I haven't seen a Soviet AT gun in at least six months.

I figured as much, but at that point I'd probably be better off with PPSH cons or using shocks with penal support.

Oh well.

The sheet is not wrong but you are reading wrong. The sheet is using the base 14 damage. They actually do 27 to infantry.

Multiply the value by around x1.93 to get the correct DPS.

Value should comparable to these (0--10--20--30--40):

guard_troop_ptrs_41_mp------------------3.87--3.55--3.23--2.32--1.42
guards_troops_mosin_nagant_rifle_mp---4.73--3.66--2.57--1.72--0

Who says they do 27 vs infantry when it´s 14 in the sheet ? They only get a buff vs vehicles but not vs infantry. As you can clearly see here:

Extra damage
26, Requires types: vehicle
-----

Extra damage
13, Requires types: NOT infantry NOT vehicle

Target type infantry
Accuracy multi 1
Damage multi 1.928571

Who says they do 27 vs infantry when it´s 14 in the sheet ? They only get a buff vs vehicles but not vs infantry. As you can clearly see here:

Extra damage
26, Requires types: vehicle
-----

Extra damage
13, Requires types: NOT infantry NOT vehicle

The patch notes among other things:
Guard PTRS damage vs infantry increased from 20 to 27

Best way to be sure thou is to test in game with cheat mode, especially before being aggressive to others.

What makes you think that Guard's PTRS are not effective AI weapons?
Do you consider the Gaurd's mosins an effective AI weapon?

They are. Given the context of my post, I was referring to a time when PTRS were more effective than they are today. Much more so. They also tended to hit team weapons themselves and could often wipe an HMG squad by killing the gun itself. Though the eapon had low accuracy, the high damage made the RNG killing potential on the PTRS much harder to react to.

The guards PTRS has always been, and continues to be, effective as an AI weapon. But it is not the best and it has absolutely been far more powerful in previous patches.

The guard mosin is an excellent AI weapon. Unlike PTRS and DP-28s, it can be fired on the move. A 6 man mosin guard squad is the dream, personally speaking. (I still believe soviet t1 should feature a 6 man squad with guards mosins. Abilities and nomenclature up to the best arguments.)

They are. Given the context of my post, I was referring to a time when PTRS were more effective than they are today. Much more so. They also tended to hit team weapons themselves and could often wipe an HMG squad by killing the gun itself. Though the eapon had low accuracy, the high damage made the RNG killing potential on the PTRS much harder to react to.

The guards PTRS has always been, and continues to be, effective as an AI weapon. But it is not the best and it has absolutely been far more powerful in previous patches.

The guard mosin is an excellent AI weapon. Unlike PTRS and DP-28s, it can be fired on the move. A 6 man mosin guard squad is the dream, personally speaking. (I still believe soviet t1 should feature a 6 man squad with guards mosins. Abilities and nomenclature up to the best arguments.)

Again that is incorrect. The PTRS used to be trash vs AI because it's accuracy was lower than the accuracy of the current Penal PTRS.

In a typical Relic way, they buffed the DPS by about 10 times and made it completely broken, after a couple of patches they lowered damage.

In addition at the time Guards theoretical DPS was irrelevant because they would jump around instead of shooting.

I am not sure why we are talking about old patches, currently the PTRS is better than the mosin (which you consider a good AI weapon)when not moving in ranges above 10 and thus currently Guards simply over-performing.

@thegentmentroll guards will lose to dedicated AI units. O ers for example in cover are incredibly durable. Also while guards get pretty solid durability buffs of their own their accuracy buffs from vet are slightly below average, which is acceptable but it's not like thy have groundbreaking levels of vet buffs.

Falls are monsters but squishy. They are not designed to be in a straight up fight with anyone. As said they get to chose the ideal range for them to fight and camo allows them to ensure guards are disadvantaged shield the player put the work in.

Pgrens will lose at range but eat em up close range

and for all these Axis squads throwing a bundled nade will reduce the incoming fire from 6 guns to 2 allowing them to close good and proper

@thegentmentroll guards will lose to dedicated AI units. O ers for example in cover are incredibly durable. Also while guards get pretty solid durability buffs of their own their accuracy buffs from vet are slightly below average, which is acceptable but it's not like thy have groundbreaking levels of vet buffs.

Falls are monsters but squishy. They are not designed to be in a straight up fight with anyone. As said they get to chose the ideal range for them to fight and camo allows them to ensure guards are disadvantaged shield the player put the work in.

Pgrens will lose at range but eat em up close range

and for all these Axis squads throwing a bundled nade will reduce the incoming fire from 6 guns to 2 allowing them to close good and proper

That is inaccurate their vet ability actually increases their range (and consequently their accuracy) and CD, very few units gets more DPS with vet 1.

Again that is incorrect. The PTRS used to be trash vs AI because it's accuracy was lower than the accuracy of the current Penal PTRS.

It could wipe team weapons and random 40 damage hits were hard to react to. I stated as such in the post that's being quoted directly before the bolded section.

I am not sure why we are talking about old patches

I know the point that I was making when I was responding to ullumulu. (My first mistake)

I also explained precisely how the PTRS was an effective weapon against infantry. My second mistake was responding knowing full well my post wouldn't be read if there were a sequence of words that could be disagreed with out of context.

It could wipe team weapons and random 40 damage hits were hard to react to. I stated as such in the post that's being quoted directly before the bolded section.



I know the point that I was making when I was responding to ullumulu. (My first mistake)

I also explained precisely how the PTRS was an effective weapon against infantry. My second mistake was responding knowing full well my post wouldn't be read if there were a sequence of words that could be disagreed with out of context.

I have simply pointed out to you, (as I did to person that made the same claim) that PTRS has not always been good vs AI as you claimed. It was crap before the March 31rst update that actually made it broken especially for conscripts (since guards used to jump around at the time) and it was fixed in July 14th patch.

Currently the Gaurd's PTRS is a very good AI weapons with a range of 40 and better DPS than mosin in range above 10.

Who says they do 27 vs infantry when it´s 14 in the sheet ? They only get a buff vs vehicles but not vs infantry. As you can clearly see here:

I'm very certain its 27. The attribute editor (which is where Cruzz's numbers come from I think) makes it confusing, but Vipper's patchnote reference is a solid source. Even just using guards you can tell that the ptrs is doing more damage than the mosins when it hits.

Though the eapon had low accuracy, the high damage made the RNG killing potential on the PTRS much harder to react to.

The guards PTRS has always been, and continues to be, effective as an AI weapon. But it is not the best and it has absolutely been far more powerful in previous patches.

Vipper's right, the PTRS used to be dog**** against infantry. Yes it could do 40 dmg, but its accuracy made that insanely rare. And not in like an occasional-type rare, like way worse than the chance of an m42AT gun to penetrate a KT rare.

Their long range acc. (as Vipper provided) was .03. I hope I don't need to explain that means a 3% chance of hitting models with target size 1, and many squads have target sizes much smaller than that. It's accuracy was later buffed, they become OP, and so the dmg was reduced.

All of that is by way of saying, Guards could use a looking at currently. I like the idea of specializing them more in one direction. Maybe make them cheaper, and then you can select 2 DPs OR 2 ptrs+AT grenade? 75 muni for either.

That is inaccurate their vet ability actually increases their range (and consequently their accuracy) and CD, very few units gets more DPS with vet 1.

And they have to pop an active that makes repositioning impossible. It's a good abiliey, FAR better than trip flares but it's not without its drawbacks. It's not a straight up perma buff and it adds vulnerability. You can't move out of a flame nade if you can't move, not a bundled or RG or mortar. Hell you can roadkill them. Is there another vet 1 that actually has a trade off?

And they have to pop an active that makes repositioning impossible. It's a good abiliey, FAR better than trip flares but it's not without its drawbacks. It's not a straight up perma buff and it adds vulnerability. You can't move out of a flame nade if you can't move, not a bundled or RG or mortar. Hell you can roadkill them. Is there another vet 1 that actually has a trade off?

It doesn't have a CD when applied and is free. So if a vehicle decides to get brave, AND you don't get buttoned, you can literally just deactivate the ability and not get crushed. The ability has virtually no downsides.

It doesn't have a CD when applied and is free. So if a vehicle decides to get brave, AND you don't get buttoned, you can literally just deactivate the ability and not get crushed. The ability has virtually no downsides.

I was sure it had a cooldown. The con version of the same name (but opposite effects) has a cooldown. Give it a cooldown. Problem solved.
And VIRTUALLY no trade off is a faecry from NO trade off. What's the trade off for volks and pgrens rec acc buff? Or shocks smoke grenade buff at vet 1 or the m20 increase sight? Having to do something when the norm is passive is a drawback. Don't get me wrong, the norm should be doing something, but in this instance it's a slight drawback.

Falls will lose to guards in most fights...even in close range.
It is wrong that falls are close range combat unit. like Katitof told us here...they have a very good dmg in all ranges...

And they have to pop an active that makes repositioning impossible. It's a good abiliey, FAR better than trip flares but it's not without its drawbacks. It's not a straight up perma buff and it adds vulnerability. You can't move out of a flame nade if you can't move, not a bundled or RG or mortar. Hell you can roadkill them. Is there another vet 1 that actually has a trade off?

I would personally rate the Guards ability as one of the most powerful vet one ability in the game.

It increase the range of PTRS to 42.5 and of other weapon to 32.5 and it boost DPS by around 15% if I remember correctly.

The only point I was making was that if one compares the veterancy scaling and bonuses of Guards compared to other and does not take into account this ability, one would paint only half (3/4 to be more precise) the picture. That is why I described the comparison simply as "inaccurate".

"New ability: Hit the Dirt. Replaces Trip Wire Flares. Grants 0.75 weapon cooldown and +2.5 range, but renders squad immobile. 2 Second delay, 25 second recharge recharge upon deactivating."

This is actually imo an OP ability and it should be at least a timed one and not a toggle.

A far better solution imo would that the AI from all PTRS type would be removed. Then it could be move to the ability "take aim" which would work like "hit the ground" but simply increase the accuracy of the PTRS which would now be able to hit infantry. That would be more realistic and it would make A moving blobbed Guards less effective.

I would personally rate the Guards ability as one of the most powerful vet one ability in the game.

Except you won't use it all the time using this in a very good spot where you expect the enemy to try and just get in a shoot-out with Guards, there are counters to the ability. Being immobile is a major drawback, especially against grenades and if you break the ability, you're not going to be able to use it again in the fight.

It also does not protect them from suppression unlike Conscript Hit the Dirt, so you cannot use it to assault HMGs which are a strong counter to a unit that needs to be still to use all its weapons.

The lack of cooldown for exiting Hit the Dirt is so the squad can at least try to reposition and remain in a fight, rather than needing an instant retreat from the many grenades Axis squads carry.

On the Guard squad themselves, I would not mine if they specialized into either AT or AI, me and Smith had that set in a mod prior to DBP, but that never came to pass. They are not the most broken unit, though, nor do I consider them one. The main thing which makes them good is versatility, allowing them to put pressure on LVs and infantry.

Except you won't use it all the time using this in a very good spot where you expect the enemy to try and just get in a shoot-out with Guards, there are counters to the ability. Being immobile is a major drawback, especially against grenades and if you break the ability, you're not going to be able to use it again in the fight.

It also does not protect them from suppression unlike Conscript Hit the Dirt, so you cannot use it to assault HMGs which are a strong counter to a unit that needs to be still to use all its weapons.

The lack of cooldown for exiting Hit the Dirt is so the squad can at least try to reposition and remain in a fight, rather than needing an instant retreat from the many grenades Axis squads carry.

The following is simply my personal opinion:
I do use the ability a soon as it becomes available.

Being immobile is a drawback on the other hand it remain far more powerful than medical kits, tripwire flares etch...

Trying to close in to "hit the dirt" Guards to throw a grenade is not a great idea since one will be fired upon from ranges up to 42.5 and they can throw grenade back on the attacking path.

The ability has not no reason to be toggle since guards can be left behind green cover on hit the dirt to defend with no macro and it does not really need the extended range since PTRS already have 40 range.

In addition if one wants to create such a powerful ability the bonuses should scale with veterancy and not create a power spike at vet one.

On the Guard squad themselves, I would not mine if they specialized into either AT or AI, me and Smith had that set in a mod prior to DBP, but that never came to pass. They are not the most broken unit, though, nor do I consider them one. The main thing which makes them good is versatility, allowing them to put pressure on LVs and infantry.

The following is simply my personal opinion:
They are not a broken unit but they are OP and that is why commanders with Guards are mostly chosen. When trying to increase diversity instead of nerfing the unit the solution chosen was to buff shock troops which can create another set of issues. The units should simply become cheaper and toned down, the original design of "jack of all trade master of none" was allot better.

They trade very good at long range, where axis infantry are designed to excel, while they can cut down most axis infantry if they try to close on or bleed them in approach and simply retreat.

With the recent nerfs to mortars they where indirectly buffed.

Falls will lose to guards in most fights...even in close range.
It is wrong that falls are close range combat unit. like Katitof told us here...they have a very good dmg in all ranges...

Falls win in close quarter fights against Guards with around 50% HP remaining. So it´s not even close. But yeah, keep on lying.


This entire thread is just sad by the way. So much misinformation and straight up lies.

Falls win in close quarter fights against Guards with around 50% HP remaining. So it´s not even close. But yeah, keep on lying.


This entire thread is just sad by the way. So much misinformation and straight up lies.

You mean like the false information that Guards PTRS does 14 damage to infantry when it actually does 27?