Login

russian armor

USF AT abilty.

7 Sep 2014, 16:51 PM
#21
avatar of wooof

Posts: 950 | Subs: 1

jump backJump back to quoted post7 Sep 2014, 16:31 PMand


The fact that bazookas cost the same as shrecks says it all.

Also, show me a replay where an AT gun reaches vet 2 and stays alive to be useful.


try watching just about any replay where players are good enough to preserve their units...

as for bazookas, i think they could use a small cost decrease. maybe down to 50 munitions. i dont think bazookas are really that bad. the problem is they cost the same as a bar/m1919 and take up a slot. theres no question that a bar/m1919 is a much better choice when theyre the same price.
7 Sep 2014, 16:51 PM
#22
avatar of Greeb

Posts: 971

Vetting ATguns is easy.
Keeping them alive without a non-doctrinal hmg is harder.
7 Sep 2014, 16:53 PM
#23
avatar of wooof

Posts: 950 | Subs: 1

jump backJump back to quoted post7 Sep 2014, 16:51 PMGreeb
Vetting ATguns is easy.
Keeping them alive without a doctrinal hmg is harder.


what does that even mean? you need a dshk to keep a zis alive? maxim spam not good enough?
7 Sep 2014, 16:53 PM
#24
avatar of Australian Magic

Posts: 4630 | Subs: 2

jump backJump back to quoted post7 Sep 2014, 16:31 PMand


The fact that bazookas cost the same as shrecks says it all.

Also, show me a replay where an AT gun reaches vet 2 and stays alive to be useful.


Bazzoka costs more - you need to unlock it first.

Usually, no matter which faction I play, I get 1 AT gun and it's very easy for me to reach 400%+ effectivness (average 700-800%) so I could give you replay of 57mm pushing back Tiger.
7 Sep 2014, 16:54 PM
#25
avatar of austerlitz

Posts: 1705

Main problem with relying on AT guns is defense is great but pushing is problematic.
One bad tendency among usf players however is that they rarely use the m20 mine,i think its the best at mine.When i play USF i rely on it heavily instead of investing in bazookas for AT power coz i know that won't help vs german heavies.Heavies can be countered by mines backed by at guns and jacksons(if u lack e8) and blob providing screen.
7 Sep 2014, 16:54 PM
#26
avatar of Tobis
Senior Strategist Badge
Donator 11

Posts: 2307 | Subs: 4

jump backJump back to quoted post7 Sep 2014, 16:49 PMand
Sure it's easy because you say so. You're joking right?

Yes it is easy, no I'm not joking, no I'm not going to search for a replay to show you how hard it is to destroy 2 tanks.
and
7 Sep 2014, 16:55 PM
#27
avatar of and

Posts: 140

jump backJump back to quoted post7 Sep 2014, 16:51 PMwooof


try watching just about any replay where players are good enough to preserve their units...

as for bazookas, i think they could use a small cost decrease. maybe down to 50 munitions. i dont think bazookas are really that bad. the problem is they cost the same as a bar/m1919 and take up a slot. theres no question that a bar/m1919 is a much better choice when theyre the same price.


Sure which replay should I watch? I bet it's pretty hard to find. I imagine most replays on here is people getting Ez8's. I do watch a lot of streams but like 9 out of 10 streamed games are Axis. So no, I don't really get to see people use US AT guns very effectively.
7 Sep 2014, 16:57 PM
#28
avatar of Omega_Warrior

Posts: 2561

jump backJump back to quoted post7 Sep 2014, 16:31 PMand


The fact that bazookas cost the same as shrecks says it all.

Also, show me a replay where an AT gun reaches vet 2 and stays alive to be useful.

Well not really. The schreck is always bundled in some way which means they come at a small discount like the T34-85 dual call-in. If they came separately their price would be more like 70 munis.

That being said they are probably twice as effective so I think the balance is still skewed. The us really needs the bazookas to be better. They have enough light vehicle counters, they need help dealing with tanks. A damage buff or pen buff would be good.

As for the at gun, it becomes really good at vet 1 with its ability which it gets pretty fast since its pretty cheap. The only thing it needs is a pen buff for the at rounds. Even with the ability on it has less pen then the other at guns. It makes it really hard to fight heavy tanks even if you did everything right.
7 Sep 2014, 17:00 PM
#29
avatar of austerlitz

Posts: 1705


Well not really. The schreck is always bundled in some way which means they come at a small discount like the T34-85 dual call-in. If they came separately their price would be more like 70 munis.

That being said they are probably twice as effective so I think the balance is still skewed. The us really needs the bazookas to be better. They have enough light vehicle counters, they need help dealing with tanks. A damage buff or pen buff would be good.

As for the at gun, it becomes really good at vet 1 with its ability which it gets pretty fast since its pretty cheap. The only thing it needs is a pen buff for the at rounds. Even with the ability on it has less pen then the other at guns. It makes it really hard to fight heavy tanks even if you did everything right.


Problem with bazookas being better is if USF inf can reliably counter heavy tanks they may not opt for tanks much anyway..then u have a death blob roaming around totting bazookas and lmgs.USF blob is already very intimidating,but suffers to armor especially heavy..if they can get past that they become the new airborne blob of coh 2,this time with lmgs.
7 Sep 2014, 17:03 PM
#30
avatar of wooof

Posts: 950 | Subs: 1

Main problem with relying on AT guns is defense is great but pushing is problematic.


i disagree. its certainly not as easy as attack moving with schrecks or tanks, but its not really problematic. its just more micro intensive. you cant just click on the tank you want to kill, you need to position the gun yourself. that way you can make the most of its arc and avoid sight/shot blockers. its the same when youre getting circled, just clicking on the tank will never work unless your opponent sucks.

my typical early/mid game build for wehrmacht has been 2 grens, 2 mgs, 2 paks, a scout car and a ht (not in that order). not exactly a highly mobile build, but i have no problem pushing with it. you can do a similar build with americans, it just takes longer to get since you would need lt and captain
7 Sep 2014, 17:10 PM
#31
avatar of Greeb

Posts: 971

jump backJump back to quoted post7 Sep 2014, 16:53 PMwooof


what does that even mean? you need a dshk to keep a zis alive? maxim spam not good enough?


I thought we were talking about USF. And I forgot to say *non-doctrinal*
Edited.
7 Sep 2014, 17:11 PM
#32
avatar of austerlitz

Posts: 1705

jump backJump back to quoted post7 Sep 2014, 17:03 PMwooof


i disagree. its certainly not as easy as attack moving with schrecks or tanks, but its not really problematic. its just more micro intensive. you cant just click on the tank you want to kill, you need to position the gun yourself. that way you can make the most of its arc and avoid sight/shot blockers. its the same when youre getting circled, just clicking on the tank will never work unless your opponent sucks.

my typical early/mid game build for wehrmacht has been 2 grens, 2 mgs, 2 paks, a scout car and a ht (not in that order). not exactly a highly mobile build, but i have no problem pushing with it. you can do a similar build with americans, it just takes longer to get since you would need lt and captain


This is a dangerous and advanced build,i'm guessing ur micro is good because if u lose one of ur mgs in this build ur whole position can be compromised quickly.Pushing with AT guns is difficult than with armor,crawling is good though..i think thats what u mean.Slowly advance..by pushing i mean transfer a whole assault force to a certain point in the map at will .
7 Sep 2014, 17:14 PM
#33
avatar of Greeb

Posts: 971



Problem with bazookas being better is if USF inf can reliably counter heavy tanks they may not opt for tanks much anyway..then u have a death blob roaming around totting bazookas and lmgs.USF blob is already very intimidating,but suffers to armor especially heavy..if they can get past that they become the new airborne blob of coh 2,this time with lmgs.


OKW blobs as much as USF and they have schrecks.
I don't see any imbalance if zooks were buffed.
7 Sep 2014, 17:34 PM
#34
avatar of Omega_Warrior

Posts: 2561



Problem with bazookas being better is if USF inf can reliably counter heavy tanks they may not opt for tanks much anyway..then u have a death blob roaming around totting bazookas and lmgs.USF blob is already very intimidating,but suffers to armor especially heavy..if they can get past that they become the new airborne blob of coh 2,this time with lmgs.
I doubt even if they were buffed they would be enough to counter heavies alone. Even schrecks don't do that and I'm not suggesting we actually make them better then schrecks, just better then they are currently.

Besides if the rifles are arming up on zooks they won't have as much AI strength as if they chose bars. Arming both is expensive.
7 Sep 2014, 19:30 PM
#35
avatar of MoBo111

Posts: 150

jump backJump back to quoted post7 Sep 2014, 16:31 PMand


The fact that bazookas cost the same as shrecks says it all.

Also, show me a replay where an AT gun reaches vet 2 and stays alive to be useful.


I had such a game not long ago but i didn't save up the replay. But still the at gun penetrated my kt trough the frontal armor without any problems. And the Zooks cost 60, the 2 schrecks 120 for the 340 mp panzergrenadier and the okw ones 90 so i think the zooks are still ok, but i agree the price could be adjusted to 50 mun. If we look at these prices the zooks are cheaper.
7 Sep 2014, 19:49 PM
#36
avatar of Australian Magic

Posts: 4630 | Subs: 2



I had such a game not long ago but i didn't save up the replay. But still the at gun penetrated my kt trough the frontal armor without any problems. And the Zooks cost 60, the 2 schrecks 120 for the 340 mp panzergrenadier and the okw ones 90 so i think the zooks are still ok, but i agree the price could be adjusted to 50 mun. If we look at these prices the zooks are cheaper.


I guess you just forgot that bazzoka needs to be unlocked - MP+Fuel.
7 Sep 2014, 20:14 PM
#37
avatar of Casparitus

Posts: 154 | Subs: 2

I'm afraid that making the zooks cheap and good will make USF a horrible faction to play against. The sheer amount of infantry units they usually field is already a nightmare to play against. I understand that people feel like USF lacks late-game AT capabilities. Zooks however, will only give USF a bigger advantage early/mid-game.. An advantage they REALLY don't need. And as long as I can't buy shreks for my Grenadiers I don't feel the need to compare them.
7 Sep 2014, 20:26 PM
#38
avatar of Greeb

Posts: 971

I'm afraid that making the zooks cheap and good will make USF a horrible faction to play against.


The idea is making them better but expensive. Similar to schrecks, around 90 ammo.
7 Sep 2014, 20:46 PM
#39
avatar of lanciano

Posts: 210

All I think all USF need is AT mines which dont require you to tech to t2 and build a specific vehicle. Feel like they need easy access to a snare as german armour are stupidly fast with blitz or can take a huge amount of punishment and the just drive away.

I know the AT mines currently are awesome and can kill any armours engine but they seem too expensive to get with teching and vehicle cost. I feel like usf need a more spammable at mine even if it didnt do heavy engine damage.
7 Sep 2014, 21:39 PM
#40
avatar of The_Courier

Posts: 665

jump backJump back to quoted post7 Sep 2014, 12:20 PMJaigen
one or shots on a medium tank will likely vet it up instantly


Weren't you the one who kept saying veterancy shouldn't factor in unit balance?

Anyway, I think offensively the 57mm is fine, but it dies much faster than other AT guns thanks to being a 4 man squad against firepower designed to beat 6 men ones. So while it has kickass veterancy, a good opponent can decrew them quite fast. 50 cal. has the same problem.

Another problem is that bazookas just aren't reliable. They are OK against panzer 4s, anything heavier just bounces them quite easily. By comparison shrecks are a danger against anything save IS-2 and maybe KV-8, and need no research. Zooks need either a small buff, or a big one along with price increase or increase in weapon slots it takes up.

I would also be in favor of decreasing Captain fuel cost while increasing Major cost. At the moment, sinking 80 fuel in a captain is a risky move since you commit to have AT guns as your only serious AT until you spend a lot more fuel to get a Jackson, leaving you wide open to tank rushes. Decreasing Captain cost allows for a Start-57mm team that would work pretty well. It might also discourage the standard US tactic of rifles-LT-Major that you see in most games.
0 user is browsing this thread:

Ladders Top 10

  • #
    Steam Alias
    W
    L
    %
    Streak
Data provided by Relic Relic Entertainment

Replay highlight

VS
  • U.S. Forces flag cblanco ★
  • The British Forces flag 보드카 중대
  • Oberkommando West flag VonManteuffel
  • Ostheer flag Heartless Jäger
uploaded by XXxxHeartlessxxXX

Board Info

725 users are online: 725 guests
0 post in the last 24h
12 posts in the last week
26 posts in the last month
Registered members: 49851
Welcome our newest member, Eovaldis
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM