AT gun accuracy

I think the accuracy of German at guns in particular is atrocious and should be buffed. Just had a game where a raketen missed 4 times in a row against a non-moving SU-85, which destroyed the Flak HQ in the meanwhile. Ofc he doesnt get punished for such a dumb play, but gets rewarded with bad German accuracy. Especially as a German, you rely so heavily on your at guns, they are the only thing you have against superior armour in early and mid game. If they simply cannot hit their target somewhat consistently, why do we bother getting them anyways? I am so fed up losing because of bad RNG, because a unit that is supposed to counter another unit simply cant do it...

#MakeGermanATGreatAgain

"The unit performed reliably for past year, but in this one singular game, once, it missed few times against one of hardest to hit vehicles in game, plz buff all units of this cathegory on both factions of the side I play on".

You had bad luck once.
It does not warrant any right nor is any kind of viable base for any unit changes.

When it will miss 4 times in a row pretty much every single game you play, THEN it will be a subject of possible changes.

ATGs, puppchen included have some of the highest AT accuracy in game and all of them have exactly the same accuracy. But as I have said, some vehicles are harder to hit then others and SU-85 is one of them.

"The unit performed reliably for past year, but in this one singular game, once, it missed few times against one of hardest to hit vehicles in game, plz buff all units of this cathegory on both factions of the side I play on".

You had bad luck once.
It does not warrant any right nor is any kind of viable base for any unit changes.

When it will miss 4 times in a row pretty much every single game you play, THEN it will be a subject of possible changes.

ATGs, puppchen included have some of the highest AT accuracy in game and all of them have exactly the same accuracy. But as I have said, some vehicles are harder to hit then others and SU-85 is one of them.

Absolutely correct. And EVEN IF Garrett was the slightest bit of right here, buffing ALL AT guns would still be a stupid solution. Better nerf SU85's received accuracy.

But you don't even see this tank usually, lol.

Let's just listen to the Polish guy because he knows what he's talking about while ignoring the probably a hundred threads by now about how badly bugged the raketen is.

probably has more to do with missed shot not colliding and less with accuracy, although it less accurate since max range is 50 and mid range is 25.

But as I have said, some vehicles are harder to hit then others and SU-85 is one of them.

Does SU-85 have negative "buff" to received accuracy?

Does SU-85 have negative "buff" to received accuracy?

Nope, just pretty small target size.

ALTHOUGH given the shortcomings of the rak, an accuracy buff to IT wouldnt be amiss i dont think regardless of the su85 target size

It reminded me a video where su-85 took 3 or 4 shots to kill kubel. Nevermind it was bunch of patches ago - I'm here to ask to buff su-85!!1

Nope, just pretty small target size.

Thats kinda weird considering its a slow-moving relatively large td

Thats kinda weird considering its a slow-moving relatively large td

All medium vehicles that have no turret have small target size. This is considered as counterweight to the lack of freedom to swing their gun around. Low profile (which means small target size) was historically one of the main reasons for building such vehicles.

To give you some examples:
su-85 - size 18
jp-4 - size 17 (a winner in the category of hardest to hit medium in game, unless you consider hetzer a proper medium)
stug - size 20

Now some turreted vehicles for comparison:
p4 - size 22
firefly - size 23
jackson - size 24

Mind that this doesnt apply to heavies, as all heavies apart from KV-1 have target size of 26. Which makes sense as neither ISU nor Ele have low profile.

The most annoying thing about projectiles in the game is dealing with terrain elevation. The interface does nothing to help show where there is a small hill. With the amount of crap you have to remember and memorize in this game, it would be nice if all maps were flat so players are dealing with a 2D map instead of having to try to remember all the little hills and depressions on the map surface. Another frustrating thing is ambient object collision. Whether the projectile hits a stone wall, a car wreck, or whether the projectile magically phases through the object and hit the intended target is entirely RNG dependant. This frustrates me to no end. The amount of uncertainty hurts axis players a bit more as they are more reliant on at guns and unturreted armor. These AT weapons are very sensitive to bad RNG since they have poor mobility and hence cannot make up for a missed shot by trying to chase the target. Also these AT weapons are easily killed by a flank. If the allied player has a medium that is trying to flank and eats a shot before getting into the flank of the AT gun/TD, you can faust it to cripple the engine. If the at gun/TD misses, the medium tank is free to circle strafe without needing to worry about engine damage after eating a faust.

The most annoying thing about projectiles in the game is dealing with terrain elevation. The interface does nothing to help show where there is a small hill. With the amount of crap you have to remember and memorize in this game, it would be nice if all maps were flat so players are dealing with a 2D map instead of having to try to remember all the little hills and depressions on the map surface. Another frustrating thing is ambient object collision. Whether the projectile hits a stone wall, a car wreck, or whether the projectile magically phases through the object and hit the intended target is entirely RNG dependant. This frustrates me to no end. The amount of uncertainty hurts axis players a bit more as they are more reliant on at guns and unturreted armor. These AT weapons are very sensitive to bad RNG since they have poor mobility and hence cannot make up for a missed shot by trying to chase the target. Also these AT weapons are easily killed by a flank. If the allied player has a medium that is trying to flank and eats a shot before getting into the flank of the AT gun/TD, you can faust it to cripple the engine. If the at gun/TD misses, the medium tank is free to circle strafe without needing to worry about engine damage after eating a faust.

Welcome to advanced 3D RTS game mate.

If you could not bear with shot hitting the ground instead of enemy, I advice return to Starcraft, C&C series. If you want competitive 3D game without need to calculate shot collision, then play SC2 or DoW1.

All medium vehicles that have no turret have small target size. This is considered as counterweight to the lack of freedom to swing their gun around. Low profile (which means small target size) was historically one of the main reasons for building such vehicles.

To give you some examples:
su-85 - size 18
jp-4 - size 17 (a winner in the category of hardest to hit medium in game, unless you consider hetzer a proper medium)
stug - size 20

Now some turreted vehicles for comparison:
p4 - size 22
firefly - size 23
jackson - size 24

Mind that this doesnt apply to heavies, as all heavies apart from KV-1 have target size of 26. Which makes sense as neither ISU nor Ele have low profile.

the in game size are loosely correlate with their historical size.

the tigers and king tiger were huge target. their thick armor and powerful gun require larger engine and heavier suspension to support them.

Some more variance in target size could be nice for fine tuning.

Thats kinda weird considering its a slow-moving relatively large td

Its also a very low profile vehicle, like most soviet TDs of the time with exception of SU-76 and ISU.

Welcome to advanced 3D RTS game mate.

If you could not bear with shot hitting the ground instead of enemy, I advice return to Starcraft, C&C series. If you want competitive 3D game without need to calculate shot collision, then play SC2 or DoW1.

"competitive?" If the difference between life and death for units are one shot, excessive RNG is bad design. There is ALREADY RNG in penetration. So more RNG like whether you hit the ground is excessive. Nobody in CoH2 views the game as a 3D game. If we were, we'd be playing using camera angles close to the ground. You're talking to a top 200 Ostheer player. I know way more than you do and I don't even play Starcraft or the other games u mentioned.

"competitive?" If the difference between life and death for units are one shot, excessive RNG is bad design. There is ALREADY RNG in penetration. So more RNG like whether you hit the ground is excessive. Nobody in CoH2 views the game as a 3D game. If we were, we'd be playing using camera angles close to the ground. You're talking to a top 200 Ostheer player. I know way more than you do and I don't even play Starcraft or the other games u mentioned.

You for real?

What do you believe true sight and wall cover do in the game?

Plus, you are confusing point of view with 3d.

Do you even know what 3d means?
Hint: its not term exclusive to FPS games.

Nobody in CoH2 views the game as a 3D game.

I can assure you, you're speaking exclusively for yourself and you will have extremely hard time finding a singular person giving you +1 to that statement.

You for real?

What do you believe true sight and wall cover do in the game?

Plus, you are confusing point of view with 3d.

Do you even know what 3d means?
Hint: its not term exclusive to FPS games.

I can assure you, you're speaking exclusively for yourself and you will have extremely hard time finding a singular person giving you +1 to that statement.

True sight and wall cover are not a problem. I'm talking about hitting the ground with projectiles. If there has to be hills, the interface should make it clear which areas are elevated with topographical map settings. OK point of view is a better word. But my point stands that players take into account only 2 dimensions when playing the game. Do you know anyone who plays with the camera angled parallel to the ground like they're playing Call of Duty? I don't think so.