Relic: are tanks supposed to solo AT guns?
Posts: 471
Is this intended?
Posts: 17914 | Subs: 8
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.
Posts: 471
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.
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.
Posts: 17914 | Subs: 8
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.
Posts: 155
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.
Posts: 17914 | Subs: 8
From now on I'll just sit back, grab popcorn and enjoy this comedy.
Posts: 889 | Subs: 1
Posts: 27
Posts: 471
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
Posts: 1571
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.
Posts: 60
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
Posts: 523
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.
Posts: 1701
Posts: 3552 | Subs: 2
The other is a noisy metal box full of fuel and explosives
Posts: 60
Livestreams
158 | |||||
11 |
Ladders Top 10
-
#Steam AliasWL%Streak
- 1.828222.789+34
- 2.34857.859+13
- 3.1095612.641+19
- 4.587233.716+3
- 5.880398.689+2
- 6.280162.633+8
- 7.300112.728+6
- 8.379114.769+1
- 9.994645.606+2
- 10.440186.703+1
Replay highlight
- cblanco ★
- 보드카 중대
- VonManteuffel
- Heartless Jäger
Board Info
4 posts in the last week
20 posts in the last month
Welcome our newest member, astepine96
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM