I've seen numerous instances now of Tigers, IS2s and even Stug Gs being able to take out AT guns while parked directly in front of them.
Is this intended?
Relic: are tanks supposed to solo AT guns?
26 Apr 2014, 20:04 PM
#1
Posts: 471
26 Apr 2014, 20:10 PM
#2
Posts: 17914 | Subs: 8
Stugs are batshit crazy this patch.
As for Tigers and IS-2, its beyond retarded to expect a single AT gun to take them out. Cost disparity alone should give you a hint on the effectiveness.
As for Tigers and IS-2, its beyond retarded to expect a single AT gun to take them out. Cost disparity alone should give you a hint on the effectiveness.
Maybe it's 'cause the Axis players aren't a bunch of forum crybabies, and they keep their cool and fight the uphill battle, unlike some of their "allied" counterparts.
26 Apr 2014, 20:16 PM
#3
Posts: 471
Katitof, the cost to effectiveness argument is stupid and I think you know it.
A sniper costs 360MP but if it stays still in the face of an onrushing 170MP combat engineer, it will lose.
Cost is not the only criterion by which to evaluate the performance of different units against each other.
Sitting in front of an AT gun should HURT for any tank.
A sniper costs 360MP but if it stays still in the face of an onrushing 170MP combat engineer, it will lose.
Cost is not the only criterion by which to evaluate the performance of different units against each other.
Sitting in front of an AT gun should HURT for any tank.
26 Apr 2014, 20:40 PM
#4
1 
Posts: 889 | Subs: 1
Sitting in front of an AT gun should HURT for any tank.
On the flipside, sitting in front of a tank should HURT for any AT gun.
26 Apr 2014, 20:51 PM
#5
Posts: 17914 | Subs: 8
And pak will loose to M3 if it parks behind it.
That obviously must mean the pak is completely ineffective, right?
Positioning is obviously a big part in it. AT guns are "tank snipers" and use them as such, not a frontline unit, back line unit supporting from afar.
I find it hilarious that you even try to defend your case here and don't see how silly it is.
That obviously must mean the pak is completely ineffective, right?
Positioning is obviously a big part in it. AT guns are "tank snipers" and use them as such, not a frontline unit, back line unit supporting from afar.
I find it hilarious that you even try to defend your case here and don't see how silly it is.
Maybe it's 'cause the Axis players aren't a bunch of forum crybabies, and they keep their cool and fight the uphill battle, unlike some of their "allied" counterparts.
26 Apr 2014, 20:53 PM
#6
10 Posts: 155
I suppose first sighted and first shot wins... perhaps it is now more... well it is a game... realistic.
26 Apr 2014, 21:03 PM
#7
Posts: 471
And pak will loose to M3 if it parks behind it.
That obviously must mean the pak is completely ineffective, right?
Positioning is obviously a big part in it. AT guns are "tank snipers" and use them as such, not a frontline unit, back line unit supporting from afar.
I find it hilarious that you even try to defend your case here and don't see how silly it is.
Katitof, it was you who made the argument that the cost of a unit should determine its effectiveness vs. another unit, not me. Thank you for realising it was a stupid argument.
In any case, it would be great to see a response from PQ on this.
26 Apr 2014, 21:14 PM
#8
Posts: 17914 | Subs: 8
I can't believe you really need a dev response on why 320mp unit looses to 600+mp and 230+fu ones.
From now on I'll just sit back, grab popcorn and enjoy this comedy.
From now on I'll just sit back, grab popcorn and enjoy this comedy.
Maybe it's 'cause the Axis players aren't a bunch of forum crybabies, and they keep their cool and fight the uphill battle, unlike some of their "allied" counterparts.
26 Apr 2014, 23:11 PM
#9
1 Posts: 889 | Subs: 1
I don't always agree with Katitof, but when I do, it's because he's right. AT guns do very well vs tanks, but if it comes down to a straight up duke fest, the tank should win.
26 Apr 2014, 23:36 PM
#10
Posts: 27
26 Apr 2014, 23:36 PM
#11
Posts: 471
If that's intended, I don't have a problem with it. I'm just asking if it IS intended. No need for Katitof's usual insult-fest.
26 Apr 2014, 23:42 PM
#12
Posts: 1637
If that's intended, I don't have a problem with it. I'm just asking if it IS intended. No need for Katitof's usual insult-fest.
Fine try mine on for size!!! WELL DUH NOOB THERE IS A SLIGHT COST DIFFERENCE THERE L2P!!!11111
J/K
Yeah I would think its intended. But maybe we will find out. I still would like more MMMFFFF for my Zis
The PTRS's are fine as they are. Whenever i'm up against Guard Infantry, I always have to be careful with my vehicles or the Guards will completely destroy them. Good range, good damage and fairly cheap; if anything, the PTRS should nerfed since it's ridiculously good for the price. Even in the hands of Conscripts, the PTRS's are extremely potent.
27 Apr 2014, 00:12 AM
#13
Posts: 1571
AT guns got buffed big time this patch. They have great penetration now and can move & reposition much faster. However, you need an infantry squad or two to cover them (and panzerfaust/panzershreck/AT nade...)
Lets put it this way: You have a 320 MP tank killer that costs no fuel or munitions. I'd say that munitions/fuel are worth 2 times MP.
Lets put it this way: You have a 320 MP tank killer that costs no fuel or munitions. I'd say that munitions/fuel are worth 2 times MP.
27 Apr 2014, 00:26 AM
#14
Posts: 60
Lets see, both AT guns and tanks have high-caliber AT cannons. The tank also has several machine guns. One crew is protected by nothing, the other crew is protected by a TANK. gj op.
27 Apr 2014, 00:33 AM
#15
Posts: 344
Lets see, both AT guns and tanks have high-caliber AT cannons. The tank also has several machine guns. One crew is protected by nothing, the other crew is protected by a TANK. gj op.
QFT
Pocketsize: "I can't wait till they add british to CoH: O; the extreme forces leveled by the new imbalances will create a black hole around the servers that destroys half of Canada."
27 Apr 2014, 01:00 AM
#16
Posts: 523
Ive had StuG's take out several ZiS AT-Guns by just attacking it head on, shoulda saved replays to show you guys but they are bat shit crazeeh.
27 Apr 2014, 01:02 AM
#17
Posts: 471
Ive had StuG's take out several ZiS AT-Guns by just attacking it head on, shoulda saved replays to show you guys but they are bat shit crazeeh.
But AT guns only cost manpower, this makes perfect sense.
"Retard, noob, I'm just going to sit back and enjoy your stupidity with some popcorn. LELELELELEL, QFT, GG"
Sigh... this board sometimes.
27 Apr 2014, 01:14 AM
#18
Posts: 1701
^xDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD
Blaue Division - The best corp
BPX - Black Phoenix, Clan leader.
BPX - Black Phoenix, Clan leader.
27 Apr 2014, 01:36 AM
#19
Posts: 3552 | Subs: 2
Not saying that's not true, but remember one is a low profile weapon which in theory is dug into the ground for protection
The other is a noisy metal box full of fuel and explosives
The other is a noisy metal box full of fuel and explosives
Resident Soviet Whiner and Grand Master Bias Jedi; General Secretary of the Soviet Whine Hydra Collective; Axis Hating Sheeple; Allied Butt Buddy! Collect Them All!
Also the African Branch of TAB Bulletins
PS: The Italian Army fought with courage and skill
Also the African Branch of TAB Bulletins
PS: The Italian Army fought with courage and skill
27 Apr 2014, 02:51 AM
#20
Posts: 60
Even if they were dug in, really make a difference when the tank is "parked directly in front" of the AT gun, as per the OP.
1 user is browsing this thread:
1 guest
Livestreams
 |
|
|
169 | ||
 |
|
|
19 | ||
 |
|
|
2 | ||
|
|
|
|
1 | ||
|
|
|
|
1 | ||
|
|
|
|
1 |
Ladders Top 10
-
#Steam AliasWL%Streak
- 1.831222.789+37
- 2.34957.860+14
- 3.589215.733+4
- 4.1099614.642-1
- 5.280162.633+8
- 6.305114.728+1
- 7.916405.693-2
- 8.271108.715+22
- 9.721440.621+3
- 10.1041674.607-2
Data provided by
Relic Entertainment
Relic Entertainment
Replay highlight
VS
-
cblanco ★ -
보드카 중대
-
VonManteuffel -
Heartless Jäger
Einhoven Country
Honor it
9
Download
1231
Board Info
773 users are online:
773 guests
1 post in the last 24h
7 posts in the last week
39 posts in the last month
7 posts in the last week
39 posts in the last month
Registered members: 49065
Welcome our newest member, Huhmpal01
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM
Welcome our newest member, Huhmpal01
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM