Reliable non-fuel-based AT option for Soviets?

I've already posted about my experience with ZiS gun here: http://www.coh2.org/topic/6958/how-do-i-use-zis-at-gun-currectly

I got some good advise, tried to implement it, and finally i was able to take down a flakpanzer although it took a mine, about 2 shots from 2 ZiS guns each, and i had to chase it down with a T34/76 in the end. I am not going to whine about ZiS guns again, instead i am going to whine about soviet AT in general.

I know that in ideal world you should not let your opponent get to units you are uncomfortable with, like letting ostheer reach T3 to get panzers but when you are playing an equal match or even loosing there is no helping that.

My skills with the game are definitely questionable at best but what i am seeing is that Soviets have no reliable AT against T3 aside from an SU85 which makes a "safe" soviet play kinda one-route which makes the game much less interesting to play. There is no reliable manpower-only AT solution because ZiS guns are unreliable compared to vCoH paks and US AT guns. There is no equivalent to panzerschrecks as a munitions AT solution which works fine for ostheer. So you are basically left with fuel-based AT in the form of the SU85 or a couple of T34/76s after the latest patch. Also i am fully aware that you need to support ANY AT solution with things like conscripts and guards and mines - that's a given.

My guess (from a designer PoV) for ZiS lacking in its AT role is that it is a field gun with an artillery barrage ability. So it serves 2 roles at once and thus cannot be very good at either of them. Also maybe Soviets haven't had an equivalent to a panzerschreck or a recoiless rifle in the real war so that explains no munitions-based AT for elite infantry. But at the end of the day the lack of the variety of AT options makes playing the game kind of boring.

I know that in ideal world you should not let your opponent get to units you are uncomfortable with, like letting ostheer reach T3 to get panzers but when you are playing an equal match or even loosing there is no helping that.

Yeah that might be a good idea against bad opponents but a good opponent will obviously get to the units he wants to get. That's why he is good, d'oh.

I agree that they lack effective AT, but I would go a little further. Even though the german PAK is much moore effective vs armour, its still not close to the AT-guns in vCOH.

This affects the gameplay in a verry serious way, neither side have the capability to fight of enemy tanks with units only costing manpower, meaning that the lategame will always be focused arround tankrush, with the odd infantrysquad doing some capturing. Relic obviously sees what the game has turned into, but try to fix this with population caps, rather than having a moore balanced gameplay, like in vCOH.

If they buffed both sides AT-guns closer to vCOH standards, and possibly reintroduced tanktraps, I think the gameplay would be much moore diverse.

I agree that they lack effective AT, but I would go a little further. Even though the german PAK is much moore effective vs armour, its still not close to the AT-guns in vCOH.

This affects the gameplay in a verry serious way, neither side have the capability to fight of enemy tanks with units only costing manpower, meaning that the lategame will always be focused arround tankrush, with the odd infantrysquad doing some capturing. Relic obviously sees what the game has turned into, but try to fix this with population caps, rather than having a moore balanced gameplay, like in vCOH.

If they buffed both sides AT-guns closer to vCOH standards, and possibly reintroduced tanktraps, I think the gameplay would be much moore diverse.

Pretty much this is how I feel at the moment. I miss being able to field infantry centric armies with good AT gun micro. It is definitely still possible but I feel like your opponent needs his head up in the clouds for those few extra shots that I feel like the tanks need to go down. Maybe it's just me, dunno.

Edit: disagree with the tank trap part, I don't miss being able to suddenly build giant concrete blocks out of thin air and it would often slow down the game when they were used effectively which can be pretty boring

I don't know what game you played but in CoH 1 the late game was based around tanks as well. All the units that fought in the late game in CoH appear in late game CoH 2: Tanks, vetted infantry, support weapons and artillery.

AT guns are effective against enemy armour but they aren't effective in isolation. That means you need more than just an AT gun to kill a tank.

If your looking for manpower only ways to defeat armour they are there, but they are hard, sometimes very hard, to use. The reason is if you get expensive fuel units they should be hard to counter with manpower only units, otherwise everyone would just get manpower only. Like when the shreck was too powerful in vCoH in patch whatever and people only ever got infantry.

A well-positioned, reasonably supported ZiS gun is pretty good against anything except a Flakpanzer. With mines or a second gun overlapping it it can take out an Ostwind. As in VCoH a lone unsupported AT gun is of very limited use.

I'm finding T-70s backed by a couple of ZiS guns a very strong comeback option from a bad start. IMO, the ZiS is far better at the AT role than the PAK, if just for reasons of survivability and the possibility of merge. The expanded sight is actually pretty helpful as well.

I don't know what game you played but in CoH 1 the late game was based around tanks as well. All the units that fought in the late game in CoH appear in late game CoH 2: Tanks, vetted infantry, support weapons and artillery.

I'm not sure where you're pulling this one from but I at no point said something like "COH1 didn't have late game tanks".... maybe you should re read my post.... Also, when I say infantry centric, centric= centralized. That doesn't imply only infantry... right now COH2 feels very vehicle based and it's tougher to work with infantry. It's a change I personally don't welcome and that's my opinion.

AT guns are effective against enemy armour but they aren't effective in isolation. That means you need more than just an AT gun to kill a tank.

Ok, well this is not anything new, I'm not certain why you're suddenly taking me to school on how to use AT guns.

If your looking for manpower only ways to defeat armour they are there, but they are hard, sometimes very hard, to use. The reason is if you get expensive fuel units they should be hard to counter with manpower only units, otherwise everyone would just get manpower only. Like when the shreck was too powerful in vCoH in patch whatever and people only ever got infantry.

I think you've got a point here. However, the question is, does sinking 360 manpower into an anti tank unit really justify its cost. 360 manpower is quite a bit, does it do what it should do for what it costs? Considering their lack of mobility I feel that if an AT gun is positioned well and gets a shot off or two, it should really scare a tank. Right now it's just kind of "meh". You have more than enough time to get your tank out of a bad position. In coh1 if you went balls deep and charged your tank in first to meet even one AT gun, your tank would more than likely be toast by the time it got on the flank or even dead. We don't see AT guns fielded a lot, and I have the opinion that they don't do enough for what they cost, or if they're going to perform this way they likely need to be a bit cheaper.

As i've said in the original post, yes, AT guns should be supported. Thats the whole point actually:

If your looking for manpower only ways to defeat armour they are there, but they are hard, sometimes very hard, to use. The reason is if you get expensive fuel units they should be hard to counter with manpower only units, otherwise everyone would just get manpower only. Like when the shreck was too powerful in vCoH in patch whatever and people only ever got infantry.

You are correct on the expensive Tank vs manpower AT, it should not counter them easily. But now you have two ways to go about that.

One way is an AT gun to be an effective counter to a Tank but have a lot of counters itself like mortars, snipers, artillery, infantry - basically _everything_ except a Tank. This way you have to invest additional resources into supporting your gun like counter-snipers, counter arty, infantry, mines, etc, which kinda evens out the costs between "cheap" AT gun and an expensive tank. You also have much more micro pressure on you. But your actual gun can do its job then.

The second way is like we see in CoH2 - soviet AT gun has less counters and has more uses (arty barrage) but is much worse at its primary role. I see a major problem with this approach, because you still need to pay additional costs to support your gun properly but even then your AT gun cannot really perform its role very well.

The bottom line: AT guns are cheap because they need a lot of support, babysitting, cannot be used offensively easily and react very slowly. But when you have proper support for it and enemy tank goes straight at it it should be effective, because you've spent a ton of effort to cover its many weaknesses.

ATGs need a buff.

Maybe cost decrease, maybe range increase.
Certainly an accuracy increase.

I also suggest swapping Penas Flamer upgrade to a PTSR upgrade.

As i've said in the original post, yes, AT guns should be supported. Thats the whole point actually:


You are correct on the expensive Tank vs manpower AT, it should not counter them easily. But now you have two ways to go about that.

One way is an AT gun to be an effective counter to a Tank but have a lot of counters itself like mortars, snipers, artillery, infantry - basically _everything_ except a Tank. This way you have to invest additional resources into supporting your gun like counter-snipers, counter arty, infantry, mines, etc, which kinda evens out the costs between "cheap" AT gun and an expensive tank. You also have much more micro pressure on you. But your actual gun can do its job then.

The second way is like we see in CoH2 - soviet AT gun has less counters and has more uses (arty barrage) but is much worse at its primary role. I see a major problem with this approach, because you still need to pay additional costs to support your gun properly but even then your AT gun cannot really perform its role very well.

The bottom line: AT guns are cheap because they need a lot of support, babysitting, cannot be used offensively easily and react very slowly. But when you have proper support for it and enemy tank goes straight at it it should be effective, because you've spent a ton of effort to cover its many weaknesses.

In such scenarios, I find the ZiS perfectly effective. Especially compared to the PAK, which on account of low crew number, SU-85 range and accuracy, the small size of the T-70 and the KV-8 omnimuncher is much more liable to underperform. P-gren shreks are quite good but liable to dancing around and to just being blown up by the T3 and T4 armour they're supposed to counter.

Unlike the SU-85, it's not likely to kill a good opponent's properly managed tank but as area denial a pair of ZiS guns can be extremely effective. I tend to go for AT guns + T-70s/34s if I see the Opel Blitz commander.

Additionally, in terms of non-fuel AT solutions for the Soviets - 2-3 guard squads + Mark Vehicle can actually kill an enemy tank if they don't have Panzer Tactician.

In my opinion, the PAK needs a fix right now (specifically, to be less inaccurate against T-70s and have more gun health to cope with SU-85s)... the ZiS is pretty strong where it is, and the survivability on it makes a few of them very tricky to crack. This extra survivability probably benefits it even more in terms of fulfilling its role against tanks and especially tank + off-map pushes than against infantry.

I think both AT guns should get a damage and pen buff, and maybe a range increase to 65. Then the pak would slightly out-range an su85 if you have a spotter for it. The zis is currently more useful and surviveable than the pak but it too could use the same buff.

Thing with at-guns is they usually only get one or maybe 2 shots off before the enemy moves into fog or out of the arc. Thus those shots really need to count and currently they just scatter/miss too much and dont deal enough damage.

at guns need to hit consistently or better right now tehy just don't work there damage is good. but all the early game units can easily dodge them because they never seem to hit first shot.

In WW2 a PTRS destroyed p4s

In WW2 a PTRS destroyed p4s

serious... i speak italian, i can't explain it :/ but i try to do it:

http://img819.imageshack.us/img819/2504/t3vq1.gif

"The projectile, expelled at a speed of 1012 m / s, could pierce thick armor plates up to 40 mm from a distance of 100 meters, 35 mm and 25 mm to 300 meters from 500 meters"

A panzer 4 have: frontal 50mm , top 12mm, side 30mm, rear 20mm and because of ptrs 41 was equipped with "Schurtzen".

Something wong with your mm and cm there, dude.

Something wong with your mm and cm there, dude.

aahahahah sorry xD

As to the PIVs historical front armor, as of 1942-1943, 50% where fitted with an extra 30mm frontal armor, from 50 to 80mm. Hilter himself demanded them all with 80mm frontal armor as of Jan 1943.

But yeah, PTRS was a pretty serious piece of AT, if you hit in the right place.
No thanks to being within 100m of these monsters though...

Guys must have had balls of steel.

In such scenarios, I find the ZiS perfectly effective. Especially compared to the PAK, which on account of low crew number, SU-85 range and accuracy, the small size of the T-70 and the KV-8 omnimuncher is much more liable to underperform. P-gren shreks are quite good but liable to dancing around and to just being blown up by the T3 and T4 armour they're supposed to counter.

Unlike the SU-85, it's not likely to kill a good opponent's properly managed tank but as area denial a pair of ZiS guns can be extremely effective. I tend to go for AT guns + T-70s/34s if I see the Opel Blitz commander.

Additionally, in terms of non-fuel AT solutions for the Soviets - 2-3 guard squads + Mark Vehicle can actually kill an enemy tank if they don't have Panzer Tactician.

In my opinion, the PAK needs a fix right now (specifically, to be less inaccurate against T-70s and have more gun health to cope with SU-85s)... the ZiS is pretty strong where it is, and the survivability on it makes a few of them very tricky to crack. This extra survivability probably benefits it even more in terms of fulfilling its role against tanks and especially tank + off-map pushes than against infantry.

After playing some games recently i have to agree that a couple of ZiS guns with T34 and conscript support can create an area denial until you get to something more offensive, like an SU85. This especially works well on Minsk pocket to camp your fuel. Still when you add an ostwind to the mix your position is under serious danger since ZiS still wont hit and/or penetrate half the time.

My point is that i would much rather prefer ZiS to be a hard armor counter than it having 2 abilities and six man crews. I still _have_ to support this multi-purpose hard-to-kill AT gun just as i would have compared to a german PaK gun. So if i still have to do this why should i sacrifice solid AT capability? I just see no point in that. Barrage ability _is_ useful, but soviets have a dozen similar options to pick from. And when facing armor you need solid AT much much more.

I still _have_ to support this multi-purpose hard-to-kill AT gun just as i would have compared to a german PaK gun. So if i still have to do this why should i sacrifice solid AT capability? I just see no point in that. Barrage ability _is_ useful, but soviets have a dozen similar options to pick from. And when facing armor you need solid AT much much more.

If you think thats hard, try supporting a PaK.

As to the Barrage ability, and its "dozen similar options to pick from", Ost aint got nothing but Mortar.