Raketens should lose their received accuracy bonus

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.

No. I don't agree here. There is almost no difference at all. What happens in game is more of a melting of a tanks's health. There are usually multiple at fire sources and a tank just starts losing health. Whether one or two shots bounce or not, does not realistically matter. If you get snared or hit a mine, the vehicle is gone anyway, if you retreat you repair it. The frontal armour difference of less that say 150 has almost zero impact on it. Health is possibly more important, but again, it might only allow you to stay under AT fire for a tiny bit longer (usually not worth it, as you will need more time to repair later). You just have to retreat a medium tank if you face at guns and that is it. IMO accuracy and range of at guns/tank destroyers will be much more important than those small differences in front armour values. Also how much one pays for a tank will matter more. The cheaper, the better in general.

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.

That is imo a typical vacuum analysis (and also not that correct with the bounc possibility). Allies have a lot of different types of snares (including mines) and the snared vehicle will most often die and armour will not help. Again, I believe that any armour values in the region off 50 above and below 200 (typical at penetration) will give You very similar results. The bounces will happen plus there will be similar number of misses and rear armour hits. At wall plus snares will melt armour and the differences on frontal armour between medium tanks are just too tiny to matter much.

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.

ZiS, like many allied units, is designed to be very forgiving and allow new players to have some fun and not get punished. Generally, Soviets are a very good faction to play with, as they can basically build no mortars because of ZiS, and spend all saved manpower on mailine infantry or tanks. It is a huge balance issue imo. Rak is just meh compared to that.

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.

OKW is much more difficult to play with than the Soviets. I don't think that there is a problem with rak. My personal preference would be to make at guns more expensive. And ZiS barrage should be moved to vet 1 or just made to fire a single shell (a grenade equivalent). Soviets are OP as hell imo. But they won the war and well deserve it Good for the new players, I guess.

Let's count the pro and cons
Pro: less Ra , 1 extra men (tho not Soviet ziz lvl), retreat

Cons: no shield gun to block direct hits, no cover green form said shield gun, less range , missile ballistic instead of solid shoot ( it tends to hit stuff that not the target more often, and while historicaly accurate balance wise is bad)

U can't remove pro without removing a cons

U could always change it with a normal at gun

from What i see daily, the crew positions itself pretty awkward compared to other pak guns. especially the moment they pick up the gun to retreat, they clump up resulting in them bein insta wiped
a couple of days ago i saw a raketen crew being oneshot by an AEC. never seen that happening to a normal pak gun

It´s so terrible how often raks get decrewed from aoe.

It happens so easily, and the fith man was implemented to compensate the bad positioning of the crew if i read that correctly some time ago (in this forum). I can´t understand how people go crazy about a 5 man crew on axis side. That guy isn´t even helping much. He´s like spooning with his friends lmao

They finally gave the Rak some punching power, and now its too strong, lol

Remember before the patch?

They were just about useless unless you invested in pairs of them.

They are fine.

No. I don't agree here. There is almost no difference at all. What happens in game is more of a melting of a tanks's health. There are usually multiple at fire sources and a tank just starts losing health. Whether one or two shots bounce or not, does not realistically matter. If you get snared or hit a mine, the vehicle is gone anyway, if you retreat you repair it. The frontal armour difference of less that say 150 has almost zero impact on it. Health is possibly more important, but again, it might only allow you to stay under AT fire for a tiny bit longer (usually not worth it, as you will need more time to repair later). You just have to retreat a medium tank if you face at guns and that is it. IMO accuracy and range of at guns/tank destroyers will be much more important than those small differences in front armour values. Also how much one pays for a tank will matter more. The cheaper, the better in general.

This is a very bold claim that I actually disagree with.

But instead of just saying that it made no difference, can you back it up with some numbers?

This is a very bold claim that I actually disagree with.

But instead of just saying that it made no difference, can you back it up with some numbers?

i think what hes saying is having a little bit of extra armour on 1 tank over another doesn't make much difference ingame as the chance to pen only changes a little bit, so small its really insignificant. Ther are more important values that make more of a difference like health, accuracy etc.

Look at the panther, it had its armour nerfed and vet 0 health increased and it was a considered a survivability buff for the panther. People need to stop with this myth that allied tanks don't have well armoured tanks. One other reason as to why heavily armoured tanks on allies makes so much more of a difference when on axis, is because axis simply dont have 60 range high pen TD's so they tend to struggle more vs tanks like churchills compared to when allies have to go VS a KT.

And srsly OP, REKETEN IS THE WORST AT GUN IN THE GAME AND MAN WANTS TO NERF IT. srsly OP list for me in order which u think is the best to worst AT gun : (6 pounder, reken, USF m1, PAK, and zis)

i think what hes saying is having a little bit of extra armour on 1 tank over another doesn't make much difference ingame as the chance to pen only changes a little bit, so small its really insignificant. Ther are more important values that make more of a difference like health, accuracy etc.

Yes. Exactly.

One more thing to remember is that a gun can miss the tank entirely (likely), hit the rear armour (more likely than a bounce usually on medium tanks). It is also very important to remember that tanks have different penetration at different ranges. Some tanks have better guns than other tanks and it is usually more important than the frontal armour. Reload speeds, aim time, sight range, etc are also very important. Snares are the most important to be honest (whether it is an at grenade/faust, mine, button/shell shock, or a ram doesn't really matter here - a snared tank is most likely a dead tank)

This is a very bold claim that I actually disagree with.

But instead of just saying that it made no difference, can you back it up with some numbers?

More or less explained in my posts form #93 to #102

Aha. It was a reaction to the suggestion that one out of every shots bounces vs each shot penetrates. I don't agree with this number/this narration. Out of 10 shots imo 1-2 will miss, 1-2 will hit rear armour and 6-7 will hit frontal armour. Out of those which hit frontal armour most will penetrate (like 70-90% will penerate any medium tank). Probably 60-80% will penetrate a heavier tank. One way or another - rear armour shots and misses will more significantly influence how quickly you drain the health on a tank rather than deflections for any medium tank in game. With heavier tanks it is a bit different but still basically the same. The differences in frontal armour in the region of 50 above or below 200 will have much less difference than what was suggested. The above does not analyse moving penalties for tanks which are 50 or 75%. Then misses become much more important factor.

i think what hes saying is having a little bit of extra armour on 1 tank over another doesn't make much difference ingame as the chance to pen only changes a little bit, so small its really insignificant. Ther are more important values that make more of a difference like health, accuracy etc.

Look at the panther, it had its armour nerfed and vet 0 health increased and it was a considered a survivability buff for the panther. People need to stop with this myth that allied tanks don't have well armoured tanks. One other reason as to why heavily armoured tanks on allies makes so much more of a difference when on axis, is because axis simply dont have 60 range high pen TD's so they tend to struggle more vs tanks like churchills compared to when allies have to go VS a KT.

And srsly OP, REKETEN IS THE WORST AT GUN IN THE GAME AND MAN WANTS TO NERF IT. srsly OP list for me in order which u think is the best to worst AT gun : (6 pounder, reken, USF m1, PAK, and zis)

EDIT: I wrote this post in two parts due to being busy and did not see achpawels response in between.


This might be, I still disagree with that.

However, OP suggests a nerf, yes, but he does not say that the unit was overpowered. He just said it's a little too hard to kill with infantry.

Performance wise the Raketenwerfer is very good. Decent reload speed, 180 far penetration, decent arch. The only thing that is frustrating is the projectile colliding with walls more often than other AT guns. But stat wise, the unit is absolutely fine and pens everything that the Allies can field with 100% chance. The only vehicles where the Raketenwerfer becomes unreliable are doctrinal units. Currently your the most important trade-off to the standard layout of AT guns is the fifth man and the ability to retreat vs a missing shield and 5 meter range. And adding that the Raketenwerfer is also cheaper, I don't see a point why the unit is bad.

And more to achpawels post:
It obviously depends on the matchup. Against Allied TDs or ATGs in general the extra bit of armor for most units like mediums will not help you at all. Against other mediums however this is a huge difference, and mediums are usually around for the whole match.
I also do not agree that is were a "myth" that Allies have less armor, although I would phrase it differently: Axis vehicles have overall better chances to bounce shells from vehicles of the same class. That's why Axis vehicles are usually more expensive.
What we have to work around though is still the remnants of the initial CoH2 design: Axis were always supposed to get heavy armor out way more frequently than Allies, that's why OKW has a non-doc KT and OST has so many options to get a Tiger, plus the Panther that is still highly armored, but was even heavier back in the time.
This lead to Allies absolutely needing high pen TDs to survive, but since there is usually only one heavy TD unit per faction and Allied mediums are less reliable against Axis mediums than the other way around, Allied TDs get overloaded and suddenly (need to) perform well against everything. This in turn lowered the effective value of Axis mediums again.

However, achpawel said that even if a unit bounces shots somewhat reliably (I'll just assume 10-20% bounce rate, especially considering he responded to a post that had 25% as an example), it would not matter.
Now I don't know which game modes he is talking about. If he talks about 4v4 only where it is fine that you jump from LVs straight to heavy TDs and heavy tanks, then he might be right at least on the armor point and every armor below the heavy TDs far penetration is basically the same. But as long as medium tanks are played regularly, which I assume from his post, this is just not the case. Even a 10% bounce chance lowers your chance of being killed in a 4 shot volley by about a third and halves it for 6 shot vehicles like the Panther.
If range and accuracy were the most important things, I think we'd see way more JPIVs from OKW, since this unit is also able to reliably penetrate almost all Allied stock armor.

More or less explained in my posts form #93 to #102

Aha. It was a reaction to the suggestion that one out of every shots bounces vs each shot penetrates. I don't agree with this number/this narration. Out of 10 shots imo 1-2 will miss, 1-2 will hit rear armour and 6-7 will hit frontal armour. Out of those which hit frontal armour most will penetrate (like 70-90% will penerate any medium tank). Probably 60-80% will penetrate a heavier tank. One way or another - rear armour shots and misses will more significantly influence how quickly you drain the health on a tank rather than deflections for any medium tank in game. With heavier tanks it is a bit different but still basically the same. The differences in frontal armour in the region of 50 above or below 200 will have much less difference than what was suggested. The above does not analyse moving penalties for tanks which are 50 or 75%. Then misses become much more important factor.

It depends on the matchup. Against AT guns and heavy TDs the front armor is not that much of a factor.
However against hand held AT (mostly bazookas that USF also relies on) and medium vs anything fights the armor differences do matter a lot.

i think what hes saying is having a little bit of extra armour on 1 tank over another doesn't make much difference ingame as the chance to pen only changes a little bit, so small its really insignificant. Ther are more important values that make more of a difference like health, accuracy etc.

Look at the panther, it had its armour nerfed and vet 0 health increased and it was a considered a survivability buff for the panther. People need to stop with this myth that allied tanks don't have well armoured tanks. One other reason as to why heavily armoured tanks on allies makes so much more of a difference when on axis, is because axis simply dont have 60 range high pen TD's so they tend to struggle more vs tanks like churchills compared to when allies have to go VS a KT.

And srsly OP, REKETEN IS THE WORST AT GUN IN THE GAME AND MAN WANTS TO NERF IT. srsly OP list for me in order which u think is the best to worst AT gun : (6 pounder, reken, USF m1, PAK, and zis)

All this bickering started over claims of usf atgun being op. Because if okw got a usf atgun clone that would prove it somehow.

Nobody said that allies dont have well armoured tanks. They and i said almost all of them are in doctrines or exclude eachother.

I don't know why you guys are arguing around Raketen vs tanks or raketen vs other Atgun when the topic is about raketen vs infantry.

I guess that because I'm right and you have no argument other than pointing your finger at something else as a distraction.

I don't know why you guys are arguing around Raketen vs tanks or raketen vs other Atgun when the topic is about raketen vs infantry.

I guess that because I'm right and you have no argument other than pointing your finger at something else as a distraction.

Right. Back to the topic.

Imo allied infantry is generally better and more likely to wipe stuff such as at guns. Grens are on the other side of the spectrum. The at gun I really find problematic is Soviet ZiS as it has the crew of six men, is mergeable, and can counter support weapons with barrage or even, to some extend, charging infantry. It can also be used to successfully counter at guns such as Pak or raketten. When it barrages them they can get wiped (most unlucky) but will be forced to stop shooting at tanks and reposition with some depleted health (minimum result) effectively not shooting at tanks for a significant period of time. All this with a six men crew, which makes it super durable and losing its veterancy is much less of a possibility (Pak is only 4 men in comparison).

Because of all the above a Soviet player will have a chance of saving a lot of resources they would otherwise spend on support units such as mortars and can retain their vetted ZiS much more easily. Rak is really much less resilient to small arms and much less deadly and universal. I would not nerf it unless ZiS got nerfed too and the price on USF at gun got increased.

Right. Back to the topic.

Imo allied infantry is generally better and more likely to wipe stuff such as at guns. Grens are on the other side of the spectrum. The at gun I really find problematic is Soviet ZiS as it has the crew of six men, is mergeable, and can counter support weapons with barrage or even, to some extend, charging infantry. It can also be used to successfully counter at guns such as Pak or raketten. When it barrages them they can get wiped (most unlucky) but will be forced to stop shooting at tanks and reposition with some depleted health (minimum result) effectively not shooting at tanks for a significant period of time. All this with a six men crew, which makes it super durable and losing its veterancy is much less of a possibility (Pak is only 4 men in comparison).

Because of all the above a Soviet player will have a chance of saving a lot of resources they would otherwise spend on support units such as mortars and can retain their vetted ZiS much more easily. Rak is really much less resilient to small arms and much less deadly and universal. I would not nerf it unless ZiS got nerfed too and the price on USF at gun got increased.

I don't know why you guys are arguing around Raketen vs tanks or raketen vs other Atgun when the topic is about raketen vs infantry.

Post

My experience is that it is in an ok state when attacked by infantry. It is the retreat mechanism that can save it from infantry squads. I don't feel it is better than other at or weapon squads against small arms. If you charge with an elite, close range inf unit it will be cleared or retreat. Similarly to other team weapon squads.

I feel that comparisons to other at guns are valid.

I don't know why you guys are arguing around Raketen vs tanks or raketen vs other Atgun when the topic is about raketen vs infantry.

I guess that because I'm right and you have no argument other than pointing your finger at something else as a distraction.

yes, its true with the retreat function and RA its more better vs inf squads then other AT guns, but for me its a trade off because rekketen, is worse then other AT guns when it comes to AOE of tanks as well as its offensive performance.

yes, its true with the retreat function and RA its more better vs inf squads then other AT guns, but for me its a trade off because rekketen, is worse then other AT guns when it comes to AOE of tanks as well as its offensive performance.

that's the idea it's an at gun that is more vulnerable to tanks instead of infantry, u can't just remove ra without giving it some defense vs tanks

I don't know why you guys are arguing around Raketen vs tanks or raketen vs other Atgun when the topic is about raketen vs infantry.

I guess that because I'm right and you have no argument other than pointing your finger at something else as a distraction.

Because people underplay the strengths and highlights the weaknesses or viceversa. Both sides.

I'm the first to correct people who overvalue the other AT guns shield, but at least it seems to have a bigger hitbox and applies to at least 1 of the models more than half of the time.


If every other AT gun has a model with 50% dmg modifier and RA it would be comparable against small arm fire as having 5 models.


PD: what's the RA bonus? I was under the impression that they had better RA at some point but i can't find it on the changelog nor the latest coh2stats site shows any difference to other AT gun crews. Unless u mean the modifier which applies to all other retreating units.