AT-buissness

[Jeff_Ahl]

Something has to be done for the AT-guns. They are a little bit to weak vs tanks as it is, if you do not have a leader near by the AT then they are even more weak.

PAK43 (88mm) has 7 accuracy, but other AT-guns only has 6 accuracy. One way to even it out would be to have all AT-guns to have 7 accuracy like the PAK43. It would increase their usefulness and even out some the inbalance I think exists today. Then they can be used more effective in ambushes, as it is meant to be.

 

[zeimer]

If you are unsure about accuracy of your gun, let enemy vehicle come closer, as hit ratio increases, or even better, pair them. The latter is not for 1v1 due to scarcity of income and wide front.

Bottomline : AT guns work fine as they are now.

 

[Jeff_Ahl]

If you are unsure about accuracy of your gun, let enemy vehicle come closer, as hit ratio increases, or even better, pair them. The latter is not for 1v1 due to scarcity of income and wide front.

Bottomline : AT guns work fine as they are now.

1. Let them come closer...yeah and let them have the possibility to open up with their 50 cal if you facing allied tanks. One bounce or even crit and u are fucked up.

2. Yeah, pair them up are not that common in 1v1 because of the reasons u are explaining.

3. Totally unlogical why 88 should have 7 accuracy, when other high velocity AT-guns have less.

Bottom line, the game is supposed to be playable in 1v1 as well. I dont say it is a big problem, but it is a smaller one and some what annoying inbalance at the moment.

 

[darkfireslide]

https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=1276910882

Actually, here's a guide that lists how accuracy works, including for small arms. What's not listed is that all fully automatic weapons and small arms make an attack and damage roll every 2 seconds, which improves with vet, to a maximum of every 1.5 seconds with a veteran 3 unit. Furthermore, vehicle accuracy including small arms improves as the guide describes with veterancy, but infantry small arms accuracy does not improve with vet.

AT guns themselves are rather weak at the moment. More than 1 halftrack is usually enough to delete one, or spotting it and shooting with artillery. They are as expensive as tanks and have less availability usually. The consensus among the tournament community is that they're utter trash and are a large reason why Axis Infantry decks are in general garbage.

 

[Herr_Robert]

I think AT guns are good and cost-effective, but the availability per card is often too poor. The AT guns are great to use in long-range engagements vs tanks because they are guaranteed to survive a number of hits due to relying on the HP system, while a tank can be destroyed in 1-2 hits if it's unlucky. Being able to use them from green cover is an advantage that should not be underestimated.

I have a feeling alot of players think AT guns are shit because of 7AD, but that's more because of 7AD being an overpowered division with a ton of .50 cal power in A than anything else. They are also easy to counter, so there's a point of diminishing returns when it comes to using AT guns. You have to use them together with tanks and other units for them to perform well.

 

[Max_Damage]

Elite AT guns demolish vehicles. This can be seen very often with the obnoxious elite 6 pdr guns in A. There is a thin line between guns being weak and overpowered. Armored divisions live or die depending on how the guns work in the game. The veterancy system already provides a multitude of results for AT guns and their performance.

The only thing that i would like to be changed is that 1200 m micro exploit where you can outrange the heaviest AT guns with a 1200m HE vehicle. There should be a check before you apply morale damage. If it turns out that the damage is dealt via ground targeted fire while the gun is in plain sight, then there should be no morale damage issued to said gun. if you want to blow up the gun then you should at least roll the dice once. It will at least seem fair. Maybe also give axis a few more veteran guns in A. All allied inf divsions have super good phase A at guns.

Aaaand 4th armored with hellcats in A was a mistake.

 

[Jeff_Ahl]

I think AT guns are good and cost-effective, but the availability per card is often too poor. The AT guns are great to use in long-range engagements vs tanks because they are guaranteed to survive a number of hits due to relying on the HP system, while a tank can be destroyed in 1-2 hits if it's unlucky. Being able to use them from green cover is an advantage that should not be underestimated.

I have a feeling alot of players think AT guns are shit because of 7AD, but that's more because of 7AD being an overpowered division with a ton of .50 cal power in A than anything else. They are also easy to counter, so there's a point of diminishing returns when it comes to using AT guns. You have to use them together with tanks and other units for them to perform well.

Yeah, greater availability would be great.

 

[Miskyavine]

greater avalibility and lower price sounds great until you realize that normal tank HE shells dont do anything and that if a tank and an at gun face off unless the tank has higher armor then the at gun has AP the at gun wins most of the time i have 2 problems with how AT guns act ingame

problem 1 they can be effectively used as an offensive weapon like 17 pounder attacking across a field to kill panthers
they would be instantly killed in reallife and AT guns as a whole were useless unless in dense cover and concealed.

problem 2 you can literally get the drop on a AT gun with a tank and due to the bullshit nerf to tank HE on AT guns they AT gun will win most of the time (if the at gun is capable of penning) again AT guns were pure defensive tools attacking with them was almost impossible

lowering the price and making them more plentiful? lower thier survivability they should not survive bombs and HE shells or artillery like they do now.

 

[zeimer]

No, AT guns were made to ... counter enemy armored vehicles including tanks. Most of the tanks in ww2 were killed by ... AT guns.

So in game one tank vs one at gun the latter should win, when latter is in same tier or above. This is a factual representation. Of affairs.

AT guns are countered by spamming vehicles, artilery, planes, infantry, bur not by a single tank. Nothing is wrong as it is now in the game.

The only beef i have is that hardcoded range, when irl it woyld still engage, but penetration and accuracy would be negligent.

 

[Miskyavine]

You shouldnt be able to at gun push. you shouldnt be able to have an at-gun in an open field win. Anything could kill at guns HE shells should instantly knock them out. i dont have a problem when there in cover and hiding and ambushing tanks.

 

[zeimer]

Its not that easy to hit at gun due to the size difference between tank and at gun. Also no laser range finders in ww2.