game they feel absolutely useless in my opinion. So does most of German equipment for that matter. It simply cannot match most of the Russian armor in this game.

[HandOfDoom]

Originally posted by Corrosion:

The stug historically had the most amount of tanks destroyed by it in the war for the Germans and I believe the entire war (might need to fact check the latter) but in this game they feel absolutely useless in my opinion. So does most of German equipment for that matter. It simply cannot match most of the Russian armor in this game.

It Did indeed. On my new Dynamic campaing Run wanted to try new vehicles etc, so tried the Stug III variants. They feel kinda bad and easily killed, but my F model destroyed early enemy KV2 with 2 shots long range. was suprised

[Cryptic]

In this game I have only had a stug be even remotely useful maybe twice. Strange. I'll tell you that I had one pull off an amazing shot one time but I cannot say beyond that it has ever paid off for me to buy one of those and they almost always get killed within 1 to 2 shots by an enemy

[M4F10S0]

Stugs with MG mounted on top are very good IMO.

[ThanatosLT]

Originally posted by M4F10S0:

Stugs with MG mounted on top are very good IMO.

I did not say that they are bad but Pz IV does everything the same or even better for less cost so why bother with stugs? Pz IV is even in more advantageous position in research tree since it leads to tigers...

[Cryptic]

MBTs in real life were almost exclusively more expensive than TDs because the TDs didn't require actual turrets on many of them.

MBT = Main Battle Tanks
TD = Tank Destroyers

[TigerB44]

Originally posted by cuongqvu90:

This game skews in the Russians favor. If you guys read this thread, it demystifies everything about the T-34.

http://chris-intel-corner.blogspot.com/2012/07/wwii-myths-t-34-best-tank-of-war.html

I heard the the USSR send a T-34 and a KW-1 in the USA in the early 40s. They didn't like the T-34 but they liked the KW-1.

[Delle(DK)]

Yes the TD ( stug ) was cheaper and more easy to build since it had less moving parts than a main battle tank. Another reason was that there was a lack of materials and this made the stug a good "cheap" solution.
All in all the Stug have it strength and weakness and i dare to call it an all terrain mobile AT gun with armour. With other words it can move forward and defend a captured area in the front lines vs the ordinary AT gun that is slow and is best used in more safe locations.
Just remember put a tank in a defensive possition without having infantry nearby to protect its flanks.
I did actual not try the stug in the game, but always used main battle tanks since the lower body of the tank can shoot mg, and the top can pivot and shoot in another direction.
Most of the time i use tanks in defensive possitions to shoot infantry, while the AT guns take care of the tanks ( the AT guns shoot further and its just better than risking loosing your tank if you can damage or take out a tank with something els before it can shoot back. also i love AT mines placed in start of a battle.. its cheap, easy and work fantastic in stopping even the largest tanks. ).