Login

russian armor

AEC Armored Car

4 Oct 2015, 19:49 PM
#21
avatar of Mr. Someguy

Posts: 4928

Just remove it and replace with some light universal vehicle like T70 or Stuart.


Yeah man the British were famous for their use of the T-70...

Will people quit whining about "remove ___" already? Why do you prefer a faction with less units, instead of buffing the unit?
4 Oct 2015, 20:15 PM
#22
avatar of Australian Magic

Posts: 4630 | Subs: 2



Yeah man the British were famous for their use of the T-70...

Will people quit whining about "remove ___" already? Why do you prefer a faction with less units, instead of buffing the unit?



LOL

Show me when I said that Brits should get T70? Waiting...

Like T70 or Stuart does not mean T70 or Stuart but something similar.
4 Oct 2015, 20:26 PM
#23
avatar of Firesparks

Posts: 1930

jump backJump back to quoted post4 Oct 2015, 12:27 PMCorsin


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...


there's more to balancing beside just making the unit's performance fit their cost. There are times when a unit needs to be scaled up or scaled down.

In this case the AEC is stuck in a position where its bad scaling doesn't justify buying it. It is awful against infantry and struggle against anything heavier than a halftrack. The british need a decent light tank destroyer to offset the weakness of the PIAT and the lack of tank snare.

If cost is such a concern, buff the AEC and make it more expensive.
4 Oct 2015, 20:40 PM
#24
avatar of Mr. Someguy

Posts: 4928

LOL

Show me when I said that Brits should get T70? Waiting...

Like T70 or Stuart does not mean T70 or Stuart but something similar.


I assure you if Relic removed the AEC they wouldn't model a different armoured car just to give it different stats, that the AEC could have had in the first place anyway.
4 Oct 2015, 21:03 PM
#25
avatar of Iron Emperor

Posts: 1653

cost reduce will do the trick probably.
4 Oct 2015, 21:35 PM
#26
avatar of Rollo

Posts: 738

I made a thread about this a few weeks back, all anyone wants to talk about is the centaur it seems. It doesn't matter if all their light vehicles are PoS.

Decrease the cost and make the snare ability vet 0 like the Stuart.
5 Oct 2015, 00:28 AM
#27
avatar of braciszek

Posts: 2053

Humber gun does exist in the game files, although the stats for it sucks.

In complete constrast to the 17 pounder archer gun in there...
5 Oct 2015, 09:16 AM
#28
avatar of Bananenheld

Posts: 1593 | Subs: 1

everytime i played against a fast AEC it did literally nothng except feed me vet. but be careful because ( alteast it "feels like") it can come out EXTREMLY quick.
5 Oct 2015, 11:04 AM
#29
avatar of vietnamabc

Posts: 1063

jump backJump back to quoted post4 Oct 2015, 12:27 PMCorsin

Its 20 fuel cheaper...

Don't forget the Unlock cost both in MP/fuel and opportunity: AEC means no Bofore and it's not like you ever need more than 1 one of them so you might need to include it too.
5 Oct 2015, 11:55 AM
#30
avatar of Zyllen

Posts: 770

Wait are people actually stupid enough to say :make this unit an early game stuart while the okw and ost at the moment are doing very badly because the allies create powerful AI LV's under 7 minutes. This is an epic fail of colossal proportions. sure buff the AT capabilities (which it doesnt need ).

5 Oct 2015, 12:00 PM
#31
avatar of Zyllen

Posts: 770



there's more to balancing beside just making the unit's performance fit their cost. There are times when a unit needs to be scaled up or scaled down.

In this case the AEC is stuck in a position where its bad scaling doesn't justify buying it. It is awful against infantry and struggle against anything heavier than a halftrack. The british need a decent light tank destroyer to offset the weakness of the PIAT and the lack of tank snare.

If cost is such a concern, buff the AEC and make it more expensive.


last time i checked the brits really dont have issue with armour. the unit is their to block a lv rush early on and flank medium tanks later.
5 Oct 2015, 12:57 PM
#32
avatar of Iron Emperor

Posts: 1653

if you calculate the tech cost into it your first AEC is more expensive than a Puma
5 Oct 2015, 20:49 PM
#33
avatar of Firesparks

Posts: 1930

jump backJump back to quoted post5 Oct 2015, 12:00 PMZyllen


last time i checked the brits really dont have issue with armour. the unit is their to block a lv rush early on and flank medium tanks later.


they do have an issue with early armor. They don't have at snare, the PIAT can't hit moving target, and the AEC die horribly to ostwind and panzer4.

Until the british get a centaur or cromwell out they are vulnerable to tanks.
5 Oct 2015, 21:20 PM
#34
avatar of 5trategos

Posts: 449

I've actually found the AEC to be very good against medium armor. Because of its sight range, it can be microed in and out of engagements or used as bait.

It can be used as light AT to extend a T1 - T2 opening for a more infantry-heavy approach.

Don't use it to harass infantry, use it to harass tanks. It's actually very good at what it does. Except for its broken vet ability.
6 Oct 2015, 00:56 AM
#35
avatar of Zyllen

Posts: 770



they do have an issue with early armor. They don't have at snare, the PIAT can't hit moving target, and the AEC die horribly to ostwind and panzer4.

Until the british get a centaur or cromwell out they are vulnerable to tanks.


No they really dont. AEC dying to p4's is really a l2p issue. you still have the AT guns and brit tech is cheaper.
6 Oct 2015, 02:10 AM
#36
avatar of Flyingsmonster

Posts: 155

I think it's in an alright place right now. It feels a lot like the Puma, light, fast and can pack a punch against medium tanks.

I don't think it needs a boost against infantry, it doesn't do much damage right now, just like the puma, but is that necessarily a bad thing? It's meant to counter 251s, Luchs, etc. not infantry.

I think the real reason it's so under-utilized right now is because people would rather just save the fuel and get out an early Centaur considering how powerful it's performing right now.
6 Oct 2015, 02:26 AM
#37
avatar of braciszek

Posts: 2053

AEC is not meant to kill PIV, especially by itself, meaning you are actually supposed to set mines and buy an at gun and tech as fast into a cromwell or whatever to keep up in the tank race.

I have tried AEC many many times, but i find it a detriment to Brit teching. Its just diversity, nothing more.
6 Oct 2015, 03:44 AM
#38
avatar of Firesparks

Posts: 1930

jump backJump back to quoted post6 Oct 2015, 00:56 AMZyllen


No they really dont. AEC dying to p4's is really a l2p issue. you still have the AT guns and brit tech is cheaper.


https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1g5csCZt9UrVnNy-k9w8DRh1F6Rzeu7hMCLXZoxSdNRk/edit#gid=0

the british can get their tank faster than the wehr if the british skip their infantry upgrade and the AEC/bofor.

AEC is not meant to kill PIV, especially by itself, meaning you are actually supposed to set mines and buy an at gun and tech as fast into a cromwell or whatever to keep up in the tank race.

I have tried AEC many many times, but i find it a detriment to Brit teching. Its just diversity, nothing more.


mines are a high risk high weapon in the early game. It's not really a reliable strategy.
6 Oct 2015, 03:46 AM
#39
avatar of Dullahan

Posts: 1384

It's fine. It's good enough against vehicles and will scare off any infantry not capable of fighting back.

I usually prefer the bofors just because I'm an emplacement hipster but the AEC has its uses.
6 Oct 2015, 06:55 AM
#40
avatar of Nuclear Arbitor
Patrion 28

Posts: 2470

skip both, tech faster. none of them are very useful in late team games, especially compared to more tanks.
1 user is browsing this thread: 1 guest

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

591 users are online: 1 member and 590 guests
SneakEye
0 post in the last 24h
5 posts in the last week
33 posts in the last month
Registered members: 49183
Welcome our newest member, pawcoeq85
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM