AEC Armored Car
4 Oct 2015, 10:31 AM
#1
Posts: 170
Costs substantially more than puma, has less speed and acceleration, less infantry dps due to bad coaxial mg, less range, less pen, all the while being an optional upgrade which should be stronger than a basic unit. The only thing it is possibly good at is killing overextended flak HT and flamer 251, and an at gun does that better.
4 Oct 2015, 10:48 AM
#2
Posts: 473
Permanently BannedI don't know. I rather have Centaurs and commandos fixed first..
Whenever I face USF as OKW, it feels like I have been strapped down into a mental hospital wheelchair, with legs that can't reach the floor to move myself forward and a nurse is trying to move the wheelchair backwards whilst I have to race a formula one car for a best of three laps.
It feels handicapped from the start
No thumbs, cute and a lot of furry fluffiness, I am the ultimate kitten and by the heavens, am I angry!
It feels handicapped from the start
No thumbs, cute and a lot of furry fluffiness, I am the ultimate kitten and by the heavens, am I angry!
4 Oct 2015, 11:13 AM
#3
Posts: 1930
the AEC shouldn't get more accuracy against infantry. The ost are likely to be in the t2 stage while the AEC shows up and will be helpless against an anti-infantry AEC.
For anti-infantry duty the british already have the universal carrier with its wasp and vicker upgrade. Design wise the british doesn't need another light vehicle for anti-infantry purpose. If you want a light vehicle for hunting infantry, you should be getting the UC and upgrade it. I do think the Wasp is vastly overpriced at the moment but that's its own issue.
lastly, the AEC serve as the british' main light vehicle hunter. The tommies lack a reliable tank snare and the PIAT can't hit moving vehicle. Therefore, the AEC and the bofor need to be strong enough to protect the flanks against rushing tank. The aec need the range to fight the puma, ostwind, and pziv while the british get their cromwell on the field.
For anti-infantry duty the british already have the universal carrier with its wasp and vicker upgrade. Design wise the british doesn't need another light vehicle for anti-infantry purpose. If you want a light vehicle for hunting infantry, you should be getting the UC and upgrade it. I do think the Wasp is vastly overpriced at the moment but that's its own issue.
lastly, the AEC serve as the british' main light vehicle hunter. The tommies lack a reliable tank snare and the PIAT can't hit moving vehicle. Therefore, the AEC and the bofor need to be strong enough to protect the flanks against rushing tank. The aec need the range to fight the puma, ostwind, and pziv while the british get their cromwell on the field.
4 Oct 2015, 11:39 AM
#4
Posts: 824
The AEC doesn't cost more than the Puma, it is 5 fuel cheaper if I recall. As for performance it could use some mroe range to fight vehicles better.
Youtube Streaming: https://www.youtube.com/@broodwarjc1517/streams
4 Oct 2015, 11:59 AM
#5
Posts: 270 | Subs: 1
The AEC is a decent unit with it's vet 1 ability and smoke that lets it scale decently, + it's a good command vehicle to designate when the Cromwell comes out.
It's just that no one buys because it uses precious fuel that you need for the Centaur rush
It's just that no one buys because it uses precious fuel that you need for the Centaur rush
4 Oct 2015, 12:06 PM
#6
1 
Posts: 641 | Subs: 1
yes pls more threads like this so relic can do another overbuff again.
ketetof shudnt b allaud tew tawlk abowt balence hee s biasd
4 Oct 2015, 12:24 PM
#7
Posts: 4630 | Subs: 2
Just remove it and replace with some light universal vehicle like T70 or Stuart.
It's useless and looks awful.
It's useless and looks awful.
4 Oct 2015, 12:25 PM
#8
Posts: 482
we have many other issues to be solved,pls don't buff or nerf units which haven't broken.
 | Playercard of ATOUBA | |||||||
|
4 Oct 2015, 12:27 PM
#9
Posts: 600
Costs substantially more than puma, has less speed and acceleration, less infantry dps due to bad coaxial mg, less range, less pen, all the while being an optional upgrade which should be stronger than a basic unit. The only thing it is possibly good at is killing overextended flak HT and flamer 251, and an at gun does that better.
What are you talking about? The AEC is 50 fuel... the Puma is 70 fuel on a fuel starved faction... Its fine.
The AEC doesn't cost more than the Puma, it is 5 fuel cheaper if I recall. As for performance it could use some mroe range to fight vehicles better.
Its 20 fuel cheaper...
4 Oct 2015, 13:03 PM
#10
Posts: 276
That ugly thing should be replaced.
It´s not that bad at its job, but it´s just so ugly. It´s the only vehicle I don´t build because I don´t want to see something that ugly under my command
It´s not that bad at its job, but it´s just so ugly. It´s the only vehicle I don´t build because I don´t want to see something that ugly under my command
Hug me, I am german 
4 Oct 2015, 13:17 PM
#11
Posts: 393
Sigh... Seriously, what's with some people trying to remove stuff from the game? Ah well, I doubt it's going to happen anyway.
I do agree that the AEC is rather lackluster. I would like it better if it's vet 1 ability actually worked 100% of the time and not ignore my order to use it every once in a while. That and maybe a minor decrease in build time. It bloody takes forever for what it does!
If it came out faster, it would make up for the fact it costs, in Manpower, the same as a Cromwell. Why would I want an AEC if I can get a Cromwell in what feels like the same amount of time?
Off topic but... If we want to look at what tanks should get more anti-infantry capability, I vote for the Valentine to get it. Supposedly, it's good against infantry but quite frankly, I don't see it. Other than the smoke screen, bad tank overall.
I do agree that the AEC is rather lackluster. I would like it better if it's vet 1 ability actually worked 100% of the time and not ignore my order to use it every once in a while. That and maybe a minor decrease in build time. It bloody takes forever for what it does!
If it came out faster, it would make up for the fact it costs, in Manpower, the same as a Cromwell. Why would I want an AEC if I can get a Cromwell in what feels like the same amount of time?
Off topic but... If we want to look at what tanks should get more anti-infantry capability, I vote for the Valentine to get it. Supposedly, it's good against infantry but quite frankly, I don't see it. Other than the smoke screen, bad tank overall.
4 Oct 2015, 14:09 PM
#12
Posts: 170
What are you talking about? The AEC is 50 fuel... the Puma is 70 fuel on a fuel starved faction... Its fine.
Its 20 fuel cheaper...
And the AEC costs 120 MP more than Puma on a manpower starved faction.
20 fuel doesn't really justify the massive difference there is between them.
4 Oct 2015, 14:13 PM
#13
Posts: 275 | Subs: 1
At first I tried to use AEK, but gradually scored this. Now i'm just trying to survive until the Centaur arrives.
AEK has slowly turns housing and tower. He has no armor. Its effectiveness against infantry is low. The effectiveness cannon against medium tanks low too. TWP is triggered with a delay. Firing range usual.
Actually at AEK has two advantages - fast timing and smoke. It's not enough to spend a lot of resources on this armored car.
AEK like Puma but worse. More disadvantages and you need special tech for them.
AEK has slowly turns housing and tower. He has no armor. Its effectiveness against infantry is low. The effectiveness cannon against medium tanks low too. TWP is triggered with a delay. Firing range usual.
Actually at AEK has two advantages - fast timing and smoke. It's not enough to spend a lot of resources on this armored car.
AEK like Puma but worse. More disadvantages and you need special tech for them.
Victory needs no explanation, defeat allows none
4 Oct 2015, 14:31 PM
#14
Posts: 64
What are you talking about? The AEC is 50 fuel... the Puma is 70 fuel on a fuel starved faction... Its fine.
AEC 340 mp (+70 to puma) for a mp starved faction...
4 Oct 2015, 14:53 PM
#15
Posts: 600
And the AEC costs 120 MP more than Puma on a manpower starved faction.
20 fuel doesn't really justify the massive difference there is between them.
Yes it does. OKW need more manpower to even come close to being a viable faction.
AEC can also cripple shot without needing vet 1.
Choosing the AEC denies you bofors... choosing puma denies you medic truck and a 3rd of the OKW tech tree (for a time). Making it more of an "All-in" option.
AEC 340 mp (+70 to puma) for a mp starved faction...
By that logic the OKW P4, Puma, Panther and Ostwind should be cheaper in terms of fuel to make up the starvation difference.
Different factions have different weaknesses... UKF is MP OKW is Fuel. Both are fine(ish) could use some tweaking ect, but thats how theyre designed.
4 Oct 2015, 15:54 PM
#16
Posts: 824
What are you talking about? The AEC is 50 fuel... the Puma is 70 fuel on a fuel starved faction... Its fine.
Its 20 fuel cheaper...
Isn't the tech for it 15 fuel? The only reason I would include the tech cost, is that the tech ONLY unlocks the AEC it doesn't do anything else.
Youtube Streaming: https://www.youtube.com/@broodwarjc1517/streams
4 Oct 2015, 15:56 PM
#17
Posts: 600
Isn't the tech for it 15 fuel? The only reason I would include the tech cost, is that the tech ONLY unlocks the AEC it doesn't do anything else.
It is yeah. But thats to stall it a little... i mean the thing is already on the field around the time 222's are.
4 Oct 2015, 16:18 PM
#18
Posts: 170
Yes it does. OKW need more manpower to even come close to being a viable faction.
AEC can also cripple shot without needing vet 1.
Choosing the AEC denies you bofors... choosing puma denies you medic truck and a 3rd of the OKW tech tree (for a time). Making it more of an "All-in" option.
As I stated in the threadpost, puma is better at everything except 20 fuel cost, and okw trucks are another problem. You also get the potent (although slightly underperforming) flak HT and the best rocket artillery piece in the game with Mech HQ, not to mention resource conversion. It was designed as an all-in option from WFA launch I believe, and its early game performance is overshadowed just by the sheer power of the ISG. I also can't really see how a weak AEC can fix OKW's problems with manpower/viability.
you need vet1 for crippling shot btw.
4 Oct 2015, 16:58 PM
#19
Posts: 1439
I'd find some use for it from time to time, problem is, a Bofor is a much better investment most of the time.
4 Oct 2015, 17:53 PM
#20
1 Posts: 412
Costs substantially more than puma, has less speed and acceleration, less infantry dps due to bad coaxial mg, less range, less pen, all the while being an optional upgrade which should be stronger than a basic unit. The only thing it is possibly good at is killing overextended flak HT and flamer 251, and an at gun does that better.
It does not cost more than a puma...
1 user is browsing this thread:
1 guest
Livestreams
 |
|
|
26 | ||
|
|
|
|
14 | ||
 |
|
|
131 | ||
|
|
|
|
16 | ||
|
|
|
|
5 | ||
 |
|
|
4 | ||
|
|
|
|
1 | ||
 |
|
|
1 | ||
|
|
|
|
1 | ||
 |
|
|
1 |
Ladders Top 10
-
#Steam AliasWL%Streak
- 1.831222.789+37
- 2.34957.860+14
- 3.589215.733+4
- 4.1101614.642+2
- 5.305114.728+1
- 6.916405.693-2
- 7.271108.715+22
- 8.721440.621+3
- 9.1041674.607-2
- 10.17146.788+1
Data provided by
Relic Entertainment
Relic Entertainment
Replay highlight
VS
-
cblanco ★ -
보드카 중대
-
VonManteuffel -
Heartless Jäger
Einhoven Country
Honor it
9
Download
1231
Board Info
840 users are online:
840 guests
1 post in the last 24h
8 posts in the last week
38 posts in the last month
8 posts in the last week
38 posts in the last month
Registered members: 49082
Welcome our newest member, 23winlocker
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM
Welcome our newest member, 23winlocker
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM