What about a zis?
If translated, the zis is a pak as well
I meant at-guns in general.
Posts: 747
What about a zis?
Posts: 2425
Permanently BannedPosts: 971
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: 2425
Permanently BannedPosts: 971
Your argument,Greeb, in that sentence and full qoute, was that ATG range was too short.
I dont agree with that at all.
Posts: 950 | Subs: 1
Well, I think it's pointless to do an ATgun if most tanks have more range than it.
Posts: 971
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.
Posts: 2425
Permanently Banned
Well, I think it's pointless to do an ATgun if most tanks have more range than it.
Posts: 87
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: 950 | Subs: 1
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.
Posts: 747
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 ?
Posts: 971
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
Posts: 1585 | Subs: 1
Posts: 950 | Subs: 1
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).
Posts: 93
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: 971
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.
Posts: 2425
Permanently BannedPosts: 971
Greeb. RNG means Random Number Generator.
You are using the term wrong.
There is nothing Random Number Generated about Mines.
Posts: 2693 | Subs: 1
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.
Posts: 950 | Subs: 1
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.
82 | |||||
33 | |||||
19 | |||||
3 | |||||
118 | |||||
75 | |||||
12 | |||||
3 | |||||
3 | |||||
2 |