The real issues with UKF Armor. (makes ATG useless)

Why do the medium tanks have so small target size?This will make them harder to hit by AT guns.

I believe that's the intention. Their small target size contribute to their survivability. This is just complaining that the british tank can actually last more than 10 second in combat, unlike the t34 76 and even 75mm sherman. The jackson have size 24 and the jpz4 have size 17, and it's one of the biggest factor in the difference between their survivability.

Raise the price of the cromwell or nerf the gun if necessary, but the cromwell's small size allow it to actually fight the german and not die horribly.

stuff like the halftrack and 222 should be a bit smaller.

2)Comet is the only tank in the game that has a commander that make it vet faster and bulletin to further make it vet faster so the same logic does not apply to all units...

"Tank Commander does not increase vet gain by 20%, it makes the unit worth 20% less EXP when fired upon."

The tank commander less exp is bug and not the intention in game description indicated that the units (Cromwell and Comet) vets faster...with a 25 MU upgrade you get 4 different bonuses...

Allied tanks are harder to hit, axis tanks have more armor.

The soviet/USF medium tanks have the proper target size. In fact only the brits centaur and cromwell are the exceptions. Not only Axis tanks but all of the tanks have more armor just for their cost.

I believe that's the intention. Their small target size contribute to their survivability. This is just complaining that the british tank can actually last more than 10 second in combat, unlike the t34 76 and even 75mm sherman. The jackson have size 24 and the jpz4 have size 17, and it's one of the biggest factor in the difference between their survivability.

Raise the price of the cromwell or nerf the gun if necessary, but the cromwell's small size allow it to actually fight the german and not die horribly.

stuff like the halftrack and 222 should be a bit smaller.

Agreed.

I just find the brits have so many privileges for the same price compared to other factions. Just like the target size of medium tanks, the 6 pounder AT guns and the previous Centaur,etc.Totally unfair...

The Patch changes did very little regarding UKF tanks VS ATGs.

Centaur can still attack move and kill a R.W. with easy and a Pak40, faster than dedicated assault armor like dozer and brumabar I might add...

Crocs will still deny R.W. a chance to retreat (while the also deny garrison).

Things remain pretty bad for R.W. that theoretically "depends" on its abilities to survive (cloak, garrison, retreat) and all of them are almost useless due to UKF armor abilities (tank commander detection, W.P. smoke, flamers, grenades).

The only solid counter to UKF faction remain stugs and JP leaving axis infantries to straggle against double brens, double vickers and commandos.

Imo UKF armor should have less/ weaker option against axis ATGs.

ATG's are not meant to be effective in isolation, 1v1 any tank beats any at gun in the game, no questions asked.

The whole point is that with combined arms atguns add long range hard hitting anti tank power to your army.

My experience does admittedly come from team games not 1v1 BUT, i have found brit armour unable to deal with axis heavy armour, chrchill is ofc a beast, but the gun doesnt hit, comet is good, but cant slug it out when flanking isnt an option, cromwell is a lovely tank but again doesnt have the ability to slug it out like axis tanks. So i support my tanks with at guns, all of a sudden the same tanks i couldnt deal with before, i now can with combined arms.

Why cant you support your at guns with tanks and infantry? if the brit armour is focusing the at guns the rest of your units should be dishing out the dmg, its not like axis armour is incapable of this. And abilities like the grenade, the brit player has to massively sacrifice positioning to use it, while is moving up you cant dmg it with armour of your own? while its close you cant faust it so it cant escape? a well placed mine?

If you have no support ready for ur antitank gun, surely you made the mistake and now your being punished for it? that seems fine to me

The AT guns should add another antitank element to your varied army makeup, that gives the other player another thing they have to deal with. It shouldnt be the case that you simply build a mp only antitank weapon and thats it, armour countered.

ATG's are not meant to be effective in isolation, 1v1 any tank beats any at gun in the game, no questions asked.

That is quite the statement you make here.

That is quite the statement you make here.

Thats kind of common sense.

Single shreck can't even kill M20 unless garrisoned.
Single ATG isn't a counter, but a deterrent.

If you don't have supporting unit, be it handheld AT, AT snare or another ATG, then a single ATG won't counter anything above 320hp unless user fucks up and will be countered in return.

Thats kind of common sense.

Single shreck can't even kill M20 unless garrisoned.
Single ATG isn't a counter, but a deterrent.

If you don't have supporting unit, be it handheld AT, AT snare or another ATG, then a single ATG won't counter anything above 320hp unless user fucks up and will be countered in return.

I have had many t34-76s that simply died when trying to fight a well micro'ed pak 40 with target weak point. Though I do agree with what you say here.

Katitof
"Single ATG isn't a counter, but a deterrent."

Well it is not even a deterrent. A centaur can attack move on R.W. and kill it in in 2 bursts...A comet can use W.P., out of the range of the ATGs, and kill it...

Heavy specialized assault tanks like the brumbar and dozer are currently worse at killing atgs than Centaur is killing R.W..

The "NahVW Grenade" (a vet 1 ability) does almost no damage while the free grenade of the UKF tanks obliterates ATGs...

UKF have some of the most cost efficient tanks and that is fine, they do not need on top of that to be so effective against atgs.

Kleft

A tank can flank a ATG a win, on the other hand a normal tank, should not be able to A-move on an ATG and destroy it at range 35 as Centaur does to a R.W.

Read the original post and you will understand what I am talking about.

I have read your original post, i still dont understand why its not possible for you to punish a centaur walking face first into an R.W. as owk you have easy access to volks schreks, RW are pretty cheap, get two and work them in a pair, and if you have a jgp4 or any medium tank that centaur is face checking then the centuar is dead. Its slow and has not that much HP.

I mean its not like a centaur is gonna surprise you when it comes out, it cant come that early, and its a popular unit, just be ready for it!

And things like the avre have counterparts (sturmtiger) and also come out even later, so you should by then have a good mix of units that can be used to counter it.

Cant talk for croc cos i dont have that doctrine, but liek the avre its late game and with recent hp nerf i dont see why you cant punish it just face checking your defenses.

The tank commander less exp is bug and not the intention in game description indicated that the units (Cromwell and Comet) vets faster...with a 25 MU upgrade you get 4 different bonuses...

Unit description is useless flavor. Till it get's fixed, you can't complain they are vetting faster (through upgrades), when they are not doing so.

That is quite the statement you make here.

lone atg = dead atg. everything from the 6 pdr to the pak is dead is it's left lone. Ironically the Raketen is probably the best in this regard if it can hide and retreat.

The Patch changes did very little regarding UKF tanks VS ATGs.

Centaur can still attack move and kill a R.W. with easy and a Pak40, faster than dedicated assault armor like dozer and brumabar I might add...

Crocs will still deny R.W. a chance to retreat (while the also deny garrison).

Things remain pretty bad for R.W. that theoretically "depends" on its abilities to survive (cloak, garrison, retreat) and all of them are almost useless due to UKF armor abilities (tank commander detection, W.P. smoke, flamers, grenades).

The only solid counter to UKF faction remain stugs and JP leaving axis infantries to straggle against double brens, double vickers and commandos.

Imo UKF armor should have less/ weaker option against axis ATGs.

Raketen have the life expectancy of weak tissue paper under fire. that's why it's cheaper, have cloak, and can retreat.

@Jackiebrown

What it comes down is that UKF Armor will continue to have their stat nerfed, while it not actually, the stat that create the problem but a number of abilities and other factors that make ATGs not a valid option and leave Stugs and JPs the only solid counter to British armour.

Nearly any UKF tank can attack 1 ATG and kill it with more ease than a Brummbar or Sherman dozer and some of them can attack 2 and survive while killing at least 1 of them.


The argument that faction X was o.p. so now it has to be u.p. holds absolutely no water.

I play all faction and modes and currently I am higher with UKF that any other faction (in the top 50 in some modes)...So I am not actually the one that has to learn and adapt but my opponents...

My personal skill thou has absolutely nothing to do with the efficiency that UKF armor has to deal with ATGs...

PLS lets try to avoid flame wars...

Any tank should be able to handle a lone ATG that is unsupported no problem. 2 or more ATG guns with support or one ATG with supporting AT infantry and/or tanks is what you need, it is common sense. People do need to learn and adapt when it comes to countering tanks with AT guns, going lone wolf and not supporting them with infantry and/or tanks are supposed to get beat by a well microed tank, no matter what faction.

Kleft
"why its not possible for you to punish a centaur walking face first into an R.W. as owk you have easy access to volks schreks,"

PLS don't make it personal it is not what I can do, it is about what units should be able to do or not.

So if in your opinion centaur if performing as it should you would not object in giving Ostwind a similar performance by increasing its damage against heavy from 0.5 to 1 and removing the projectile so it does not collide with world objects...

The tanks that are meant to frontally attack ATGs are heavy assault tanks like the dozer and Brumabar and a unit like Centaur should not be better then those units in their given task.


elchino7
"...you can't complain they are vetting faster (through upgrades), when they are not doing so."

I am not, I am simply pointing out that "tank commander" (especially hammer ones) is an extremely cost efficient upgrade giving bonuses that are over the top for UKF tanks. RW are straggling against UKF so detection radius is an over top bonus.

Firesparks

"...it's cheaper, have cloak, and can retreat."

I's price is the same with 57mm and only 10 MP cheaper than the 6-poundern, and most of the bonuses it has work only in theory.
Cloak makes its slow reaction time even slower and is negated by UKF commander detection radius. Retreat usually ends with a dead RW since by the time the crew decided to turn the weapon they are all dead.

Generally it is a very inconstant weapon, if one manages to get it to vet 3 it overperforms until then it is pretty bad...

Jackiebrown
"going lone wolf and not supporting them with infantry and/or tanks are supposed to get beat by a well microed tank, no matter what faction."

A well microed tank may or may not be supposed to beat an ATG, but I am not talking about that I am talking about A moving a Centaur on RW (even a pak that does has a better chance)and simply killing it...

Sorry, i did not mean to make it personal, what i really meant when i said "you" was any OKW player.

I suppose my point is, while the Centaur has the ability to clear an AT gun crew in a frontal attack, it does NOT have the ability to escape again afterwards, or rather, its very open to being finished off if it is used in this way.

To compare to the Ostwind, the Ostwind does not have the ability to clear an AT gun in a frontal assault as easily, but it does have the ability to not be slow as fuck.

Kleft

Not sure what we are arguing here. I proposed that Centaur should come in line with other tanks and have 0.5 modifier when firing on heavy cover.

Do you actually think that is should perform twice a good as other tanks against heavy cover?
If so can you support it with arguments?

Kleft
"the Ostwind does not have the ability to clear an AT gun in a frontal assault as easily,"

An ostwind attacking a ATG frontally will not have a harder time clearing it, it will simply die.

Not sure what we are arguing here. I proposed that Centaur should come in line with other tanks and have 0.5 modifier when firing on heavy cover.

Do you actually think that is should perform twice a good as other tanks against heavy cover?
If so can you support it with arguments?

Why shouldn't it have more damage than a tank of a comparable role, considering its utterly terrible mobility in comparison?

Slow and heavy hitting vs fast and light hitting is an absolutely classic paradigm in games.

Each has its own advantages and disadvantages, and as a result your approach to dealing with them should be different.