Handheld AT proposal

This thread is not about their cost (I made a different thread about that), its more about tactical use of handheld AT. With the exception of AT rifles all of them have a pretty low aim time. This in addition to high penetration of especially Super Bazooka and Shrek makes them quite offensive "a-click" tools.

I mean we all know it: We have a tank, an AT-Blob emerges at the edge of our vision and we try to drive backwards until we hit an invisible obstacle, start turning and get vaporised. Shitty vehicle pathfinding really drives the annoyance of AT-Blob over the top.

I myself had to shoot with a Panzerfaust at a moving wooden Tank-Panel after I sprinted up to a trench and I know how hard it is to hit when you are heavily breathing. And that happend without beeing under real fire while chasing a real tank of course.

So why not applying a stance that takes a few seconds to toggle.

Stance normal: Unit moves normally, but can't fire AT-weapons or only with drastically higher aim time.

Stance defensive: Unit can move only very slowly or not at all and has normal aim time. Maybe you could add camouflage in cover when they are not allowed to move.


This way it would be way more tactical and realistic. Laying mines on roads next to them and finishing of careless tanks. Or just defend your flanks when they are set up. No easy chasing tanks anymore while not hampering or even buffing defensive abilities (camouflage).

...

The mechanism is there to fix an exploit that available in COH1 when vehicles could "push" AT infatry so that firing circle would get canceled and they would not fire.

I would advice against such change and actually suggest to have AT rifles start firing faster.

I think this is not the right approach to this problem. AT inf are good vs tanks but they should be weak against infantry. This means that the easiest way to counter AT infantry is to use AI infantry, except Rangers and PG have low received accuracy and take too long to die from small arms fire unless you blob against them or use elite infantry. MGs can't follow your tanks around, so don't even suggest that.

By design Piat, Bazooka and PSchreck squads are not intended to fight infantry, so they could die a bit faster from small arms fire. To put an emphasis on it, you could either apply a modifier, but I'd honestly prefer to just swap the AT weapons to other, less small arms fire resilient infantry. Right now I don't see a problem with Piats, but 3-zook Rangers and 2-Schreck PG are a problem with their low received accuracy. I mentioned it already in the other thread, but I think that Rangers could lose ability to wield super-bazookas, it should be moved doctrinally or non-doctrinally to REchelons and PSchreck upgrade should be moved from PG to Grens (disable faust, take all weapon slots). RE with zooks would still be weaker than Panzerfusiliers with Schrecks so I dare you to call bias.

MP bleed that reinforcing AT infantry causes would be higher, even if initial cost of a squad was lower because of the difference in the target size between REchelons/Grens vs Rangers/PGs. Small arms fire would make it easier to punish blobs of AT infantry in mid and low ELO. I don't think top level of any game mode would be affected much. Less cancer for majority of players.

I think this is not the right approach to this problem. AT inf are good vs tanks but they should be weak against infantry. This means that the easiest way to counter AT infantry is to use AI infantry, except Rangers and PG have low received accuracy and take too long to die from small arms fire unless you blob against them or use elite infantry. MGs can't follow your tanks around, so don't even suggest that.

By design Piat, Bazooka and PSchreck squads are not intended to fight infantry, so they could die a bit faster from small arms fire. To put an emphasis on it, you could either apply a modifier, but I'd honestly prefer to just swap the AT weapons to other, less small arms fire resilient infantry. Right now I don't see a problem with Piats, but 3-zook Rangers and 2-Schreck PG are a problem with their low received accuracy. I mentioned it already in the other thread, but I think that Rangers could lose ability to wield super-bazookas, it should be moved doctrinally or non-doctrinally to REchelons and PSchreck upgrade should be moved from PG to Grens (disable faust, take all weapon slots). RE with zooks would still be weaker than Panzerfusiliers with Schrecks so I dare you to call bias.

MP bleed that reinforcing AT infantry causes would be higher, even if initial cost of a squad was lower because of the difference in the target size between REchelons/Grens vs Rangers/PGs. Small arms fire would make it easier to punish blobs of AT infantry in mid and low ELO. I don't think top level of any game mode would be affected much. Less cancer for majority of players.

I suggest you pack up your MG and have it follow your tank, so enemy AT infantry can't chase your tank.

I dunno, it certainly aint like handheld ATs are overperformin on any faction

And balancing this around the acceptance of terrible pathing doesnt seem like the best way to go

The mechanism is there to fix an exploit that available in COH1 when vehicles could "push" AT infatry so that firing circle would get canceled and they would not fire.

I would advice against such change and actually suggest to have AT rifles start firing faster.

I played CoH1 myself and I absolutely understand this reasoning. But now it seems to swing too far in the opposite direction.

Just want to point out, that in the proposed defensive stance they would fire normally (0.63sec = fast). So if you toggle with foresight or much earlier to protect a flank you are well set up. So it needs additional foresight/recon and micro. Game should be moe interesting like that. And with additional camo for all AT squads in defensive stance you could set up traps, another interesting tactical bonus.

On the other side happy tank chasing gets denied, especially in combination with awful vehicle pathfinding. A really annoying combination.

Using Paks and mines (and a MG or MG Bunker) for protecting your flanks just needs a lot more micro than putting some a-click double shrek / triple bazooka squads (with one MG) there. These squads just quickly change their position if the attack comes from the other side. It takes way less skill/micro than it should. In fact it seems to me it takes way more micro to coordinate multiple attacking flanking tanks + infantry at the same time.

...

Maybe one can increase the time but one has to be careful with this things because it might prevent the unit from firing to fast moving vehicles. This is probably a delicate issue. Why don't you create a MOD and see how it works out?

Anyway if there is an issue with AT Blobs that probably has to do with other aspect and not the time before firing.

Blobbing infantry AT units works on teamgames because you have too much popcap to work with as a team while you need to control the same amount of VP and strat points as in 1v1.

As others said, i don't think AT handheld is out of control atm.

Blobbing infantry AT units works on teamgames because you have too much popcap to work with as a team while you need to control the same amount of VP and strat points as in 1v1.

As others said, i don't think AT handheld is out of control atm.

Yeah, its not out of control, but it makes the game more boring/less tactical.

AT-blobs play a big part in med tanks getting abadoned once heavies and TDs are on the field. Theoretically I can kill a single heavy tank or TD with a single medium and I did this a lot of times versus players that yolo them into the fray without a lot of support. But versus equally skilled players you always take the short end of the stick by doing this. Med tanks are inferior in a direct firefight, so you have to flank. While mines can be revealed and PAKs can be circumvented, if you spotted their position, handheld AT will just kill you, if you dive in. Eat a volley, if you survived that, eat a faust/grenade and then its surely over.

Handheld AT in its current form kills medium tank play in lategame at least in 2v2 and up. Pretty sad, because you loose a lot of variety and tactical options.

Medium tanks have more range (40) than handheld AT (35). They are faster and have quicker aim time. It's pretty easy to kite AT infantry with medium tanks and kill models while taking next to no damage.

Handheld AT blobs are quite easily punished by players who know what they are doing. There are plenty of counters: kiting, mines, rocket artillery, HMGs, AI infantry, etc. Blobbing AT infantry is generally absent from higher ranked games. I can understand lower ranked players might struggle, but ultimately it is a strategy game where there are counters available (both on a micro-level and on a rock paper scissors level), and if players can't or won't use those then there is a certain point beyond which balance itself can't help anymore.

Medium tanks have more range (40) than handheld AT (35). They are faster and have quicker aim time. It's pretty easy to kite AT infantry with medium tanks and kill models while taking next to no damage.

Handheld AT blobs are quite easily punished by players who know what they are doing. There are plenty of counters: kiting, mines, rocket artillery, HMGs, AI infantry, etc. Blobbing AT infantry is generally absent from higher ranked games. I can understand lower ranked players might struggle, but ultimately it is a strategy game where there are counters available (both on a micro-level and on a rock paper scissors level), and if players can't or won't use those then there is a certain point beyond which balance itself can't help anymore.

Im mainly playing with friends from 2vs2 to 4vs4, we are going up and down in rank usually somewhere between 200 and 600, the best rank I ever achieved was about 120. There it is a problem. So it seems at 2vs2 and up lower rank starts below Top200 already. Thats a hell lot of players. I know it is much less of a problem in 1vs1.

In theory there is always a counter, although the most important next to MG (rocket artillery) isn't available non-doc for all factions.

My main argument in my last post was that med tanks get useless in lategame because they just can't get into frontal fights with heavies and TDs while flanking/diving in gets denied by AT-blob, which does needs way less micro than defending with mines and PAKs. You don't need 5 or 6 squads for that. Given the potency of AT handheld atm, you just need two squads with triple super zook or double shrek and you will force off or destroy every medium that tries to close in.

Even if you used recon before the attack the blob surely comes just in time back out of the base when you start to flank. When you are driving forward you can't stop your tank fast enough to not get hit with an At handheld aiming time of 0.63 seconds.

So it mainly comes down to TDs and heavies in lategame, it could be so much more. Strong handheld AT restricts lategame tank diversity.

Edit: I have seen a lot of complains that it always comes down to TD/heavies. So, there has to be something wrong, when meds have no real place anymore. I'm just saying what is the reason for that imo.

My main argument in my last post was that med tanks get useless in lategame because they just can't get into frontal fights with heavies and TDs while flanking/diving in gets denied by AT-blob, which does needs way less micro than defending with mines and PAKs. You don't need 5 or 6 squads for that. Given the potency of AT handheld atm, you just need two squads with triple super zook or double shrek and you will force off or destroy every medium that tries to close in.

While I agree, I think this is more an issue with the general design of the game and not with handheld AT weapons. The unit density in large modes is so high that comparatively light units can get bursted down quickly. On most maps players can manage everything they need to do on the same screen, which also leads to more blobbing - there is just less space to put the same amount of units in.

As already said multiple times on the forums, balancing team games is very difficult and balancing weapons according to their team game power level is highly problematic. In 1v1 (and 2v2, at least according to my experience), the balance is quite fine. I would not change it because of team games. Get rocket artillery instead. And if you don't have access to that, ask your team mates to buy one. I mean, that's what team games are about: coordinating and supplementing each other. Otherwise it would just be a couple of 1v1s that happen on the same map.

Medium tanks have more range (40) than handheld AT (35). They are faster and have quicker aim time. It's pretty easy to kite AT infantry with medium tanks and kill models while taking next to no damage.

Handheld AT blobs are quite easily punished by players who know what they are doing. There are plenty of counters: kiting, mines, rocket artillery, HMGs, AI infantry, etc. Blobbing AT infantry is generally absent from higher ranked games. I can understand lower ranked players might struggle, but ultimately it is a strategy game where there are counters available (both on a micro-level and on a rock paper scissors level), and if players can't or won't use those then there is a certain point beyond which balance itself can't help anymore.

Yeah, medium tanks that are on the move and between range 35 to 40 have great AI... At this rate I may well kite back to my base because medium tank won't kill much in such situation unless it's very lucky and shit may go south really quickly if it gets unlucky, especially that you can't micro anything else because of A-moving Schreck blob.

It takes very long time to kill elite inf AT squads with your infantry.

MG get smoked/arty'd easily by dozen of doctrines with abilities like stuka smoke pass, light arty barrage, frag bombing, cover to cover, etc. and both Vickers and Maxim don't have great suppression, while .50 cal has very good single squad suppression but bad at suppressing blobs due to low burst duration and long cooldown. It also suffers from deathloop.

Rocket arty is available stock only to Soviets which makes them kings of teamgames. In one of the games against PSchreck blober I had to build 3 Scotts as USF because my tanks couldn't do anything to the 1hit salvo PGs. My infantry was firing at the PGs, but my infantry was also being shot at by P4, CP4 and an Ostwind. I could not engage enemy armour with my vehicles or ATG due to bundle nades, offmaps and Schreck wall. My MG was still locked by LT tech with its 250MP and 35FU req. It is such a stupid strategy that would be defeated with 1 good Katy salvo, but brits and USF don't have that. Even churchill would get eaten by such Schreck volume. It is boring to have to pick same doctrine every single time to fill the holes in the army design. Such crappy tactic should not allow to cheese mid and low ranks.

Or you could just, you know, sit outside their range with whatever vehicle you're using. If you get hit you're either being aggressive with your vehicle and his counter is working as intended or you've had a lapse in micro or are engine damaged and its your fault that you got hit. It happens, but there's nothing wrong with it.

I understand OP issues, but this is more about game design/vision and a discussion to be had towards future titles.

I wouldn't mind seeing less effective chasing AT infantry, something similar in the vein of how PTRS work, but i don't think CoH2 is the scenario to implement nor test this kind of things.

Yeah, medium tanks that are on the move and between range 35 to 40 have great AI... At this rate I may well kite back to my base because medium tank won't kill much in such situation unless it's very lucky and shit may go south really quickly if it gets unlucky, especially that you can't micro anything else because of A-moving Schreck blob.

Now build actual dedicated AI vehicle and murder everything in range while kiting.

Now build actual dedicated AI vehicle and murder everything in range while kiting.

Even with 3 Scotts I had to reverse back to base on Alliance of defiance because 3 PG with schrecks were walking forward. By the time I cause him to retreat I am already back to my base losing map control. It's not a counter when I have to invest significantly more resources into the counter.

I'm not sure what an anekdote is supposed to prove beyond having had a single bad RNG streak.
3 Scotts will normally rip apart a Panzerschreck blob before it even comes within firing range. A single kiting HE Sherman will do the same.

I'm not saying handheld AT blobs aren't annoying. They are. Just like regular blobs. But there are enough ways to deal with them which is why they generally aren't seen in higher level play. However as Elchino said, CoH2 is beyond salvaging when it comes to blobs. And it really isn't a big enough problem to go after.

Even with 3 Scotts I had to reverse back to base on Alliance of defiance because 3 PG with schrecks were walking forward. By the time I cause him to retreat I am already back to my base losing map control. It's not a counter when I have to invest significantly more resources into the counter.

I had 1 game where my T34/76 penned 4 shots in a row frontally, destroying OKW P4, but that does not mean T34/76 got 100% pen chance against OKW P4 now, does it?

I'm not saying handheld AT blobs aren't annoying. They are. Just like regular blobs. But there are enough ways to deal with them which is why they generally aren't seen in higher level play. However as Elchino said, CoH2 is beyond salvaging when it comes to blobs. And it really isn't a big enough problem to go after.

I thought it was the lack of acknowledgement of the problem/solution. This issue affects mostly mid and low ELO 2v2+ games up to lvl 14 (rank 400ish) so a majority of casual players. This is why I thought it might be important to fix at some point. The effort disparity between the elite AT blob and the counter strategy feels inadequate with some factions more than other due to access to rocket arty and I just thought it might be good idea to address it or at least share my thoughts about it and receive some feedback. It is weird to me that Piat blobs are not nearly as much of a problem as Super bazooka Rangers and PSchreck PGs even though Piats are comparable and I just thought that the problem may lie in the squads that carry the weapon.

I had 1 game where my T34/76 penned 4 shots in a row frontally, destroying OKW P4, but that does not mean T34/76 got 100% pen chance against OKW P4 now, does it?

I thought this was just a typical Scott behavior, didn't acknowledge I had bad RNG. I am used to Scotts missing a lot even if I manually barrage a stationary pak40 from a distance, meanwhile Pak howie would have decrewed it from even further away, so I wasn't too surprised with results. I usually prefer to use the amazing M4A3 HE shells to deal with infantry-based problems.

Anyway, thank you for your tips and understanding.