Posts: 1930
UC is trash past T1 and even then it isnt very good, they should give the AEC an 70 muni vickers on top or something AI related, make brits pay for it but make it atleast viable.
Posts: 32
UC being crappy is its own issue. The fact that the UC become obsolete the moment the british can actually repair it is a problem.
Posts: 1930
but even the UC being better still wouldnt make the AEC good, its good on paper but vs what your facing as brits at the time its never gonna be useful
Posts: 170
the AEC is what the brits should be using against an early light vehicle or tank.
The british doesn't have any tank snare and their PIAT have difficulty hitting moving vehicles, so logically the AEC is there to cover up the particular weakness.
Posts: 1063
Posts: 3
Posts: 1930
True, but a 6pounder is probably better against most light vehicles (excluding flamer 251 and luchs). This is the problem of the AEC, it's kinda like Penals in the way that its role can be performed by another unit that's better at it.
Posts: 1593 | Subs: 1
the problem with 6 pdr is the early brits have no flank protection. The USF and the OKW have heat seeking missile, and the sov and ost have tank snare. There needs to be something behind the atg capable of stopping light vehicle.
Posts: 1930
the increased accuracy doesn't really help against vehicle that got around the back.
does the unique +50% acc. affect moving vehicles too? thats a good deal for no flanking protection against fast light vehicles
Posts: 1216
Posts: 89
 |
|
|
34 | ||
 |
|
|
1450 | ||
 |
|
|
198 | ||
 |
|
|
166 | ||
 |
|
|
37 | ||
|
|
|
|
24 | ||
 |
|
|
18 | ||
|
|
|
|
10 | ||
|
|
|
|
6 | ||
 |
|
|
4 |
Relic Entertainment
cblanco ★ 
보드카 중대 
VonManteuffel 
Heartless Jäger 
