What's your opinion on it?
-----
In my opinion, more generically the dual support weapon strategy on 1vs1 and 2vs2 (HMG and Atgun) are too well established in the meta, consequences of too few downsides until late game and rocket arty availability to counter them.
I think the problem with it rely more on the opportunity side, players tend to always have 300-500 manpower available on the early-mid game after having unlocking their T2 (or equivalent) and units associated.
So with all that manpower available and usually still 3-5 minutes to wait until T3/first tank, building a second atgun, even if there are no medium tank on the field is never a bad decision because it doesn't impact the player economy.
To me being able to dual your proper hard counter to medium tank before they even hit the field without impact on your own economy/play is a balance issue. Building a second ATgun should be a investment that cut the player from getting something else, a process going through tactical decision made by the player and not just a part of his build order.
I think atgun are currently correctly priced for what they bring individually, but the windows of opportunity to get two of them should be reduce to become part of a strategy decided by the player and not a simple usual build order because resources are here to allow it anyway.
Something should be done about the dual atgun meta
30 Jun 2021, 14:03 PM
#1
Posts: 3600 | Subs: 1
30 Jun 2021, 14:18 PM
#2
Posts: 1951
There isn't a lot of units in COH2 that are good if you have just one. An AA halftrack would shut down infantry play if people could only get one AT gun.
30 Jun 2021, 14:33 PM
#3
Posts: 321
Well, the AT-gun takes up pop-cap (thus manpower income) and it costs quite some manpower itself. That is the "tactical decision".
- Who has time? ... But then if we do not ever take time, how can we ever have time? huh?
30 Jun 2021, 14:41 PM
#4
Posts: 13476 | Subs: 1
...
I think atgun are currently correctly priced for what they bring individually, but the windows of opportunity to get two of them should be reduce to become part of a strategy decided by the player and not a simple usual build order because resources are here to allow it anyway.
If you are suggesting that medium tank should arrive earlier that is suggestion in the wrong direction.
If ones opponent invest to much in ATG gun one can simply invest in infatry and gain the advantage.
If there an issue here that would would be case with Zis that not provide AT but also AI and thus it is easier for a player to invest into two zis guns.
30 Jun 2021, 14:54 PM
#5
Posts: 17883 | Subs: 8
Have you tried using infantry instead of tanks against them yet?
Maybe it's 'cause the Axis players aren't a bunch of forum crybabies, and they keep their cool and fight the uphill battle, unlike some of their "allied" counterparts.
30 Jun 2021, 15:14 PM
#6
Posts: 1515
Hmmm, the enemy is using double AT guns. OP!!!!
I thought AT guns use population. Wasn't aware that they are completely free. So if you go one AT gun, you spend 7 pop, but if you go 2, it's 0 pop?
I thought AT guns use population. Wasn't aware that they are completely free. So if you go one AT gun, you spend 7 pop, but if you go 2, it's 0 pop?
How much wood could a woodchuck chuck, if a woodchuck could chuck wood?
https://coh2stats.com/players/76561198031032150
https://coh2stats.com/players/76561198031032150
30 Jun 2021, 16:58 PM
#7
Posts: 1116 | Subs: 1
Hmmm, the enemy is using double AT guns. OP!!!!
I thought AT guns use population. Wasn't aware that they are completely free. So if you go one AT gun, you spend 7 pop, but if you go 2, it's 0 pop?
2 AT guns are acceptable even in 1v1. They cost 7 pop-cap which is pretty much 1 mainline squad. Even if you go for staring engi (5), 4 mainlines (28 pop), 2 elites (18 pop), 1 MG (6 pop) and 2 AT guns (14) you are using in total 71 pop-cap. And you still have pop-cap for 2-3 armored units.
Tecnically if game is 50\50 there is no reason not to do AT gun walls, since they litterty can 2 shot any 640HP tank.
30 Jun 2021, 17:20 PM
#8
Posts: 1563
I have an unpopular opinion have a small 15 fuel cost for all allied atgs+rekt and 20 fuel for pak 40's. Also callin atg can have small cost like 10.
30 Jun 2021, 17:42 PM
#9
Posts: 268
I have an unpopular opinion have a small 15 fuel cost for all allied atgs+rekt and 20 fuel for pak 40's. Also callin atg can have small cost like 10.[/quote
I somehow like this idea. Not sure on the numbers though
30 Jun 2021, 18:04 PM
#10
Posts: 1660
I think it's a risk vs reward mechanic, most counters to at guns will force the player to move both if they are in line, so you can catch 2 birds with a stone, and 2 at gun won't cover an area large enough to shut down vehicle play like they would if properly positioned
30 Jun 2021, 18:08 PM
#11
Posts: 940
Sure, when I can stop swearing after the RW misses for the nth time. But bear in mind that T-34/85 medium tank hordes are already a thing (Looking at you Artem and pals) and Panther will not suffice when you are already behind. AT guns are also vital for punishing excessive investment into TDs.
30 Jun 2021, 18:09 PM
#12
Posts: 3600 | Subs: 1
If you are suggesting that medium tank should arrive earlier that is suggestion in the wrong direction.
If ones opponent invest to much in ATG gun one can simply invest in infatry and gain the advantage.
If there an issue here that would would be case with Zis that not provide AT but also AI and thus it is easier for a player to invest into two zis guns.
I don't know how you understand that, but nan everything wrong.
Have you tried using infantry instead of tanks against them yet?
Sarcasm isn't a valid argument.
Hmmm, the enemy is using double AT guns. OP!!!!
I thought AT guns use population. Wasn't aware that they are completely free. So if you go one AT gun, you spend 7 pop, but if you go 2, it's 0 pop?
you're missing the point, the cost efficiency of 2 atgun is too great vs medium tanks because their impact on the player economy is simply too low. If you have the manpower, there is no decision making about building a second one.
2 AT guns are acceptable even in 1v1. They cost 7 pop-cap which is pretty much 1 mainline squad. Even if you go for staring engi (5), 4 mainlines (28 pop), 2 elites (18 pop), 1 MG (6 pop) and 2 AT guns (14) you are using in total 71 pop-cap. And you still have pop-cap for 2-3 armored units.
Tecnically if game is 50\50 there is no reason not to do AT gun walls, since they litterty can 2 shot any 640HP tank.
pretty much this.
If all medium tanks had 720hp, that wouldn't be much of a problem imo but with the current values, 2 atgun are simply too cost effective vs medium tanks because the manpower flow around min 10 allow players to bank 300-500 manpower easily.
30 Jun 2021, 18:16 PM
#13
Posts: 951
Has anyone deployed GGMortars against this kind of play? Back when maxim spam was meta they were extensively used, perhaps they can against this campy playstyle.
NON VOS TURBATIS
30 Jun 2021, 18:42 PM
#14
Posts: 13476 | Subs: 1
I don't know how you understand that, but nan everything wrong.
...
Reading this part of OP
"I think atgun are currently correctly priced for what they bring individually, but the windows of opportunity to get two of them should be reduce to become part of a strategy decided by the player and not a simple usual build order because resources are here to allow it anyway."
I assume that you meant that a medium tank should be available before one can produced 2 ATG.
If that is not what you meant please elaborate what you mean when you write that "the windows of opportunity to get two of them should be reduce".
30 Jun 2021, 20:06 PM
#15
Posts: 1890 | Subs: 1
The last couple of patches have addressed this by decreasing Medium tank target size and increasing Racc of AT Guns. Not much else can be done without breaking balance. IE you can't lower AT gun accuracy without making LVs super oppressive. I don't know what to say beyond "build better counters" and "don't attack straight into support weapon walls".
I know it can be a struggle on some maps or factions (looking at you USF LT build with no Calli) but the AT guns themselves aren't the problem IMO.
I know it can be a struggle on some maps or factions (looking at you USF LT build with no Calli) but the AT guns themselves aren't the problem IMO.
30 Jun 2021, 20:09 PM
#16
Posts: 3106 | Subs: 2
IF something has to be done, increasing soft factors such as reinforcement cost and reinforcement time are also possible.
30 Jun 2021, 20:12 PM
#17
Posts: 1660
IF something has to be done, increasing soft factors such as reinforcement cost and reinforcement time are also possible.
Isn't it dependant on what squad crewed the at gun?
30 Jun 2021, 20:22 PM
#18
Posts: 3106 | Subs: 2
Isn't it dependant on what squad crewed the at gun?
Reinforcement cost yes, reinforcement time I don't know, I assumed this stat belongs to the ATG squad itself. But still, even if the normal ATGs get nerfed, it would also be helpful. No one is going to decrew them first themselves.
30 Jun 2021, 20:34 PM
#19
Posts: 1116 | Subs: 1
I'm not a fan that AT guns arent taking damage untill they are decrewed. While I do agree that it might be not alright for tanks being able to destoy crewed AT guns by focus fire, I would have still enable damage on crewed AT guns from at least splash damage.
Maybe also aplied damage reductions, so they wont take full dagame but still would take it non the less.
Problem is, that AT guns are relatively safe to use most of the time and are very forgiving in terms of keeping the gun itself alive. Unless you are being pushed really badly, there is no way you gonna lose an AT gun. Other support weapons at least can be stolen and retreated.
Not to mention that in early game there is pretty much no way to destoy decrewed AT gun (only OKW and Penals can pretty much without much of an efford).
Maybe also aplied damage reductions, so they wont take full dagame but still would take it non the less.
Problem is, that AT guns are relatively safe to use most of the time and are very forgiving in terms of keeping the gun itself alive. Unless you are being pushed really badly, there is no way you gonna lose an AT gun. Other support weapons at least can be stolen and retreated.
Not to mention that in early game there is pretty much no way to destoy decrewed AT gun (only OKW and Penals can pretty much without much of an efford).
30 Jun 2021, 21:15 PM
#20
Posts: 3600 | Subs: 1
The last couple of patches have addressed this by decreasing Medium tank target size and increasing Racc of AT Guns. Not much else can be done without breaking balance. IE you can't lower AT gun accuracy without making LVs super oppressive. I don't know what to say beyond "build better counters" and "don't attack straight into support weapon walls".
I know it can be a struggle on some maps or factions (looking at you USF LT build with no Calli) but the AT guns themselves aren't the problem IMO.
I had more in mind to increase their popcap by +2 so building 2 atgum become a decision unlike today.
1 user is browsing this thread:
1 guest
Ladders Top 10
-
#Steam AliasWL%Streak
- 1.968562.633+23
- 2.28642.872+6
- 3.555227.710+11
- 4.275110.714+13
- 5.249134.650+2
- 6.259143.644+3
- 7.249150.624+10
- 8.19265.747+5
- 9.14138.788+16
- 10.18878.707+2
Data provided by
Relic Entertainment
Relic Entertainment
Replay highlight
VS
-
cblanco ★ -
보드카 중대
-
VonManteuffel -
Heartless Jäger
Einhoven Country
Honor it
7
Download
734
Board Info
8 posts in the last 24h
48 posts in the last week
148 posts in the last month
48 posts in the last week
148 posts in the last month
Registered members: 44917
Welcome our newest member, shazam casino
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM
Welcome our newest member, shazam casino
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM