Soviet AT-gun
Posts: 26
I played all too many games where u can shoot atleast 2-3 shots against german medium-tank ( sorry im bad on names ) and it just bounches back and at the same time u can have a german at gun that destoroyes the engine and completly all health of a t-74 ( i happend twice ).
And well i shouldnt eaven talk about soviet AT against Tiger, its like throwing stones on a tank.
Yeah i know im damn negative but well soviet dosent have any anti-tank infantry to talk about so a good at gun wouldnt be too much to ask for in my opinion.
Posts: 79
You may have to learn to use them more strategically.
Posts: 26
Posts: 658
Posts: 247
Posts: 168
Posts: 786
soviet zis 3 has the super amazing arty barrage not to mention 6 man squads which makes it actually way superior to the useless PaK40.
yes it's good but very situational, you can't rely too much on it because of its muntion cost.
the Pak is also very annoying cause it causes the infantry to hit the ground and slows them up big time, in any case is a better investment vs t4 (su85) builds cause t3 tanks can circle it quite easily.
keep the ZiS in the back to avoid it being circled or bait with it and then use button/at nades
Posts: 369
soviet zis 3 has the super amazing arty barrage not to mention 6 man squads which makes it actually way superior to the useless PaK40.
The thing is, I want an AT gun. Not arti. If I wanted to barrage infantry I'd get a mortar, not that AT gun. If I want to attack tanks, I wouldn't get the Soviet AT gun either. It's rate of fire is way too low, and it doesn't penetrate too often either.
I'd love it if AT-guns were similar to CoH1: Deal a shit ton of damage, but they need support and can't hunt down tanks like vehicles would. Now they're only the latter two.
Posts: 2425
Permanently BannedI consider the PaKs 3/4 survival to asymmetrically match against the ZiS slower rate of fire, but I maintain that the Barrage on ZiS is still an issue tha isnt compensated on Ost.
Frankly, Id remove it from ZiS. SU76 carries it for free. Its a double redundancy to have it on ZiS as well, especially considering Ost has no equivalent on anything.
Iirc, ATGs othwrwise have identical dmg, range and penetration.
Id further suggest that both ATGs have a chance at Crew Shock on bounced shots, inline with the recent heavy tank changes.
They get so few shots off, and positioning is so crucial, I think they need/deserve it, especially as MP AT counters.
Posts: 217
I think the Zis gets alot better when it hits vet 2 - vet 3. If you can keep it alive in the mid game you will deffinetly get it to at least vet 2, just because you can take a lot of damage (relativly). But you have to get it back to base, heal it and then back in the fight.
That is how you get a really powerful unit which can take on anything.
The Pak is different and for me useless in early-mid game, as counter to t-70 or enev t-34. But it does really well vs. the su-85 and other slow tanks.
Posts: 688
The Zis is only 'good' if you use them correclty AND have enough of them.
I have found, that a simple rule seems to Work: 1 Zis needed per vehicle class. I.e. ACs etc can be defeated by 1 Zis. Medium tanks require 2, heavy tanks 3.
You still need to position them properly in advance. Or else they are worth zero.
What ever this formula is fair from a blance point of view or not, I don't quite know. But as the game is, this is what you need if Zis is your only AT.
PS: you still need to lay mines in the approach.
Posts: 2425
Permanently BannedI wtill think Barrage is a problem, but I think the importance of MP based effective AT is more important than that, regarding to this.
Posts: 29
In the case of the AT guns, I'm not really a fan of the differences. I honestly would be happier if the two guns had the same squad size and the barrage ability were replaced by AP rounds, but I suppose they want it to be different than vCOH.
Barring that, both AT guns should be reduced in price and population size. They really aren't as cost effective vs tanks as they need to be.
Posts: 2425
Permanently BannedBarring that, both AT guns should be reduced in price and population size. They really aren't as cost effective vs tanks as they need to be.
This, very much.
MP powered builds need this to exist, and the game needs MP strats to exist.
Posts: 75
I would not be adverse to a slight increase in ZiS RoF.
I wtill think Barrage is a problem, but I think the importance of MP based effective AT is more important than that, regarding to this.
Don't increase the Zis RoF when barrage still exisits. If a barrage shot hits a tank, it's hitting a tank "as normal dmg". I feel barrage at 60(?) muni is a fine cost.
Frankly, Id remove it from ZiS. SU76 carries it for free. Its a double redundancy to have it on ZiS as well, especially considering Ost has no equivalent on anything.
ZiS is T2, Su76 is T4. Yes, both are similar but, this can be taken as a "core tactic" for the soviets.
Spam cheap, crappy inf (conscripts, penal squads)for sight and have ZiS' & su76's Artillerly from a distance.
The fact that it's redundant is a BENEFIT not a negative. ZiS being versitile at anti-inft (for muni) and anti-tank makes it great. Then add wheels and fuel and you have the su76. Add more and you have su-85.
Ost doesn't have an equivalent because they are more moblie and have more dmg/ are tank-based/vehicle-based playstyle. However, you can make pgrens get Schreks (similar to anti-inf & anti-tank capabilities for muni), and have earlier & cheaper access to better 'overall' vehicles (flame-halftrack & scout car [especially with upgrade])
Posts: 29
ZiS being versitile at anti-inft (for muni) and anti-tank makes it great.
Versatility in general is great, but for an anti-tank gun I would really, really prefer it to be specialized - because dedicated AT is almost certainly the biggest weak point for the Soviets. If you want something to provide indirect fire, you can get a mortar from the same T2 building (though admittedly the soviet 82 mm mortar is not in a good place right now).
Posts: 2425
Permanently BannedThere arenq number of advantages Ost has, that Sov doesnt, that coukd reconcile the difference.
HOWEVER
I think on the specific topic of indirect fire options, Ost is lacking more than is reconcilable according to those compensations you mention. I strongly feel Ost needs atleast one Barrage option too. My personal suggestion would be on Stug.
Posts: 2181
This, very much.
MP powered builds need this to exist, and the game needs MP strats to exist.
+1
Posts: 950 | Subs: 1
Don't increase the Zis RoF when barrage still exisits. If a barrage shot hits a tank, it's hitting a tank "as normal dmg". I feel barrage at 60(?) muni is a fine cost.
not sure what you mean by normal damage, but the barrage ability fires HE shells. thats why its so effective vs infantry, but it also means it has reduced penetration. instead of 170, it goes down to 60. so im not exactly sure what your point is about hitting tanks with a barrage either. i think the ZiS could still use a RoF increase and it doesnt really matter that it can barrage. it just shouldnt fire as fast as the pak. currently it takes 3.96 seconds for the pak to fire and 5.8 for the ZiS.
Posts: 480
Livestreams
Ladders Top 10
-
#Steam AliasWL%Streak
- 1.831222.789+37
- 2.615222.735-2
- 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, tik2video
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM