Let's talk about AT guns for a minute...
Posts: 879
Obviously in COH1 AT guns were a lot more reliable. Here are the differences I know:
1) In COH1, AT Guns ordered to attack a target will continuously turn without additional input from the user. In COH2, AT guns must be manually rotated or spammed with attack unit commands to get them to keep turning.
2) In COH1, the turning speed seems to be a lot faster. AT guns pick up and then continuously turn until they can shoot their target, but in COH2 they pick up, turn, then set back down even if the target has already moved out of the firing arc. COH2 AT should continuously rotate better and NOT set back down if the target is not in the firing arc.
3) AT guns in COH1, if given an attack command will continue to move forward if the target moves into the fog of war. This can clearly not always what the user wants, but it's a behavioral difference worth noting, and sometimes you MAY actually want it. It's more a less a bug, in my opinion, that COH1 AT guns "know" where their targets are even if in the FOW. This was common unit behavior though in COH1, units given attack commands will briefly follow targets into the FOW.
4) Generally COH2 AT guns movement speed seems slower, but maybe someone can look up the stats. It is nearly impossible to chase a tank with an AT gun, even with a damaged engine unless it was less than 1/3rd of a screen away. In COH1 this was much easier to do.
5) Target priorities still don't feel right in COH2. Even if you've given an attack command, if the target is out of the arc, the AT gun will waste a shot on infantry. This is really, really bad in close battles where that fire/reload time matters a lot. There's got to be some delay on firing at infantry, or a timer because chances are the vehicle target will be back in range in another second. Maybe AT Guns could be programmed to never fire at infantry as long as a vehicle is in its general vicinity or some such? Ie., visible on screen.
Please note any stats you can dig up, I really, really think the AT mechanics are at the core of a lot of other problems...
Posts: 2181
Posts: 208
You really need to remember to repair your ATGs or they will just get sniped by a P4/Panther/Tiger Ace (I think it takes 2-3 shots from a Tiger Ace to destroy an ATG)
On your points though; all are solvable by proper ATG positioning - keeping them far enough back, having 2 covering each other, mine placements, infantry screens etc
Posts: 409
This is all fine and dandy until we bring Elite Troops into the equation and start insta plopping Vet2 Paks. Any buffs to the AT gun are going to translate very badly when this commander is used (any buffs to German units in general, tbh).
Also don't forget that Relic probably has no intention of making Industry underpowered. This game has become nearly impossible to balance with the new commanders.
Posts: 647
but in coh2, they have varied effectiveness against tanks, occasionally missing and/or deflecting, takes a little long to get reload and most importantly, are actually more expensive mp wise vs medium tanks. To add to the pain, they are clunky to micro, vulnerable to infantry, flanking units and indirect fire.
all these shortcomings makes it really difficult to build and maintain a solid AT gun position when 2 of these cost 720mp, while medium tanks are cheaper mp wise, have lesser vulnerabilities and able to deal with infantry/weapon teams as well as tanks.
Posts: 604
Other than that, I don't really think the current game version is the right environment to change something about the AT guns' actual combat power.
Remember that recent changes have already made them a lot more accurate. They really aren't that bad when they actually get something in front of the barrel.
Posts: 95
Anybody have any decent advice on how to actually get kills with these? Most I can do is wound tanks that just retreat and get repaired. If I can't get kills then I am eventually steamrolled by a mass of tanks.
Posts: 971
Tiger Ace vaporising ZiS with 2 shots is ridiculous.
Posts: 240
Posts: 55
Posts: 971
Ehm, am I the only one who thinks that the German AT is better than the ZiS? If I remember correctly, they have exact the same stats, except the rate of fire is higher for the Pak. And, yes, Soviets get Barrage. But it costs you very dear and is not very effective if your opponent is not stupid. Germans have Target weak point, which is a sweet ability to hinder tanks from flanking or fleeing. And thats what I want for my Anti Tank(!) Gun.
ZiS barrage is very useful against enemy mortars, mg42s and garrisoned units.
And it has a crew of 6 men.
Pak is a better AT gun, but ZiS can resist more damage and is more useful against infantry.
Posts: 66
Posts: 747
I think if AT guns could be made more reliable, then a number of other balance items might become a lot easier to manage. Ie., right now it's not so great that Tigers only have a 40-60% chance of being rammed, but if you can at least scare them off with reliable AT, it might help.
Obviously in COH1 AT guns were a lot more reliable. Here are the differences I know:
1) In COH1, AT Guns ordered to attack a target will continuously turn without additional input from the user. In COH2, AT guns must be manually rotated or spammed with attack unit commands to get them to keep turning.
2) In COH1, the turning speed seems to be a lot faster. AT guns pick up and then continuously turn until they can shoot their target, but in COH2 they pick up, turn, then set back down even if the target has already moved out of the firing arc. COH2 AT should continuously rotate better and NOT set back down if the target is not in the firing arc.
3) AT guns in COH1, if given an attack command will continue to move forward if the target moves into the fog of war. This can clearly not always what the user wants, but it's a behavioral difference worth noting, and sometimes you MAY actually want it. It's more a less a bug, in my opinion, that COH1 AT guns "know" where their targets are even if in the FOW. This was common unit behavior though in COH1, units given attack commands will briefly follow targets into the FOW.
4) Generally COH2 AT guns movement speed seems slower, but maybe someone can look up the stats. It is nearly impossible to chase a tank with an AT gun, even with a damaged engine unless it was less than 1/3rd of a screen away. In COH1 this was much easier to do.
5) Target priorities still don't feel right in COH2. Even if you've given an attack command, if the target is out of the arc, the AT gun will waste a shot on infantry. This is really, really bad in close battles where that fire/reload time matters a lot. There's got to be some delay on firing at infantry, or a timer because chances are the vehicle target will be back in range in another second. Maybe AT Guns could be programmed to never fire at infantry as long as a vehicle is in its general vicinity or some such? Ie., visible on screen.
Please note any stats you can dig up, I really, really think the AT mechanics are at the core of a lot of other problems...
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.
Posts: 688
What broke the ice for me was when I started to use them in pairs instead of just 1 AT gun to cover one position.
One AT gun doesn't cut it against 1 tank (except T70) and I think that's completely fair.
So no, I don't think a change is needed (for ATG, that is).
Posts: 331
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.
I agree with both of you.. i have no idea what the other people are on about. at guns in coh are a joke
Posts: 1355
In generall i think that something is missing from the AT Guns. A bit more penetration maybe?
Posts: 2425
Permanently BannedThe problem is still their effective accuracy.
They seem to like impacting shots on terrain, short of the target.
Maybe something related to the relatively low position of the gun itself?
The projectile seems to hit little bumps in the field or small elevations.
Attack Ground also seems to have much better accuracy than autofire.
Also as nwg states, Id like to see a secondary health bar on ATGs to indicate the hp on the weapon itself.
Posts: 202
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?
Posts: 747
Posts: 2561
In my opinion the first shot of a pak should always hit.
What about a zis?
Livestreams
7 | |||||
4 | |||||
2 |
Ladders Top 10
-
#Steam AliasWL%Streak
- 1.830222.789+36
- 2.34957.860+14
- 3.571211.730-3
- 4.1098613.642+2
- 5.916404.694-1
- 6.280162.633+8
- 7.305114.728+1
- 8.721440.621+3
- 9.14758.717+1
- 10.1028667.606+5
Replay highlight
- cblanco ★
- 보드카 중대
- VonManteuffel
- Heartless Jäger