M-42 vs other light AT.
Posts: 4630 | Subs: 2
Here are results. Look at timer. How long it takes to kill 222 or Puma for HMG42, M-42, dshk or Guards?
DSHK vs 222 (AP rounds of course) 6seconds.
HMG42 (AP) vs 222 6seconds.
Guards vs 222 17 seconds.
M-42 vs 222 13 seconds
But here is the cherry.
HMG42 vs Puma 16 seconds.
M-42 vs Puma 16 seconds, same as machine gun
Solution? I have few on my mind.
Increase rate of fire.
Make it non-doc T1 (put KV2 in urban and defensive tactics).
Remove it completly and introduce BS3
Canister shells.
Anyfuckingthing.
I could go for HMG42/M-42 vs M20 or HT but I did not want to torture this poor M-42
Posts: 17914 | Subs: 8
If there needs to be light AT, make it useful by replacing it with something that works at least.
Posts: 1930
the m-42 is crap, but it make sense for a mg to be able to murder vehicle faster if you can penetration it.
Posts: 2693 | Subs: 1
Posts: 17914 | Subs: 8
how long does it take for a zis to kill a 222?
About 5-6 seconds.
the m-42 is crap, but it make sense for a mg to be able to murder vehicle faster if you can penetration it.
Yeah, but the problem starts when that AT gun can't kill its intended targets in a reasonable time, arrives too late to be relevant(you can go T1 and T2 before 2CP) and getting 2 of them is much more expensive mp and pop cap-wise then just getting proper, stock ATG.
Posts: 609
Posts: 17914 | Subs: 8
They really should just make the damn thing basically a slower firing, longer range T70 cannon.
That wouldn't even be historically inaccurate as it was used versus infantry as well, had special shells for that.
Posts: 4630 | Subs: 2
Posts: 393
That being said M42 = pudding
Posts: 3423 | Subs: 1
M-42 light AT gun is fine. It does what it is supposed to do.
Yeah, but it does it worse than a stock T0 mg. It's not fine at all, it's a total waste.
Posts: 114
Posts: 17914 | Subs: 8
what about giving it the ability to garrison and retreat?
Then we'd have overpriced, underperforming, useless AT gun that can garrison and retreat.
Posts: 1389 | Subs: 1
Posts: 2693 | Subs: 1
Yeah, but it does it worse than a stock T0 mg. It's not fine at all, it's a total waste.
It does not do it worse. To damage or kill a light vehicle with a machine gun you need to bait it in. You can't activate AP round while you are moving and enemies have plenty of time to dodge the attack if you are using the MG offensively. Your AP round will then go on cooldown and you will have to fall back.
Meanwhile, you can A-move the M42 light AT gun with your units and deter enemy light vehicles quite easily.
The M42 light AT-gun is fine. It does what it is supposed to do and that is the following: Provide light AT support to T1 builds.
@Katitof
Does a ZIS3 kill tanks better? Yes. Obviously. But if you tech both T1 and T2 to counter enemy light vehicles then you give away the initiative and mapcontrol to your opponent as you now have invested lots of manpower and time into getting AT.
Posts: 2184 | Subs: 2
or increase the damage, penetration, add ability: case-shot
Posts: 114
Then we'd have overpriced, underperforming, useless AT gun that can garrison and retreat.
more utility would make it less useless. maybe you are right about the retreat, doesn't add too much. But i think the garrison might give it an interesting ability.
Posts: 17914 | Subs: 8
more utility would make it less useless. maybe you are right about the retreat, doesn't add too much. But i think the garrison might give it an interesting ability.
Conscripts have merge utility.
They still can't engage any other infantry properly.
Utility doesn't win engagements.
Good stats for the price in relation to other units makes the unit useful, not gimmicks.
Every single gimmick based unit falls out of meta instantly for not being reliable enough.
Posts: 114
Conscripts have merge utility.
They still can't engage any other infantry properly.
Utility doesn't win engagements.
Good stats for the price in relation to other units makes the unit useful, not gimmicks.
Every single gimmick based unit falls out of meta instantly for not being reliable enough.
look man i know very well that i am a casual player and that you have obviously sunk way more time into this game than i ever have or will, but garrisoning troops isn't solely a utility ability it allows your troops to fight with more protection.
Posts: 378
Damage 80 vs 160(50%)
Penetrate (Long) 60 vs 180 (33%, and worse than at ptrs lol)
Reload 2.625 vs 4.425 (169%)
Cost 200 vs 300(67%)
Total: only 37% effectiveness compare to Zis
Of course there are other factor such as population, tax rate, timing... But that's only make M42 worse.
At least, damage has to be 120 and long range penetration should be 100 to restore its effectiveness.
Posts: 2693 | Subs: 1
look man i know very well that i am a casual player and that you have obviously sunk way more time into this game than i ever have or will, but garrisoning troops isn't solely a utility ability it allows your troops to fight with more protection.
Actually, Katitof only sinks time into posting on the forums. He has little actual gameplay experience. This is why he knows the stats of the M42 light AT gun and how it compares to a ZIS3, but can't see the potential of the unit in the actual game.
Livestreams
49 | |||||
35 | |||||
1 |
Ladders Top 10
-
#Steam AliasWL%Streak
- 1.831222.789+37
- 2.620222.736+5
- 3.35057.860+15
- 4.1110614.644+11
- 5.276108.719+27
- 6.306114.729+2
- 7.918405.694+2
- 8.262137.657+3
- 9.722440.621+4
- 10.1041674.607-2
Replay highlight
- cblanco ★
- 보드카 중대
- VonManteuffel
- Heartless Jäger
Board Info
5 posts in the last week
33 posts in the last month
Welcome our newest member, igryskoj24
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM