PDA

View Full Version : CMBO: Stuarts - overrated, or not?


LoD
08-02-2003, 18:58:42
Those little buggers caught my attention while I was making my troop selection for the league games. They come in two sorts :
-British Stuart V - lighter armor, smoke mortar, and lower firepower (or rapidity of fire, I can't decipher the info in the Polish version in that regard), and costs 89.
-American M5A1 Stuart - tougher armor (apart from front upper hull - only 29mm), costs 95.
Both have 37 mm cannons, and 3 (!) MGs with 250 units of ammo.
Now, on one hand it's an excellent support unit - it's 3 MGs can lay quite a hail of bullets on enemy infantry, and it's cannon is able to blast most armored vehicles. On the other hand, it can't do nothing against tougher targets than armoured cars, and, worst of all it's bloody expensive. At the same price you can buy either a decently armored Priest or Sexton, or a tank hunter. Add 30 points and you've got a decent tank.
So, what do you think?

Vincent
08-02-2003, 20:52:57
" can't decipher the info in the Polish version in that regard" :lol:

We got these excellent german translations as well!!! "Firepower? Rate of fire? Fluffy Dice?!?!?"

LoD
09-02-2003, 14:07:11
Heh :).
Also, from the same game:
-routed is translated into "spent" (ie. "I spent my money) or "rounded-up".
-Buttoned (ie. closed hatch) is translated into "crouching". Crouching Tiger...

Resource Consumer
09-02-2003, 15:05:43
I hid a dragon in our game...

LoD
09-02-2003, 16:43:14
Well, you do have a Crouching Tiger... let me guess, Flammpanzer ;)?

maroule
10-02-2003, 08:42:37
I've never played the allies yet in CMBO in PEBM, they look fun though
I played a little QB with the AI, and was really happy with the british arty : that's a major difference from CMBB

it does seem a bit too effective, though, it kinds of unbalances the game, really

Beta1
10-02-2003, 09:49:10
The British arty is great - ask keith I dropped most of it on him. But then apparently this is realistic - the forces on the western front had better coordination of artillery and front line units than the eastern front hence the more rapid reaction times. Also in CMBO infantry is much more effective than in cmbb because the suppression effects of HMGS is much less. You'll need the more effective artillery to deal with enemies that are infantry heavy.

As I went from CMBO to CMBB I thought the lack of effective artillery was unbalancing :)

I've never really deliberately chosen a stuart - as the brits I would rather have the daimler AC with its 40mm gun or as the americans the greyhound with the same 37mm as the stuart. And as these are armoured cars they come out of the vehicles allowance rather than the armor one. For blasting infantry I would rather have a vanilla M4 sherman (the 37mm gun is rubbish agasint infantry, the 75mm sherman is excellent) which also has 3 MG (one of them .50 calibre).

On the other hand the stuart is very fast, basically expendable and can penetrate the side armour of a tiger...

Beta1
10-02-2003, 09:49:55
And RCs taken a flammpanzer? Thats a bit of a bizarre choice. Are you sure its not a hetzer?

LoD
10-02-2003, 12:01:36
Originally posted by Beta1
[...](the 37mm gun is rubbish agasint infantry, the 75mm sherman is excellent) which also has 3 MG (one of them .50 calibre).

On the other hand the stuart is very fast, basically expendable and can penetrate the side armour of a tiger...

So 37mm is only good against vehicles?
Expandable - well, that's the biggest problem, it's not. It's too relatively too expensive to be expendable.

Beta1
10-02-2003, 12:19:20
Originally posted by LoD
So 37mm is only good against vehicles?
Expandable - well, that's the biggest problem, it's not. It's too relatively too expensive to be expendable.

Perhaps I should have said the 37mm is not as good against infantry as the guns on other light units (eg the german assault HTs with the short 75mm guns or the german units with the 20 and 36mm flak guns). It is however better than the brit 40mm on the daimler which doesnt have HE shells. but then again a daimler is only 40 points.

The 37mm (and 40mm) both excel at taking out halftracks and armoured cars though.

If you bear in mind you can almost by 4 stuarts for the price of a KT though thats a lot of MGs and 4 guns that can kill the KT if you get lucky. And if you run 4 stuarts 2 on each flank of a KT you normally will.

LoD
10-02-2003, 12:52:48
Err, you can buy almost three Stuarts for the price of KT :). Still, that's a lot. But at the same time I'm asking you this - isn't buying o proper tank hunter and two mobile artillery units a better purchase still?
(I'm not arguing, just asking for your opinion)

LoD
10-02-2003, 12:54:18
Originally posted by Beta1
And RCs taken a flammpanzer? Thats a bit of a bizarre choice. Are you sure its not a hetzer?

Err, I was joking - I was alluding to Keith's post when he said he hid a dragon in our game :).

Beta1
10-02-2003, 13:14:39
Well you can never tell with keith - I singed so much of his last army with my wasp he might have been trying the same out on you!

LoD
10-02-2003, 14:01:22
Well, it's Nov '44 in our game (I think), so no Flammpanzers fortunately. The only mobile thing he can use are those SPW cars with flamethrowers.

Resource Consumer
10-02-2003, 15:09:01
I think you are all ganging up on me...

maroule
10-02-2003, 15:10:32
gay gang bang?

LoD
10-02-2003, 15:34:39
Speak for yourself, maroule.

maroule
10-02-2003, 15:43:22
not for me, actually, I was helping RC to come out of the closet and clarify his crypto-gay remarks...

BigGameHunter
11-02-2003, 00:03:24
The Tiger is a bit of a hog at times...you end up in hilly and tree-filled terrain, or even open terrain with poor LOS and its attributes are seriously weakened. The theory behind choosing Stuarts with the 37mm is that they would be the equivalent of a Tiger vs. any armored car/halftrack and, if at least two of them were used in tandem against any large and lumbering armor, they are more than likely to take out that larger armor, though I'd never buy them for that purpose.
For bang for your buck, I'd suggest taking a closer look at the Stug, the Firefly and the Churchills. All good armor. A mortar firing halftrack can be very nice as well, provided there is adequate cover for it. Really softens up the infantry in an attack.
I think flame throwing units of all types are generally a big waste of time and money.
I've seen the Firefly perform astoundingly at times. For that matter, the Pupchen (sp?) can be purchased in abundance and end up covering an entire map if used sensibly.
Ah...so many options!

Resource Consumer
11-02-2003, 00:05:39
I think Beta1 will simulataneously agree and disagree with that post. I will allow him to do the gloatsville on this.:D

Beta1
11-02-2003, 10:00:17
Fireflys - right, best antiarmour tank going, esp as vets with the lethal tungsten rounds.

Pupchens - Absolutely - total nightmare at weapon esp in ambush situations, only their short range makes them less useful than a panzershreck or light PAK in a ME.

Flamethrowers - Disagree there, while some of the flame units are pretty useless (I cant stand infantry flamers - their just too slow, and the HTs are too fragile and too short range) 2 flame units are awesome - the churchill crocodile is the infantrys worst nightmare - its so heavily amoured its very hard to kill and the flamer has a 75m range + a 75mm main gun + 2 MGs. The Wasp is also great, its armour is good enough to withstand small arms fire, its flamer has a 75m range its bloody fast and its very cheap. In building fighting this is my favourite unit - flushes clears troops out of buildings like nothing else. One of these babies torched its way through most of RCs centre - it caused only a coupole of casaulties but kept forcing RC back from the buildings allowing my infantry to advance almost unopposed.

BigGameHunter
11-02-2003, 16:06:23
Hmmmm...I guess I haven't really used the Croc or Wasp to good enough effect then. They seem like they are too much of a liability to me when the opponent still has armor or AT weapons mobile and in good shape.
I don't like to do a lot of really close in fighting unless I have to--but I've been known to plant my entire force in one single thrust as well. I guess they'd find flame support helpful in that instance.
May have to practice with them a bit before I weigh in completely on the topic.
:)

Beta1
11-02-2003, 16:41:43
The beauty of the crocodile is that its almost invunerable from the front - 152mm armour. I normally keep it 100m or so behind my infantry in cover then bring it out on keyhole LOS to whack strongpoints - it can sit 75m out and flame/HE/MG the area ahead and its practically invincible to a panzerfaust, even shrecks are survivable.

Wasps are more fragile (8/10mm armor I think) but they are lightenning fast, its Fast up to the target, 20secs of flaming and reverse like mad away from the target. They can take most small arms fire, you need to keep them away from MG42s though.

Both are great weapons to sit behind your infantry and pull out at the ideal moment as a way of breaking the line.

Anyone playing as the americans at the moment? Whats the consensus on the sherman 76? any use as a AT tank. I generally found them more fragile than the firefly and with less chance of a kill, give me a hellcat anytime. The only good US sherman for AT work against big panzers seems to be the jumbo - its gun is still pants but at least it can take a hit or two...

BigGameHunter
11-02-2003, 17:32:24
I'm rather surprised that you have been able to get in so close to infantry with such counter-measures. I very rarely leave any ground units hanging out there without some nearby armor lurking for just such an eventuality. If your opponents are running around willy-nilly, getting turned into human marshmallows, I guess they deserve what they get.

As for the Sherms, sadly, US armor was simply deficient in a one on one battle vs. the Germans. Their engineering was far superior, IMO.
If you are going to try and hunt tanks I'd highly suggest being all out sneaky about it: get some Firefly's, a couple of Priests (worthless when hit, but pretty lethal on the offensive--watch that open top!) and/or some M-10's (I've taken out 2 Tigers in one turn with the M-10, against MTG no less; it's the unheralded AT vehicle of the game!). Other than that, I'd choose PIATS over Zooks any day.
And don't forget the lowly daisy chain mines....seen plenty of tanks roll to an ignoble stop because of those little beauties

Beta1
11-02-2003, 18:03:44
Originally posted by BigGameHunter
I'm rather surprised that you have been able to get in so close to infantry with such counter-measures. I very rarely leave any ground units hanging out there without some nearby armor lurking for just such an eventuality. If your opponents are running around willy-nilly, getting turned into human marshmallows, I guess they deserve what they get.

If you are going to try and hunt tanks I'd highly suggest being all out sneaky about it: get some Firefly's.

Theres your answer - the reason I get my flamethrowers in close is cos my sneaky fireflys are doing there stuff... And Keith wasnt running around willy-nilly more screamming for someone to put out his burning uniform :)

Also if your coming in close to get my wasps with your armour I have a PIAT or too that would love to have a word with them....