The AEC needs a buff

Jump back to quoted post4 Dec 2015, 11:30 AMCarlos Danger

Nobody buys Pumas against Brits. Luchs is a new threat and we'll need to see how it performs now that it's available at the Mech Truck. Shrecks are their own problem.

Even if the AEC were equal or slightly better than the Puma, it's not going to change anything. The Brits just don't need a Puma clone.

Jump back to quoted post4 Dec 2015, 12:31 PMbingo12345

AEC is not inferior to puma. AEC main cannon actually have better anti-infantry capability. this main cannon hit a infantry.

Jump back to quoted post4 Dec 2015, 12:31 PMbingo12345

AEC is not inferior to puma. AEC main cannon actually have better anti-infantry capability. this main cannon hit a infantry.

Jump back to quoted post4 Dec 2015, 12:39 PMMuxsus

I specifically tested it and the AEC's main gun is similar to the puma's main gun in the AI department. Puma is actually better at anti-infantry because of its powerful coaxial MG.

Jump back to quoted post4 Dec 2015, 12:54 PMnee

Maybe the AEC should perform AT snare role? Kind of like a T-70 but it's best job is critical hits on vehicles.

That might make it too obvious a choice over Bofors, though.

Jump back to quoted post4 Dec 2015, 12:56 PMSpaceHamster

I'd enjoy it if tread breaker immobilized enemy tanks. Giving brits the best snare for the cost of no normal snares on infantry.

Jump back to quoted post4 Dec 2015, 13:14 PMjackill2611

Lol it has this ability at vet1. Or you guys just troll everyone here? If yes then my reply is:
"Also brits should have smoke cover ability on AEC"

Jump back to quoted post4 Dec 2015, 13:20 PMAchtAchter

I'd say decrease the cost as proposed. You can't increase the range as then it would be too cheap compared to a Puma which is 70 fuel.

Honestly I don't get why you have to unlock it with tech or why its not possible to get a bofors and an AEC. It's not like this combination is op or that you see bofors spammed like no tomorrow.

Jump back to quoted post4 Dec 2015, 13:20 PMAchtAchter

I'd say decrease the cost as proposed. You can't increase the range as then it would be too cheap compared to a Puma which is 70 fuel.

Jump back to quoted post4 Dec 2015, 13:36 PMMuxsus

The biggest problem is not the fuel cost, it's the 440 (or 460?) manpower that makes it unfavorable. It also has a 65 fuel cost, not much of a difference, especially with the OKW penalty gone.

Jump back to quoted post4 Dec 2015, 13:25 PMSpaceHamster

It's a temporary yellow crit immobilize that lasts for 5 seconds. I meant like red engine damage/immobilize tracks type of crit(round has to pen for this to happen in my mind).

*Checking again, tread breaker takes around 5 seconds to also fire the round before it actually immobilizes the tank; don't know why.

Jump back to quoted post4 Dec 2015, 16:03 PMjackill2611

Becuz it works that way - 2 shots = immobilized.

Jump back to quoted post4 Dec 2015, 12:31 PMbingo12345

AEC is not inferior to puma. AEC main cannon actually have better anti-infantry capability. this main cannon hit a infantry.

edit : i had small test
AEC is better anti-infantry capability at close range.
Puma is better anti-infantry capability at long range.

Jump back to quoted post5 Dec 2015, 07:45 AMFiresparks

close range, how close? because at close range you're eating either Faust or Schreck.

It's not like the AEC have the capability to erase infantry squad like the t70 or even the stuart. Trying to say AEC count as anti-infantry is comparing tent to a mansion.

The AEC's anti-infantry capability is comparable to Puma, as in the both of them are rather poor against infantry.

Jump back to quoted post5 Dec 2015, 07:58 AMVuther

What's the stats on the AEC's coaxial MG? Puma's DPS of its is comparable to a Gren squad if I recall correctly (more of a point of information your paragraph made me wonder about than continuing the balance discussion).