Should PTRS be stronger?
5 Mar 2015, 18:48 PM
#1
Posts: 137
Do you think the PTRS need to be stronger?
5 Mar 2015, 18:49 PM
#2
Posts: 1702
I do think that a damage buff from 40 to 60 would be good.
5 Mar 2015, 18:50 PM
#3
Posts: 1484
No brainer question, off course
 | Playercard of WingZero | |||||||||||||||
|
5 Mar 2015, 18:53 PM
#4
4 
Posts: 4301 | Subs: 2
i wouldnt mind its AT strength stay the same if its AI gets improved. would justify its sucky AT in that way and the tank hunter commander for sov would be much more appealing for me.
| Playercard of Bo-Bobby Lion | |||||||||||||||
|
5 Mar 2015, 18:53 PM
#5
Posts: 670
I do think that a damage buff from 40 to 60 would be good.
Why increase the damage when it's still shit against anything bigger than a halftrack.
Increase pen at least.
I myself bought 14 OKW factions during a Steam sale last year for alt accounts
5 Mar 2015, 18:54 PM
#6
Posts: 2053
The PTRS should not exist. Fighting late war tanks with an outdated early war weapon is silly.
The range advantage of an AT rifle over a rocket launcher is exemplified with 5 extra range MVGame
The range advantage of an AT rifle over a rocket launcher is exemplified with 5 extra range MVGame
5 Mar 2015, 18:55 PM
#7
Posts: 4951 | Subs: 1
The PTRS being able to pierce cover would be cool
5 Mar 2015, 18:59 PM
#8
Posts: 627
Make it not droppable (no more pinata party guards), up its RoF considerably, stop guards dancing and fire the damn thing, and make its scatter vastly smaller so that misses against infantry will smash cover.
Suddenly, PTRS is almost useful.
Guards will still suck, though. DP's suck, button sucks, guards suck.
Suddenly, PTRS is almost useful.
Guards will still suck, though. DP's suck, button sucks, guards suck.
5 Mar 2015, 19:02 PM
#9
Posts: 1702
Make it not droppable (no more pinata party guards), up its RoF considerably, stop guards dancing and fire the damn thing, and make its scatter vastly smaller so that misses against infantry will smash cover.
Suddenly, PTRS is almost useful.
Guards will still suck, though. DP's suck, button sucks, guards suck.
Lol dude gaurds not being able to drop the PTRS would be terrible. Infact, one key strat when working with gaurds is letting them go down to 1 man, and hoping they drop their PTRS. You can merge them with cons later so the MP bleed isint so hard.
Gaurds with 4 mosins and 2x dp-28 become really good. Infact they beat every single ostheer and OKW infantry par obers if they lose both of their PTRS.
Another option would be to give gaurds a 30 muni upgrade that loses their PTRS.
5 Mar 2015, 19:06 PM
#10
4 Posts: 4301 | Subs: 2
...
Another option would be to give gaurds a 30 muni upgrade that loses their PTRS.
lol. maybe 30 muni to trade PTRSs for DPs.
| Playercard of Bo-Bobby Lion | |||||||||||||||
|
5 Mar 2015, 19:08 PM
#11
Posts: 2053
Another option would be to give gaurds a 30 muni upgrade that loses their PTRS.
To bribe Stafkeh for throwing such "precious" weapons only reserved for elite forces.
... Wait... Worst AT weapon and worst LMG is only reserved for elite infantry while every USF soldier can carry anything he wants... Soviet Russia, Soviet Russia, Soviet Russia...
5 Mar 2015, 19:18 PM
#12
Posts: 655
Permanently BannedThe only problem I'd see with a PTRS/Guards buff is that Guards can easily be spammed out, and I remember back when Guards/Snipers meta was real as fuck.
That said, I think the PTRS needs some kind of improvement, perhaps a range buff, so it can hit targets a bit outside it's normal sight radius easily.
That said, I think the PTRS needs some kind of improvement, perhaps a range buff, so it can hit targets a bit outside it's normal sight radius easily.
A Fallen Scrub
5 Mar 2015, 19:19 PM
#13
Posts: 204
PTSR are great in numbers, and the tank hunter ones for cons are great. the reason for this is as stated above the cons don't dance with the weapon, and there are 3 of them in the squad. Other then an faster aim time and little AP increase to better deal with med and heavy asses the PTSR doesn't need much help.
The Guard squad on the other hand needs all the help it can get. Like, having either PTRS or DPS, and more PTRS if they do. They should also stop trying to dance with the dam thing. Them russian men cant dance.
Gaurds
100 Munitions for 4 PTRS
120 Munitions for 4 DPS
The Guard squad on the other hand needs all the help it can get. Like, having either PTRS or DPS, and more PTRS if they do. They should also stop trying to dance with the dam thing. Them russian men cant dance.
Gaurds
100 Munitions for 4 PTRS
120 Munitions for 4 DPS
5 Mar 2015, 19:21 PM
#14
Posts: 204
The only problem I'd see with a PTRS/Guards buff is that Guards can easily be spammed out, and I remember back when Guards/Snipers meta was real as fuck.
That said, I think the PTRS needs some kind of improvement, perhaps a range buff, so it can hit targets a bit outside it's normal sight radius easily.
Cant be any worse then the Volk sherk, no matter how you look at it. But, i would stay if the PTRS get a buff the guards should have to pay for it. Far is far, and on the whole i think it would make the unit better if they had the option to not buy the PTSR.
5 Mar 2015, 19:27 PM
#15
Posts: 2053
Guards COULD probably holster the crappy PTRS and pull out mosins using their strong soviet backs (as sturms do with minesweeper + stg44 as well as musclemen rangers). At the very least if the gun remains as a a holy relic instrumental for the Slavic rain dance.
5 Mar 2015, 19:29 PM
#16
Posts: 204
Dose anyone know what other hand held AT weapon the soviets used later in the war?
5 Mar 2015, 19:41 PM
#17
Posts: 627
Dose anyone know what other hand held AT weapon the soviets used later in the war?
Soviets got lease lend PIATs, zooks and captured shrecks, but general sentiment through the army as historians record is they were not much loved.
Soviet army tactics based themselves around a few core elements. Vast amounts of automatic weaponry, large numbers of men, and grenades. So ignoring that fact that the most automatic weapon equipped army in all of WWII isn't allowed a single sodding PPSH unless it's doctrinal, for a moment; soviets used grenades.
AT grenades in the real world were vastly more dangerous than they currently are in CoH2, which means soviet handheald AT is gimped because of 'design choices' that have little to nothing to do with the reality of the weapons. Even molotovs were terrifying anti tank weapons if used right. Soviets have a preference for close quarters infantry used to clear tanks, and they're not allowed it in game, because Krupp 2 Stronk.
We're also not allowed side armour because that would make german tanks worse but soviet ones mostly exactly the same. 2 Krupp 2 Furious.
5 Mar 2015, 19:43 PM
#18
Posts: 4951 | Subs: 1
Just make it so it shoots through cover and Guards actually try and fire it.
5 Mar 2015, 19:43 PM
#19
Posts: 1702
Dose anyone know what other hand held AT weapon the soviets used later in the war?
The soviets mostly scrapped the anti tank infantry concept later in the war. After examining the panzershreck, they deemed that it was an "innefective weapon" againts tanks and didin't really do much. They used some lend lease bazookas, though.
5 Mar 2015, 19:44 PM
#20
Posts: 4951 | Subs: 1
You don't need hand held infantry AT when you have 100 AT guns for every armored vehicle the enemy has.
EDIT: Hand held AT was deemed "inefficient" not "ineffective"
EDIT: Hand held AT was deemed "inefficient" not "ineffective"
1 user is browsing this thread:
1 guest
Livestreams
 |
|
|
75 | ||
 |
|
|
55 | ||
|
|
|
|
48 | ||
|
|
|
|
13 | ||
|
|
|
|
7 | ||
|
|
|
|
27 | ||
|
|
|
|
10 | ||
 |
|
|
8 | ||
|
|
|
|
2 | ||
|
|
|
|
2 |
Ladders Top 10
-
#Steam AliasWL%Streak
- 1.831222.789+37
- 2.611220.735+5
- 3.34957.860+14
- 4.1110614.644+11
- 5.276108.719+27
- 6.306114.729+2
- 7.916405.693-2
- 8.262137.657+3
- 9.722440.621+4
- 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
1236
Board Info
840 users are online:
840 guests
0 post in the last 24h
7 posts in the last week
34 posts in the last month
7 posts in the last week
34 posts in the last month
Registered members: 49120
Welcome our newest member, truvioll94
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM
Welcome our newest member, truvioll94
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM