Login

russian armor

USF Bazooka thoughts?

17 Sep 2015, 05:20 AM
#21
avatar of wongtp

Posts: 647

increase their rear armour damage x1.50, rear armour pen to 300 and keep them holstered so rifles/capt wont lose their anti infantry power. fits nicely into their army versatility theme.

these things need a buff, but giving them increased front armor pen will only encourage bazooka spam and walking ball of tank doom.

with this change, they can still remain effective against infantry but not over the top as they cannot equip bars/lmg and become powerful AT support against charging tanks who expose their rear to them.
17 Sep 2015, 05:30 AM
#22
avatar of The Big Red 1

Posts: 758

jump backJump back to quoted post17 Sep 2015, 05:20 AMwongtp
increase their rear armour damage x1.50, rear armour pen to 300 and keep them holstered so rifles/capt wont lose their anti infantry power. fits nicely into their army versatility theme.

these things need a buff, but giving them increased front armor pen will only encourage bazooka spam and walking ball of tank doom.

with this change, they can still remain effective against infantry but not over the top as they cannot equip bars/lmg and become powerful AT support against charging tanks who expose their rear to them.

that sounds like a good idea having infantry stow away bazookas and being able to do moar dmg from the rear since USF at the moment lacks any form of versatility.
17 Sep 2015, 07:19 AM
#23
avatar of CadianGuardsman

Posts: 348

I'm cautious, I don't want to see the cancerous Inf AT weapon spam becoming prevalent for the USF... especially when they have snares.
17 Sep 2015, 07:35 AM
#24
avatar of wongtp

Posts: 647

I'm cautious, I don't want to see the cancerous Inf AT weapon spam becoming prevalent for the USF... especially when they have snares.


not really, you lose ability to get bars and real anti infantry weapons, they are still stock rifles, cept now they are still pretty usable in a fight. if spammed, they arent still the best weapons to take tanks on frontally, since most shots will bounce on front armour.

what it does is only prevent tanks from running over them or AT guns, thinking that they can just nascar in and get some free kills. this actually gives good synergy to jacksons/shermans and a real fighting chance against panthers/tigers, where tigers are getting buffed in the next patch.
17 Sep 2015, 08:09 AM
#25
avatar of Omega_Warrior

Posts: 2561

The problem to me has always been that they become a liability after P4s stop being built.

If you look at schreks, they are highly effective vs almost anything the allies have. The only exceptions being the tanky heavies like the IS-2, KV-1, and churchills. And there is literally no tanks that the USF can field that aren't heavily threatened by schreks.

But zooks lose absolutely all relevancy in the late game vs Tigers, Panther, and heavy TDs which make up the majority of axis late game. Hell, they even have difficulty with standard P4s. By the late game they just end up reducing DPS on your rifles.


I'm fine with heavies like the Tigers being pretty much unninfected by them given that that's their purpose, but perhaps we can use target tables to give them a little bit more pen vs Panthers and the heavy TDs so they still retain some usage in the late game.
17 Sep 2015, 09:12 AM
#26
avatar of eebies

Posts: 67

Buffing the bazooka doesn't really address the core issue with the USF-- it's treating the symptom rather than the disease. Nobody is sitting arguing that the PIAT needs buffs because there's no other possible way for the British to deal with German armor.

The core issue is that the USF has dismal crew-served AT. Bazookas would be excellent as an early stopgap measure for dealing with Pumas, 222s, 251s, or 251/17s that either get caught out of position or that get a bit too brave. But that's all really: a stopgap complementary piece for the fact that the USF has to tech T3 to get the 57mm.

It's just that the 57mm is so awful. When tanks can blitz in and shrug off rounds then proceed to maraud around because you couldn't pop off AP rounds quickly enough to give it penetration at any range other than near that still doesn't have the penetration of the QF 6-pdr, there is a serious issue with your AT capabilities.

17 Sep 2015, 09:36 AM
#27
avatar of RiCE

Posts: 284

I think zooks are fine for 50MU.

Also Relic decided to decrease its price, instead of buffing the weapon itself. I dont think it fits into USF design to run with powerfull bazookas.

Also UKF and the heavy limit indeed made axis players rely more on cheaper medium tanks like stug and P4 instead of Tigers. These things were kinda indirect buff to bazookas.
17 Sep 2015, 09:49 AM
#28
avatar of Mr. Someguy

Posts: 4928

Bazookas were encouraged to be used at close range as defensive weapons during armour rushes, so I'd dramatically increase the close range penetration and increase damage to 100.
17 Sep 2015, 13:02 PM
#29
avatar of Nabarxos

Posts: 392

Bazookas were encouraged to be used at close range as defensive weapons during armour rushes, so I'd dramatically increase the close range penetration and increase damage to 100.


that would be really nice and also help protect AT guns from tank rushes

1+
17 Sep 2015, 13:18 PM
#30
avatar of SirRaven of Coventry

Posts: 167

Permanently Banned
Yeah lets just wait how this patch plays out.
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

481 users are online: 481 guests
1 post in the last 24h
7 posts in the last week
39 posts in the last month
Registered members: 49062
Welcome our newest member, Mclatc16
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM