Raketenwerfer

I think Hoshi means the Raketen has faster penetration drop-off cause of its lower range, giving the Zis better penetration at equal ranges.

The raketen is also lower to the ground, meaning scatter shots hit the ground more frequently.

scatters effect by height levels are hard to calculate how really they effects on their accuracy(cause it effected on maps), but anyway it isn't effects more than specs.

Yet the reload of the RW is 3.8 - 4.3 averaged at 4.05 and you choose to use only the lower value.

yeah that's true, but if you calculate maximum value, it still faster than ZiS almost 16%.

so focus on my point, Raketenwerfer wasn't bad to requires any buff.

yeah that's true, but if you calculate maximum value, it still faster than ZiS almost 16%.

so focus on my point, Raketenwerfer wasn't bad to requires any buff.

And if you make calculation you should be using the correct values and not the ones that are better for your argument.

Bottom line here is that zis is a far more consistent ATG that RW and I would swap it for RW when I play OKW in most cases.

And if you make calculation you should be using the correct values and not the ones that are better for your argument.

Bottom line here is that zis is a far more consistent ATG that RW and I would swap it for RW when I play OKW in most cases.

My comments are all about one story. Raketenwerfer has no problem in destroying or blocking Medium-tanks as other AT-guns do, but rather quite good due to various utilities. It is not a unit to compare to the M-42, just like the first comment on the comments I put on it.
The M-42 is close to the emergency prescription for early-game light-tanks. It's not a good story for Raketenwerfer to talk about the need to obtain anti-personal abilities such as M-42.
Like the first opinion, if Raketenwerfer were to remove the Retreat ability instead of raising the Range to 60 is fine or not, anyway it's why the majority of people at the same time refusing to get an anti-personal ability; Raketenwerfer has no difficulty in carrying out it's own job.

My comments are all about one story. Raketenwerfer has no problem in destroying or blocking Medium-tanks as other AT-guns do, but rather quite good due to various utilities. It is not a unit to compare to the M-42, just like the first comment on the comments I put on it.
The M-42 is close to the emergency prescription for early-game light-tanks. This is very difficult for Raketenwerfer to talk about the need to obtain anti-personal abilities such as M-42.
Like the first opinion, if Raketenwerfer were to remove the Retreat ability instead of raising the Range to 60 is fine or not, anyway it's why the majority of people at the same time refusing to get an anti-personal ability; Raketenwerfer has no difficulty in carrying out it's own job.

The comparison between M-42 and RW is and old story and it used repeatedly when people where asking for the M-42 to get cloak, retreat and garrison.

Currently M-42 is an extremely cost efficient unit with high fire rate, cloak bonus from vet 0 that can even help vs medium tanks with the vet 3 and first strike bonuses.

RW is a completely inconstant unit it can be prove great or it can die before hitting the enemy vehicle a single shot. Zis a far more reliable ATG.(generally speaking the majority of ATGs are more consistent and reliable).

Changes to RW should aim it in making its performance more consistent and reliable and I see little reason for it to have much AI capability unless one wants to turn it in P.shreck on wheels.

The comparison between M-42 and RW is and old story and it used repeatedly when people where asking for the M-42 to get cloak, retreat and garrison.

Currently M-42 is an extremely cost efficient unit with high fire rate, cloak bonus from vet 0 that can even help vs medium tanks with the vet 3 and first strike bonuses.

RW is a completely inconstant unit it can be prove great or it can die before hitting the enemy vehicle a single shot. Zis a far more reliable ATG.(generally speaking the majority of ATGs are more consistent and reliable).

Changes to RW should aim it in making its performance more consistent and reliable and I see little reason for it to have much AI capability unless one wants to turn it in P.shreck on wheels.

If you think of a probability-based story, the probability that allies AT-gun will cause ricochet will be higher than the probability that a camo raketen will die without shooting one shot. Be careful when talking about stability to most units. In other words, allies' tanks are very likely to have double Raketenwerfers hitting a bunch of hiding places and temporarily hitting four penetrated rounds and being destroyed. At least the axis tanks have a slightly higher chance of survival from ricochet in this situation. When Rackenwerfer dies in a pair when talking about instability, it's really bad for RNG. This is not just for the RW, but for almost all AT-guns.
anyway, I don't think bad to change RW's range, but Anti-personal abilities are different stories.

In return, Zis lost some of his AT ability. Zis has the slowest reload speed and the most expensive of all AT-guns. Also, ZiS' barrage skill is not free.
and you know that? ZiS has same penetrations to Raketenwerfer. (200/190/180)
If ZiS can counter heavy tanks, Raketenwerfer is also possible. well, actually do better.

You are completely ignoring several very important contextual factors here.


First of all, the ZiS has at least 50% more base durability because of the 6 men spread out crew. Besides raw survivability, this also means that it's easier to keep its veterancy. Besides being only 4 men, the Raketten crew even has the tendancy to cuddle up and get instantly wiped by explosions.

The Raketten has the same penetration but at different ranges. The ZiS has slightly better penetration at all respective ranges because of this.

The ZiS gets the same ROF with the same amount of realistic-to-get veterancy (3). But with its better range, pen and aim time.

Furthermore the Raketten is significantly worse at facing tanks because of its 50 range, which puts it within or very close to being within enemy armor firing range on the first shot. On top of that, it has atrocious aim time / gun traverse time. This severely limits its ROF in certain engagements (like having to reface).

(Also, against the Churchill Mk.VII the Raketten has ~ 16%, 21% and 25% chance to bounce at near/mid/far range.)


TL : DR the ZiS is a god tier ATG and the Raketten is an absolute piece of trash with the stealth cheese being the only thing that makes it barely usable. I would always trade my Raketten for a ZiS without doubt. And I would trade the camouflage for 60 range without doubt too.

TL : DR the ZiS is a god tier ATG and the Raketten is an absolute piece of trash with the stealth cheese being the only thing that makes it barely usable. I would always trade my Raketten for a ZiS without doubt. And I would trade the camouflage for 60 range without doubt too.

jee. You have the exact opposite idea to me. This does not show any compromise at all. I play all five faction, but always choose RW and Pak40 to choose the best ATG, and ZiS if I choose the worst ATG.

While we are comparing the zis and rak outright can we include tech costs and buying costs? I'm no pro but in theory, a more expensive unit from a later tech doing the same job SHOULD be better at it no? So say you knock off 90mp off the zis, and another 160mp in tech costs I reckon somewhere along the line it be be required to be less effective no? See as there would literally be an entire squads worth of manpower difference in this TOTALLY theoretical scenario where the AT gun was 90mp cheaper and 160mp cheaper to unlock...

While we are comparing the zis and rak outright can we include tech costs and buying costs? I'm no pro but in theory, a more expensive unit from a later tech doing the same job SHOULD be better at it no? So say you knock off 90mp off the zis, and another 160mp in tech costs I reckon somewhere along the line it be be required to be less effective no? See as there would literally be an entire squads worth of manpower difference in this TOTALLY theoretical scenario where the AT gun was 90mp cheaper and 160mp cheaper to unlock...

I don't think that people claimed that RW should be as good as Zis while being cheaper.

I personally was responding to a claim that RW is as good or even better than Zis. It is not, it an unreliable weapon that can be killed by one shot.

I don't think that people claimed that RW should be as good as Zis while being cheaper.

I personally was responding to a claim that RW is as good or even better than Zis. It is not, it an unreliable weapon that can be killed by one shot.

but there is not point in even bothering playing a numbers game to compare the 2 as they are incomparable due to costs and techs. the most they have in common is that they shoot at tanks and sometimes the zis can cloak. it would be like comparing combat engies and obers because they are both 4 man infantry squads that are at the mercy or armour. there is no point in even engaging the comparison.

id lose the moving cloak, slap an extra model on the rak and try and fix its infatuation with shooting the ground. i dont think the okw need a proper AT gun (especially from the word go) when they already have so many AT options, and were even given a snare.

but there is not point in even bothering playing a numbers game to compare the 2 as they are incomparable due to costs and techs. the most they have in common is that they shoot at tanks and sometimes the zis can cloak. it would be like comparing combat engies and obers because they are both 4 man infantry squads that are at the mercy or armour. there is no point in even engaging the comparison.

id lose the moving cloak, slap an extra model on the rak and try and fix its infatuation with shooting the ground. i dont think the okw need a proper AT gun (especially from the word go) when they already have so many AT options, and were even given a snare.

until lategame and doc callins: what are the proper AT options for OKW?

lets count:
- 4model st pio with are fragil and schrecks never hit unit you come in close range (even midrange seems problem for this schreck to hit)
- puma: has potencial...but has armor from paper and must stand to hit the target.. and has a slow turret for a light verhicle
- pfaust on volks
- a rakten which has enormous problems like we talked here

> lategame:
- jp4 which has so low penetration which has problem with all target above mediums
- the first good AT option comes with panther...



And now lets only count for ---example the brits:

- Piats avialbable on ALL Squads (upgradeable)
- sniper does good job vs armor
- cheap AECs / cheap defense Bofors
- VERY good 6pounder AT gun
- early firefly which is one of the best nondoc TD (with turret, muni abilty to one shot most targets)
- at nades on pios
-nondoc 17pounder
- churchhill since it has no problem to deal with armor..(except you kit it with a panther)



since the last patch brits has mostly the best AT options...while can bring out t0 infntery which is heavy upgradeable and scale fantastic into lategame...volks are "ok"...but arent on the same lvl like this ober clones IS

I do not understand why he keeps mentioning the Raketenwerfer against the Heavy-tanks. No Allies user complains that it's difficult to match the axis's heavy-tank with the ATG. Even though they have the same or lower penetration power and a slower firing rate of ATG. ATG was not designed to deal with heavy-tanks mainly. Obviously, the axis has at least three options to against Heavy-tanks; Panther, Heavy tanks and Heavy TD(Elephant, Jagdtiger). Let's assume that RW is a perfect against for all allies' tanks. Do you think the situation where the tier0 unit is able to deal with all allies' tanks is the right balance?

Most ATGs are torpor in situations when they are attacked without infantry support against enemy tanks. This is not only RW's weakness at all. Rather, when this situation is reached, RW is much more likely to self-extinguish with retreat and camo than other ATGs. This is also why the RW is infiltrated by the assassination task alone. Here, some of users who say that RW has a problem seem to exaggerating a very special situation and telling a very biased story. According to this story, the ostheer's Pak40 will be an OP ATG (quick rate of fire, 60 range, high penetrations, stun ability) with no disadvantages to destroy all balance. The reality is not so.
Please try to play at least another faction before telling this story. In this situation, the OKW belongs to the OP faction with the highest win ration with Soviet in GCS, but the biased story in here refers to the OKW as an irredeemable rubbish. I feel really tired of these stories.

but there is not point in even bothering playing a numbers game to compare the 2 as they are incomparable due to costs and techs. the most they have in common is that they shoot at tanks and sometimes the zis can cloak. it would be like comparing combat engies and obers because they are both 4 man infantry squads that are at the mercy or armour. there is no point in even engaging the comparison.

id lose the moving cloak, slap an extra model on the rak and try and fix its infatuation with shooting the ground. i dont think the okw need a proper AT gun (especially from the word go) when they already have so many AT options, and were even given a snare.

I was not the one comparing the 2, I simply pointed out that RW is a problematic ATG and that it is not superior to zis.

Let raks shoot nukes from it. Istawipes entire bases with it.
It need so much buffs it doesnt even need.
So much nonesense is said about it.
I dont want to use raks anymore, this discussion i concede.