Rethinking PIATs

Jump back to quoted post29 Oct 2015, 16:42 PMdaspoulos

Its like trying to buff a sword to keep up with machine guns. Piats were terrible awful weapons. You're lucky they are as good as they are now for what they cost. They aren't for assaulting but defending.

Jump back to quoted post29 Oct 2015, 18:53 PMArclyte

its a video game

Jump back to quoted post29 Oct 2015, 19:08 PMdaspoulos

lets give t70 stats of a king tiger? I mean its a video game. Common sense shouldnt translate right?

Jump back to quoted post29 Oct 2015, 15:02 PMMittens

Why make one player micro and the other not have to micro cuz his units are simply better and dont require the same amount of micro?

Jump back to quoted post29 Oct 2015, 15:02 PMMittens

Why make one player micro and the other not have to micro cuz his units are simply better and dont require the same amount of micro?
if this is your logic you should have to attack ground shreks

Jump back to quoted post29 Oct 2015, 15:03 PMThe_rEd_bEar

Because there is no skill about it, its more of an unfair handicap, because other factions don't have to use attack ground.

Jump back to quoted post29 Oct 2015, 19:49 PMferwiner

You dont understand guys. I mean it should be better than shreck when used correctly but worse than shreck when not microed. That way its fair and also unique. Units performing too good when idle is exactly why we have the ISG crap all aroung us so you should understand now.

Jump back to quoted post29 Oct 2015, 17:50 PMsalandtwig

'A contemporary (1944–45) Canadian Army survey questioned 161 army officers, who had recently left combat, about the effectiveness of 31 different infantry weapons, in that survey the PIAT was ranked the number one most “outstandlingly effective” weapon, followed by the Bren gun in second place'

^ Library and Archives Canada, Record Group 24, Battle Experience Questionnaires, Vol. 10,450, Weekly Reports, Canadian Small Arms Liaison Officer Overseas, 1941-1945, C-5167