Let's talk about AT guns for a minute...

What about a zis?

If translated, the zis is a pak as well

I meant at-guns in general.

Ive long been of the opinion that ATGs should more or less autohit any armor in its arc.

Im a big supporter of ATGs as a really serious MP based AT hardcounter.
I want to see ATGs absolutely falconpunch any armor that gets in their arc.

Its true that PaK, in prolonged engagements, gets the advantage vs armor, as compared to Zis.
But ZiS has the 6man durability and versatility of Barrage.
Nonetheless, I think both ATGs deserve an almost automatic first hit, as reward for the difficulty of aligning positioning and LoS for that shot.

After that, its up to the opposing player to react in time. But the first hit needs imo to be almost guaranteed.

Positioning and LoS is so challenging to achieve vs Vehicles that I feel it needs to be seriously rewarded when it does manage to be in the right place at the right time.

I think better ATGs will do wonders for meta, in terms of properly restricting deliberate vehicle teching.

As Michael Wittman, the Tiger Ace repeatedly stated, he didnt give a shit about armor.
It was ATGs that scared the shit out of him due to ambushes, low profile and serious penetration. He took particular pleasure in destroying them, and valued those far higher than any tank kill.

Jump back to quoted post20 Nov 2013, 21:41 PMGreeb

I think AT guns are fine,

LuL wut. Do you know how many REAR, close range shots it takes for a ZiS to even think about doing anything to a tiger ace? Or how many shots a Pak will miss on a t70 right in front of it? Or how they get 2 shotted by practically every tank?

Please, quote my full sentence.

I said that I think AT's damage output is fine.
They have another problems, like how they underperform against heavy doctrinal tanks, specially how easily they get destroyed by only two hits of a Tiger or ISU152.

I would like an option to hold fire or set the AT to only fire against vehicles too.

Your argument,Greeb, in that sentence and full qoute, was that ATG range was too short.

I dont agree with that at all.

Your argument,Greeb, in that sentence and full qoute, was that ATG range was too short.

I dont agree with that at all.

Well, I think it's pointless to do an ATgun if most tanks have more range than it.

Well, I think it's pointless to do an ATgun if most tanks have more range than it.

only 1 german tank can outrange a zis and thats the elefant (which is harmless to infantry). su85, su76, isu152 and now kv2 all match or outrange the pak though.

only 1 german tank can outrange a zis and thats the elefant (which is harmless to infantry). su85, su76, isu152 and now kv2 all outrange the pak though.

That's what I'm saying.

And you have aberrations like Tiger Ace that can withstand fire from multiple ATguns and destroy all of them.

ATguns should have a huge frontal armor to prevent these situations.

Well, I think it's pointless to do an ATgun if most tanks have more range than it.

Most tanks have more range than it?

Care to back that up?

Pak/ZiS: 60 Range

Ostwind: 40 Range
T70: 40 Range
PIV/Commander: 40 Range
T34 and 85: 40 Range
Tiger/Ace: 40 Range
IS2: 40 Range
Stug: 50 Range
Panther: 50 Range
SU85: 60 Range
SU76: 60 Range
Elephant: 100 Range
ISU52: 100 Range.

So there are exactly 2 tanks that can EVEN match its range, both SOV.
Not to mention the Su85 can natively increase its LoS to make full use of that range.
Stug is a POS that comes nowhere even near.
And exactly 2 tanks that can outrange it, 1 per faction, both Doctrinal and extremely expensive.

Sorry, but no.
Sit down.

I cant believe you actually made me take the time to recheck and have to repost these range stats for this.

I repeatedly wanted to create a thread about this topic but never actually managed to.

The design of at-guns in vCoH was pretty much spot on if you ask me.

In CoH2 the at-guns performance is very inconsistent and they get flanked and decrewed/destroyed by tanks way too easily.
I also think a cost/buildtime decrease would be a good thing, maybe 320mp or something.

what the hell are you talking about? a p4 took 4 shots!! to decrew a fucking zis , and a tiger dies like a fly to 3 good positioned zis's , if you make AT guns more deadlier than they are now in combination with the ridiculous at nades range+ instant damaged engine then what is the point of even building tanks ?

That's what I'm saying.

And you have aberrations like Tiger Ace that can withstand fire from multiple ATguns and destroy all of them.

ATguns should have a huge frontal armor to prevent these situations.

i dont get it. you brought up tanks with more range to complain about tiger ace? AT guns outrange the tiger ace. disable it, setup at max range and you wont get shot at. also, AT guns getting destroyed is mostly luck. its much more common for the actual crew to be killed. even so, giving more armor to an AT gun would be silly. i dont think AT guns should be bouncing tank shells

what the hell are you talking about? a p4 took 4 shots!! to decrew a fucking zis , and a tiger dies like a fly to 3 good positioned zis's , if you make AT guns more deadlier than they are now in combination with the ridiculous at nades range+ instant damaged engine then what is the point of even building tanks ?

And grenadiers die like flies to good positioned snipers.
You want tanks to counter at-guns?!

I don't get your point.

i dont get it. you brought up tanks with more range to complain about tiger ace? AT guns outrange the tiger ace. disable it, setup at max range and you wont get shot at. also, AT guns getting destroyed is mostly luck. its much more common for the actual crew to be killed. even so, giving more armor to an AT gun would be silly. i dont think AT guns should be bouncing tank shells

Disabling a Tiger Ace is pure RNG so it can't be said so easily.

And there's not luck getting involved in AtGuns being destroyed by a Tiger Ace. Two Tige Ace's shots ALWAYS destroys the ZiS (Well, maybe 99% of times, I've not seen still one surviving two shots).

And I don't find silly for ATguns having frontal armor. They have a nice and thick armor-plate at the front, and tanks would need to flank to decrew them.

@Nullist

Elefant, ISU152, SU85 with focus, SU76 arty barrage, and KV2 are plenty of tanks.
It's more easy in this game to snipe ATguns than it was in vCoH with cammo pak.

I did not realize until COH2 how important cloaking was to Paks in vCOH. I knew it was important to provide me the first shot, and the ability to escape from infantry. But now...wow.

Constant missed shots, infantry often just overrunning at gun by getting a single lucky RNG hit on a carrying model (this would not have happened before with cloaked paks quietly backing up), paks choosing to engage infantry, high cost, etc.

The biggest problem is that paks/zis's attack infantry at will. This is really bad for the zis since it has an extremely long reload time. They should only attack infantry if directly ordered to do so, and the first shot should always land on target when targeting a tank.

Side note: The su85 and elephant should only attack infantry if directed to do so. Or at least have a toggle button, "Free attack" vs "Target Tanks only".

Also does target weak point regularly miss for other people? Is it bugged, or was that the intention?

Disabling a Tiger Ace is pure RNG so it can't be said so easily.

And there's not luck getting involved in AtGuns being destroyed by a Tiger Ace. Two Tige Ace's shots ALWAYS destroys the ZiS (Well, maybe 99% of times, I've not seen still one surviving two shots).

funny you should mention that because theres no RNG involved in mines. have you seen how slow a tiger ace is with engine damage, or better yet, heavy engine damage? its so slow you could kite it with an AT gun. also, because of how accuracy works, tanks shooting at infantry IS dependent on "pure RNG". so thats an exaggeration.

LuL wut. Do you know how many REAR, close range shots it takes for a ZiS to even think about doing anything to a tiger ace? Or how many shots a Pak will miss on a t70 right in front of it? Or how they get 2 shotted by practically every tank?

watching an at gun miss a light vehicle more than once is painful. I'm fine with the chance of miss on the first shot, but if the light vehicle sticks around, it shouldn't be so lucky the second time. If there were a way to implement a huge accuracy bonus against the same light target, after every time the gun misses, that would work for me.

funny you should mention that because theres no RNG involved in mines. have you seen how slow a tiger ace is with engine damage, or better yet, heavy engine damage? its so slow you could kite it with an AT gun. also, because of how accuracy works, tanks shooting at infantry IS dependent on "pure RNG". so thats an exaggeration.

A mine is not an ability were I can click the destined target.

I can lay the mine, but the Tiger may or may not walk on it. Or it can be activated by a grenadier or exploded by a mortar shell or panzerwerfer rocket...

Sorry man, but I've lost a lot of games against a Tiger Ace with plenty of mines set in the ground and several T34 ramming it.
You just have to be lucky with the RNG or the mines targeting the right unit in the right place.

The thing is that 6 ZiS can't save you from a healthy Tiger Ace. And that is preposterous.

EDIT: And let's stop here please, because I don't want derail the topic into another "I hate Tiger Ace" thread.

Greeb. RNG means Random Number Generator.

You are using the term wrong.

There is nothing Random Number Generated about Mines.

Greeb. RNG means Random Number Generator.

You are using the term wrong.

There is nothing Random Number Generated about Mines.

Read again.

I said "RNG or mines"

Mines are not RNG, but they are not skill either.
Even the most pro player can't decide which unit that mine will hit.

If mines are as skillful as you say why don't use them against T70s??
60 ammo for a sure T70 kill is a good deal.
Why it cant be done? Because nobody can be certain that the mine will really hit the T70.

So yes, mines are a must against Tiger Ace, same as Ram, but even that can fail because none of both things depends on skill, or micro or ability.

And deciding a long and even game to a RNG ram or to the posibility of the Tiger Ace moving over the bunch of pixels where you laid mines is very annoying. It takes away control of the game to the player and gives a feel of utterly randomness in the game.

funny you should mention that because theres no RNG involved in mines. have you seen how slow a tiger ace is with engine damage, or better yet, heavy engine damage? its so slow you could kite it with an AT gun. also, because of how accuracy works, tanks shooting at infantry IS dependent on "pure RNG". so thats an exaggeration.

Doesn't a mine have a X% chance of causing heavy engine damage rather than normal engine damage? If so, there is most certainly RNG involved.

Doesn't a mine have a X% chance of causing heavy engine damage rather than normal engine damage? If so, there is most certainly RNG involved.

if you really want to nit pick, yea theres RNG in the type of engine damage you inflict. however, we were talking about disabling a tiger, not heavy engine damage. a mine will disable any tank 100% of the time. sometimes you just get lucky and you cause heavy engine damage. therefore, no RNG in causing some form of engine damage.