Raketens should lose their received accuracy bonus

If it got +5 range people would go crazy. If other AT guns would get retreat people would loose their minds.

That "thing" dies very quickly and the disadvantage in range is the reason for retreat function.

Also, the retreat is not always wise to use because it turns around first and lacks basic controls like backwards moving and cant be turned around efficiently when cloaked.

(Also i kinda managed to move it while being cloaked. couldn´t reproduce that one though)

Lol, you should make more videos following a unit with music over them, theyre always entertaining.

The one thing that stands out to me in that video though is where is Axis AT?? Only one AT gun is just begging for the M4A3 to go hamtaro on your ass.

Give OKW a copy of the USF AT Gun and all is fine.

Oh wait...allies players would realize than how OP this gun is.

Give OKW a copy of the USF AT Gun and all is fine.

Oh wait...allies players would realize than how OP this gun is.

muni sink, cant retreat, only good vet bonus is rof.
otherwise it may bounce p4.

rak needs a nerf, why is it get range bonus?

muni sink, cant retreat, only good vet bonus is rof.
otherwise it may bounce p4.

rak needs a nerf, why is it get range bonus?

muni sink? i would pay every day some muni to take out mostly every armor because of high penetration, more range and a phenomenal reload.

muni sink, cant retreat, only good vet bonus is rof.
otherwise it may bounce p4.

rak needs a nerf, why is it get range bonus?

????

actually OP hit the nail on the head here

rak is far too resistant to small arms fire, remove received accuracy bonus while retreating would be a very sensible and minor tweak

Still saying, just give it the RA of a retreating weapon, 1.25. That punishes leaving it and raises retreat RA

Give OKW a copy of the USF AT Gun and all is fine.

Oh wait...allies players would realize than how OP this gun is.

Oh wait most allied armour has lower armour values..... you dont have to pour munis into it as much as usf does or even at all.... Ofcourse it would be op then but that is probably irrelevant.

Put it on the enemy team (with different unit and stats) and show how op it is. Nice logic. This way you can make anything seem op.

Oh wait most allied armour has lower armour values.....

That is not true. Allies have a lot of well armoured tanks. Even paks bonce against them. Generally rak isn't more resilient to small arms than a ZiS.

That is not true. Allies have a lot of well armoured tanks. Even paks bonce against them. Generally rak isn't more resilient to small arms than a ZiS.

I can list every stock tank that has a chance to bounce standard AT guns (180 pen at max range) and the data wouldn't do your argument well. It's true indeed the allies have some more durable armour doctrinal, but they are significantly limited in access. The okw for example has more units stock that bounce standard AT than usf has total that can bounce it. Soviet, whome have the largest selection of doctrinal heavy Armour only match okws stock armour count for tanks that can bounce AT guns at max range, and they are all exclusive with one another.

The claim that most axis armour has a higher armour value is extremely true, even when considering doctrinal armour. Doubly so when you consider accessibility. You are guaranteed to fight a tank that will bounce AT shots when facing the okw, and highly likely from ost (if my Stat memory serves even a vetted stug has a very tiny chance to bounce)

Its a very valid claim.

I can list every stock tank that has a chance to bounce standard AT guns (180 pen at max range) and the data wouldn't do your argument well. It's true indeed the allies have some more durable armour doctrinal, but they are significantly limited in access. The okw for example has more units stock that bounce standard AT than usf has total that can bounce it. Soviet, whome have the largest selection of doctrinal heavy Armour only match okws stock armour count for tanks that can bounce AT guns at max range, and they are all exclusive with one another.

The claim that most axis armour has a higher armour value is extremely true, even when considering doctrinal armour. Doubly so when you consider accessibility. You are guaranteed to fight a tank that will bounce AT shots when facing the okw, and highly likely from ost (if my Stat memory serves even a vetted stug has a very tiny chance to bounce)

Its a very valid claim.

well thats they the allied ATG meta exists

I can list every stock tank that has a chance to bounce standard AT guns (180 pen at max range) and the data wouldn't do your argument well. It's true indeed the allies have some more durable armour doctrinal, but they are significantly limited in access. The okw for example has more units stock that bounce standard AT than usf has total that can bounce it. Soviet, whome have the largest selection of doctrinal heavy Armour only match okws stock armour count for tanks that can bounce AT guns at max range, and they are all exclusive with one another.

The claim that most axis armour has a higher armour value is extremely true, even when considering doctrinal armour. Doubly so when you consider accessibility. You are guaranteed to fight a tank that will bounce AT shots when facing the okw, and highly likely from ost (if my Stat memory serves even a vetted stug has a very tiny chance to bounce)

Its a very valid claim.

What you are trying to prove is wrong imo.

1. Allied are 3 factions against 2 axis factions. Some of the tanks are the same for both axis factions. Because of that allied stock+doc rooster has way more tanks than axis, and allies also have many more heavily armoured tanks than axis. Churchill could be a stock example of such a really heavily armoured tank, but the plethora of Sov and UKF doctrine tanks just makes it even more varied and numerous. How can anyone not see that? It is very possible that an axis player will face a completely different mix of tanks/tank destroyers/at guns in each out of 10-20 matches. Allied player will only see a few tank compositions repeated in each game. The difference is huge. It is simply a myth that axis have more thickly armoured vehicles. Now even usf have self-service dozer shermans.
2. Even if there are those tiny differences between medium tanks they mean very little. It is a very similar number of at shots to kill such tanks. If you pay significantly more in terms of manpower/fuel you might buy a panther as axis, and that would be, realistically speaking, the only more heavily armoured stock tank on the axis side. But even paying more resources might just give you 1, max 2 more at shots before it gets destroyed. The higher price tag on the panther and not being able to deal with infantry (in relation to how much you pay for it) just makes it a bit of a weirdo tank. It can be kited by tank destroyers so it is an at tank that is just too expensive for what it does. I'm not mentioning KT as it is just too slow and has no firepower (in relation to tech and cost) to realistically be used in 1v1.
3. Axis generally don't have that many reliable 60+ range tank destroyers. This basically means there is not much sense of having this 1-2 shot more durability if you can be kited and either destroyed or lured into at guns, mines, handheld ats, etc. You can be forced to be constantly repaired, which is a perfect tactics of denying axis arnour have any significant battlefield presence.

To sum up, allies have better armour, as it is cheaper and can reliably deal with both tanks and infantry and can be backed up by much better tank destroyers. Making raks less durable just makes no sense imo, as allied tanks are simply better than axis tanks (and very often even more amoured). How can one want to nerf rak if Soviets have dual purpose, even more durable ZiS guns?

What you are trying to prove is wrong imo.

1. Allied are 3 factions against 2 axis factions. Some of the tanks are the same for both axis factions. Because of that allied stock+doc rooster has way more tanks than axis, and allies also have many more heavily armoured tanks than axis. Churchill could be a stock example of such really heavily armoured tank, but the plethora of Sov and UKF doctrine tanks just makes it much even more varied and numerous. How can anyone not see that? It is very possible that an axis player will face a completely different mix of tanks/tank destroyers/at guns in each out of 10-20 matches. Allied player will only see a few tank compositions repeated in each game. The difference is huge. It is simply a myth that axis have more thickly armoured vehicles. Now even usf have self-service dozer shermans.
2. Even if there are those tiny differences between medium tanks they mean very little. It is a very similar number of at shots to kill such tanks. If you pay significantly more in terms of manpower/fuel you might buy a panther as axis, and that would be, realistically speaking, the only more heavily armoured stock tank on the axis side. But even paying more resources might just give you 1, max 2 more at shots before it gets destroyed. The higher price tag on the panther and not being able to deal with infantry (in relation to how much you pay for it) just makes it a bit of a weirdo tank. It can be kited by tank destroyers so it is an at tank that is just too expensive for what it does.
3. Axis generally don't have that many reliable 60+ range tank destroyers. This basically means there is not much sense of having this 1-2 shot more durability if you can be kited and either destroyed or lured into at guns, mines, handheld ats, etc. You can be forced to be constantly repaired, which is a perfect tactics of denying axis arnour have any significant battlefield presence.

To sum up, allies have better armour, as it is cheaper and can reliably deal with both tanks and infantry and can be backed up by much better tank destroyers. Making raks less durable just makes no sense imo, as allied tanks are simply better than axis tanks (and very often even more amoured). How can one want to nerf rak if Soviets have dual purpose, even more durable ZiS guns?

all the allied heavy armour options besides the chruchill/comet are in doctrines. you wont encounter them all in one game. axis have most options for heavier armour stock and only a few in doctrines and in more doctrines then allies (esp usf and ukf) can dream of. not the mention the ptac get out of jail free card.

allied stock tanks are cheaper for the very reason that they have less armour then p4,s and vs stock panthers and kt a lot less armur and health health. This is also the reason the allied td meta is alive and well.

you can sum it up and deney all you want but it wont change the fact you will have a better time bouncing shot as axis then you will as allies.

please check this site its up to date as far as i can tell.
https://coh2db.com/stats/
you will see how high the armour is on axis tanks and how high the pen is vs allied armour values. not that their is anything wrong with axis having higher armour stock but its defenitly not a myth.

What you are trying to prove is wrong imo.

1. Allied are 3 factions against 2 axis factions.

Across all 3 allied factions, there are 2 stock tanks able to bounce ATG shots and its on the same faction and you can't get them both at the same time.

OKW alone has 3 vehicles able to deflect ATGs.

2. Even if there are those tiny differences between medium tanks they mean very little.

If you weren't completely oblivious and ignorant of the stats, you would be able to realize how extremely stupid and untrue that statement is - differences are extremely large here.

To sum up, allies have better armour, as it is cheaper and can reliably deal with both tanks and infantry and can be backed up by much better tank destroyers. Making raks less durable just makes no sense imo, as allied tanks are simply better than axis tanks (and very often even more amoured). How can one want to nerf rak if Soviets have dual purpose, even more durable ZiS guns?

That's another big fat cow cake.
Source:
https://coh2db.com/stats/

It doesn't even take an argument to disprove every single word you write, you literally are arguing against reality.

Nope, You guys are wrong here I'm afraid.

Front medium-heavy vehicles' armour values can be said to start from 150 and finish at 400. All these values can be penetrated by at guns. Some shots will bounce once in a while, some will hit rear armour. Some will miss the tank completely. Whether a vehicle has 160 or 240 armour (most popular medium region) has very little to do with the result of an at gun/hand held at shooting at it. The results are largely the same and the difference is absolutely negligible. Making it a basis for nerfing the raketen is just ridiculous imo. There are so many more stats that affect how quickly a vehicle will die to at fire. When it comes to front armour it makes no sense to write about the differences smaller than say 150. IMO medium tank is a medium tank and that is all. If the price is higher it usually performs a bit better than the cheaper vehicle. Comparing a 160 to 180 (or even 240) armoured vehicle and saying that one is better armoured than another is just misleading. It is similar to saying that a pak with the penetration of 210 is better that ZiS with the penetration of 200. They perform basically the same. Whether an at gun destroys any of the medium tanks more quickly is pure rng. Maybe one will bounce one every 10 shots and another will bounce 1 every 13 shots (of course when front armour is hit - not always the case). Just irrelevant. Gun positioning, guns arc of fire, vehicle speed, line of sight, reload speed, rear armour hits, etc. All are more important than such armour difference. Basically allied vehicles are better as they usually are cheaper and offer basically the same stats and are much more varied. You can usually choose if you prefer t34/76 or maybe wait a bit and get a t34/85 or maybe a sherman, or maybe a KV-1 as your medium tank. Axis just don't have that many options.

OK we're wrong you are right. Math is wrong too apparently but you are definitely right. 160<240 is a lie because youve said so. 100%> 75% is a lie. 2+2=5. Why bother with any stats ever. At all.

Nope, You guys are wrong here I'm afraid.

Front medium-heavy vehicles' armour values can be said to start from 150 and finish at 400. All these values can be penetrated by at guns. Some shots will bounce once in a while, some will hit rear armour. Some will miss the tank completely. Whether a vehicle has 160 or 240 armour (most popular medium region) has very little to do with the result of an at gun/hand held at shooting at it. The results are largely the same and the difference is absolutely negligible. Making it a basis for nerfing the raketen is just ridiculous imo. There are so many more stats that affect how quickly a vehicle will die to at fire. When it comes to front armour it makes no sense to write about the differences smaller than say 150. IMO medium tank is a medium tank and that is all. If the price is higher it usually performs a bit better than the cheaper vehicle. Comparing a 160 to 180 (or even 240) armoured vehicle and saying that one is better armoured than another is just misleading. It is similar to saying that a pak with the penetration of 210 is better that ZiS with the penetration of 200. They perform basically the same. Whether an at gun destroys any of the medium tanks more quickly is pure rng. Maybe one will bounce one every 10 shots and another will bounce 1 every 13 shots (of course when front armour is hit - not always the case). Just irrelevant. Gun positioning, guns arc of fire, vehicle speed, line of sight, reload speed, rear armour hits, etc. All are more important than such armour difference. Basically allied vehicles are better as they usually are cheaper and offer basically the same stats and are much more varied. You can usually choose if you prefer t34/76 or maybe wait a bit and get a t34/85 or maybe a sherman, or maybe a KV-1 as your medium tank. Axis just don't have that many options.

You are doing meth, not math.

OK we're wrong you are right. Math is wrong too apparently but you are definitely right. 160<240 is a lie because youve said so. 100%> 75% is a lie. 2+2=5. Why bother with any stats ever. At all.

I'm not saying it is a lie. It is just misleading to compare these values like You suggest. Such differences are just too small to have much impact on a vehicle vs at solutions performance. You are just overly focused on 20-70 front armour difference while forgetting that it won't matter that much on the battlefield

A separate thing is the fact that many allied vehicles are more heavily armoured than you seem to acknowledge.

A rak is fine as it is imo. The at gun that is better than all other are, is probably the ZiS that has a crew of 6, shield, barrage and very good at capabilities. This one is really difficult to decrew (remember that cons have merge here too)

I'm not saying it is a lie. It is just misleading to compare these values like You suggest. Such differences are just too small to have much impact on a vehicle vs at solutions performance. You are just overly focused on 20-70 front armour difference while forgetting that it won't matter that much on the battlefield

A separate thing is the fact that many allied vehicles are more heavily armoured than you seem to acknowledge.

A rak is fine as it is imo. The at gun that is better than all other are, is probably the ZiS that has a crew of 6, shield, barrage and very good at capabilities. This one is really difficult to decrew (remember that cons have merge here too)

There is a huge difference in guaranteed to pen and 1 in 4shots will do no damage (statistically of course) on tanks that only take 4 shots to kill.
You see under rating the value of taking 0damage from a dedicated counter.

I'm well aware of the armour values of all, or at least most (there are a few that have been tweaked and I still recall the old values more clearly than the new ones) as well as the statical chances to pen. Rng can decide that a 25% chance to pen = 7 bounces in a row if it so pleases, however a 100% chance to pen will never bounce no matter how many shots you try. It's not negotiable. An armour value above the attacking units pen is better than one below it.amd again, allies have high armour units, but they are heavily restricted. The odds of fighting a KV1 are significantly lower than the odds of fighting an up armored p4.

While I do think the zis is under priced given its utility and durability, I have yet to see a zis retreat through enemy fire and arrive at base A-OK. probably on account of not having a target size nor speed bonus while doing it.


I like the 5th man in the rak as it helps bridge the gap, but I don't feel it needs retreat anymore on account of the 5th man.