Login

russian armor

Raketens are too good

PAGES (10)down
28 Mar 2020, 15:34 PM
#141
avatar of achpawel

Posts: 984



And the fact that every tank 2 shot it frontaly ... is that also reflected?

While Zis tanking 5 Tiger shots...

Other at guns can be killed by tanks too, especially when they are close to them. My point is, it can retreat and it makes it more surviable. Other at guns can't do that. Thus, Ilits survaiability imo is similar to other at guns, with the exception of ZiS. IMO Pak with 4 men crew is generally less survivable. But most importantly - rak got buffed and it should be more expensive imo.
28 Mar 2020, 16:10 PM
#142
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 8290 | Subs: 1


Other at guns can be killed by tanks too, especially when they are close to them. My point is, it can retreat and it makes it more surviable. Other at guns can't do that. Thus, Ilits survaiability imo is similar to other at guns, with the exception of ZiS. IMO Pak with 4 men crew is generally less survivable. But most importantly - rak got buffed and it should be more expensive imo.

It got a price increase also and some nerfs:
Buffs:
Range from 50 to 55
Crew size from 4 to 5

Nerfs:
Cost from 270 to 290
Camouflage ability now locks the unit in place unless revealed. Cannot move, but can rotate
Requires veterancy 1 for camouflage

28 Mar 2020, 16:31 PM
#143
avatar of achpawel

Posts: 984

jump backJump back to quoted post28 Mar 2020, 16:10 PMVipper

It got a price increase also and some nerfs:
Buffs:
Range from 50 to 55
Crew size from 4 to 5

Nerfs:
Cost from 270 to 290
Camouflage ability now locks the unit in place unless revealed. Cannot move, but can rotate
Requires veterancy 1 for camouflage



I understand. Still, I believe that for two above reasons (1. less manpower OKW will have to spend on infantry; 2. those extra abilities including retrat) it should cost as much as other anti tank guns.
28 Mar 2020, 16:36 PM
#144
avatar of SkysTheLimit

Posts: 2413 | Subs: 1



It's the worst AT gun and that's a fact.


Shouldn't it be? Its in the HQ and its the cheapest besides 57mm which often needs muni to work

ZiS gun isn't much better at AT... It has the barrage to add utility but its not much better at its job
28 Mar 2020, 16:48 PM
#145
avatar of Stormjäger

Posts: 2636

Shouldn't it be?


Don't turn the argument towards whether it should be the worst, I just said it IS the worst.
28 Mar 2020, 16:49 PM
#146
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 8290 | Subs: 1



I understand. Still, I believe that for two above reasons (1. less manpower OKW will have to spend on infantry; 2. those extra abilities including retrat) it should cost as much as other anti tank guns.

Making RW to "reduce" the manpower of OKW is a step in the wrong direction because their that will force allies to use WC51/m3 to gain advantage.

If OKW need less manpower simply lower the starting manpower. (alternatively increase cost VG or time to build.)

RW does not "extra" abilities camo comes at vet 1 and it needs to reach vet 3 to even get a first strike bonus.

If you want to talk about "extra ability" you can look at cheaper M-42 with vet 0 camo that can move/vet 0 first strike bonus/canister shot.
28 Mar 2020, 16:50 PM
#147
avatar of achpawel

Posts: 984



I think the lack of gunshield, horrific traverse speed, 3 secs minimum to fire after setting up, lack of reverse key (meaning retreating clumps you up for a moment making you vulnerable to grenades when other ATGs just reverse quickly) and bad reload time make it the worst AT gun.

I don't think it is the worst. I feel that OKW can field too many infantry units early game. If their AT costs a bit more it should be better for the gameplay and make it more even. I want the OKW player to if they risk more infantry squads or an AT gun. Secondly, overall I feel that the rak got buffed (range now makes it more deadly). I'd rather make it even slightly better but also more expensive reach this end.

Shame we never got the Panzerjager commander with the Pak40 for OKW...

I'd like that - especially because allies play against only two armies - it would give them more options to calculate into their battleplans. Now they seem to be playing mainly against OKW.
28 Mar 2020, 16:53 PM
#148
avatar of SkysTheLimit

Posts: 2413 | Subs: 1



Don't turn the argument towards whether it should be the worst, I just said it IS the worst.


You also said it's abhorrent and it takes 3 seconds to fire. Neither of those things are true imo, idk where you are getting 3 seconds from
28 Mar 2020, 16:53 PM
#149
avatar of Stormjäger

Posts: 2636

I feel that OKW can field too many infantry units early game. If their AT costs a bit more it should be better for the gameplay and make it more even. I want the OKW player to if they risk more infantry squads or an AT gun.


Dude stop. My eyes hurt.




You also said it's abhorrent and it takes 3 seconds to fire. Neither of those things are true imo, idk where you are getting 3 seconds from


Yeah that's my experience with it. Disagree all you want, I ain't changing it. The unit sucks a$$ IN MY HUMBLE HONEST OPINION!
28 Mar 2020, 16:58 PM
#150
avatar of SkysTheLimit

Posts: 2413 | Subs: 1


Yeah that's my experience with it. Disagree all you want, I ain't changing it. The unit sucks a$$ IN MY HUMBLE HONEST OPINION!


You are welcome to your opinion about it being abhorrent, but it does not take 3 seconds to fire
28 Mar 2020, 17:01 PM
#151
avatar of Stormjäger

Posts: 2636



You are welcome to your opinion about it being abhorrent, but it does not take 3 seconds to fire


You set up the raketen, a vehicle is at the edge of the cone. The raketen from completion of the set up bar to actually taking the shot will take about 3 seconds. In the same situation the USF M1 ATG will take about 0.5secs. If you don't believe me go test it.
28 Mar 2020, 17:03 PM
#152
avatar of achpawel

Posts: 984



You set up the raketen, a vehicle is at the edge of the cone. The raketen from completion of the set up bar to actually taking the shot will take about 3 seconds. In the same situation the USF M1 ATG will take about 0.5secs. If you don't believe me go test it.

But USF at gun is also too cheap.
28 Mar 2020, 17:09 PM
#153
avatar of SkysTheLimit

Posts: 2413 | Subs: 1



You set up the raketen, a vehicle is at the edge of the cone. The raketen from completion of the set up bar to actually taking the shot will take about 3 seconds. In the same situation the USF M1 ATG will take about 0.5secs. If you don't believe me go test it.


This isn't what you said before, you said in ANY situation:


I think the lack of gunshield, horrific traverse speed, 3 secs minimum to fire after setting up, lack of reverse key (meaning retreating clumps you up for a moment making you vulnerable to grenades when other ATGs just reverse quickly) and bad reload time make it the worst AT gun.


Put a ZiS gun in the same "situation", its tracking is just as bad as Raks (their horizontal speed is exactly the same)
28 Mar 2020, 17:17 PM
#154
avatar of suora

Posts: 24



You set up the raketen, a vehicle is at the edge of the cone. The raketen from completion of the set up bar to actually taking the shot will take about 3 seconds. In the same situation the USF M1 ATG will take about 0.5secs. If you don't believe me go test it.


Having just tested this, they both take about 3 seconds to shoot.
28 Mar 2020, 17:18 PM
#155
avatar of Stormjäger

Posts: 2636

jump backJump back to quoted post28 Mar 2020, 17:17 PMsuora


Having just tested this, they both take about 3 seconds to shoot.


I've seen live action M1 immediately set up and fire at a vehicle at the very edge of its cone. If it's not 100% of the time then it's a bug or something, but it definitely happens and I've lost LVs to it.


This isn't what you said before, you said in ANY situation:


Yes well I clarified now.
28 Mar 2020, 17:44 PM
#156
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 8290 | Subs: 1

RW has longer aim times:
RW
Fire aim time near 0.25 - 0.38
Fire aim time mid 0.25 - 0.38
Fire aim time far 0.25 - 0.38

m1
Fire aim time near 0.13
Fire aim time mid 0.13
Fire aim time far 0.13

zis
Fire aim time near 0.13 - 0.25
Fire aim time mid 0.13 - 0.25
Fire aim time far 0.13 - 0.25
28 Mar 2020, 17:51 PM
#157
avatar of blvckdream

Posts: 2042

jump backJump back to quoted post28 Mar 2020, 17:44 PMVipper
RW has loner aim times:
RW
Fire aim time near 0.25 - 0.38
Fire aim time mid 0.25 - 0.38
Fire aim time far 0.25 - 0.38

m1
Fire aim time near 0.13
Fire aim time mid 0.13
Fire aim time far 0.13

zis
Fire aim time near 0.13 - 0.25
Fire aim time mid 0.13 - 0.25
Fire aim time far 0.13 - 0.25


Rak also has slower tracking speed (12) than M1 (18).
28 Mar 2020, 17:55 PM
#158
avatar of SkysTheLimit

Posts: 2413 | Subs: 1



I've seen live action M1 immediately set up and fire at a vehicle at the very edge of its cone. If it's not 100% of the time then it's a bug or something, but it definitely happens and I've lost LVs to it.


Having also just tested it at no point was I able to recreate a situation where the m1 shot 2.5 seconds earlier than the Rak. Nothing even close to that
28 Mar 2020, 17:57 PM
#159
avatar of Stormjäger

Posts: 2636



Having also just tested it at no point was I able to recreate a situation where the m1 shot 2.5 seconds earlier than the Rak. Nothing even close to that


I see it quite often, I'll make a video next time I see it and present it to the community. I was close to tilting enough to make it last time I saw it, so next time I'll make it.
28 Mar 2020, 18:03 PM
#160
avatar of SkysTheLimit

Posts: 2413 | Subs: 1



I see it quite often, I'll make a video next time I see it and present it to the community.


Why? What is your point?

That the Rak isn't as good as M1? Okay? M1 is the best AT gun in the game, as long as you spend 30 muni every time

The numbers above don't support a 2.5 second difference either
PAGES (10)down
1 user is browsing this thread: 1 guest
UTT2 Main Event
Event in Progress

Ladders Top 10

  • #
    Steam Alias
    W
    L
    %
    Streak
Data provided by Relic Relic Entertainment

Replay highlight

VS
  • Ostheer flag T.R. 6 squads, 4 maxim 2 engies
  • U.S. Forces flag °NOSMarkov.-
uploaded by KahootKing

Board Info

108 users are online: 6 members and 102 guests
N/A, Vipper, JibberJabberJobber, ShadowLinkX37, Oziligath, Musti
71 posts in the last 24h
908 posts in the last week
4564 posts in the last month
Registered members: 22822
Welcome our newest member, 9andrewe9422ga5
Most online: 1221 users on 25 Feb 2020, 12:03 PM