Login

russian armor

Super AT Guns

26 Jun 2019, 21:51 PM
#21
avatar of LoopDloop

Posts: 3053

jump backJump back to quoted post26 Jun 2019, 14:53 PMVipper

The idea here is that cost is divided between the emplacement itself and the crew.

That allows unit preservation and better pricing.

For instance if the crew could abandoned the weapon and survive bombardments one could increase XP value and price for the package but lower the price for building the structure only.

That's actually a really interesting idea. Honestly I'd love to see it applied to all british emplacements: if you make them decrewable or whatever you can change them to be a lot less frustrating without making them even more useless than they already are, same goes for pak 43 and maybe even those flak guns okw can build doctrinally.
27 Jun 2019, 14:22 PM
#22
avatar of Tiger Baron

Posts: 3141 | Subs: 2

I mean, define engine limits really, most stuff like them being able to move it is possible already, we just lack the animations because SOMEBODY decided to lock model editing and importing, animation editing and making, texture editing and importing and so on and so forth.

Anyhow, rants about limited modding aside, the only thing I'd really give them is some sort of ability to pack up and move or be destroyed, that's about it. They're largely useless like most other emplacements when the fighting is outside of their range and just serve as monuments really to hamper your manpower and popcap as well as space sometimes. It would be nice if we had special towing trucks that could move them around or something similar to this video but again, lack of animations:



You can make the unit be "garrisoned" inside the vehicle without animations tho, just a headsup, I did it a long time ago in my mod with the Opel Blitz:

27 Jun 2019, 15:41 PM
#23
avatar of Grumpy

Posts: 1947



They absolutely should not be self-spotting, that would give you an incredible map-hack ability that would put the old t-70 at vet-3 to shame.

I think they're fine to frustrating, particularly due to the "can shoot through obstacles" issue.

I'd rather see the pak43 be turned into an actual emplacement and no longer be able to shoot through obstacles, with a timed ability like the 17 pounder.


The old T-70 (and 222) were mobile, had something crazy like a 80-90 sight range and could be used offensively. The AT guns aren't mobile and could only be used defensively so it wouldn't be any sort of map-hack ability. I don't use them so I don't know what the current range is.

Of the two, the only one that I've found annoying is the UKF one, and that's only because I don't usually get any indirect when playing as OKW.

I realize the game is just a game and not intended to be a simulation, but it is really odd that an AT gun needs a spotter like artillery does, and that AT guns are damaged by armor piercing rounds, when normally the damage to it would be to the crew and not the AT gun itself. Infantry should be able to decrew either a PAK 43 or a 17lbr. Engineers should be able to destroy a decrewed AT gun.
27 Jun 2019, 16:25 PM
#24
avatar of Maret

Posts: 711

Idea with decrewable emplacement sounds nice, it will be good if all howitzers also have this option, to have chance save some part of they cost in face of offmap strike.
27 Jun 2019, 18:23 PM
#25
avatar of Grumpy

Posts: 1947

jump backJump back to quoted post27 Jun 2019, 16:25 PMMaret
Idea with decrewable emplacement sounds nice, it will be good if all howitzers also have this option, to have chance save some part of they cost in face of offmap strike.


Arty wars are terribly un-fun. If there was any change to howitzers, I'd like to see a veto added for them on the search screen, and would gladly give up a map veto or two for a howitzer veto.

Also, it takes about six minutes of munition income in a typical match to take out a howitzer that costs about 2-3 minutes of manpower and fuel income.
27 Jun 2019, 19:08 PM
#26
avatar of murky depths

Posts: 607

The lack of self-spotting is absolutely critical to not allow for an overwhelming pressure a single large AT gun to be put in.

If you want to argue for some flare ability or some timed thing, sure go for it, but the idea that we should set their view range to = their current attack range is absolutely a no-go.
27 Jun 2019, 20:13 PM
#27
avatar of WingZero

Posts: 1484

The only thing I would change is to standardize the Super AT guns. We should bring their cost and abilities aligned together.
28 Jun 2019, 04:45 AM
#28
avatar of distrofio

Posts: 2358

jump backJump back to quoted post26 Jun 2019, 13:08 PMKatitof
Why would they need any overhauls?

There is no point in fixing if there is nothing to fix.


I woulndt consider something "never used" as "nothing to fix"

To OP:
I would make them like normal ATGs, maybe slower but definitely mobile.
If it were possible to implement a tow mechanic i would definitely add it, using HT to move super ATGs.

I would also remove it from OST and give it exclusively to OKW, and make it stock (?, they fit better their style.

A lot of balance should be done afterwards.
28 Jun 2019, 04:53 AM
#29
avatar of LoopDloop

Posts: 3053

The lack of self-spotting is absolutely critical to not allow for an overwhelming pressure a single large AT gun to be put in.

If you want to argue for some flare ability or some timed thing, sure go for it, but the idea that we should set their view range to = their current attack range is absolutely a no-go.

+1

Don't pounders actually already have a flare ability tho? I forget since I almost never use them.
28 Jun 2019, 05:17 AM
#30
avatar of KiwiBirb

Posts: 789

I really like how doom described the crew idea, and I think the idea is great
28 Jun 2019, 06:38 AM
#31
avatar of Katitof

Posts: 17875 | Subs: 8



I woulndt consider something "never used" as "nothing to fix"

To OP:
I would make them like normal ATGs, maybe slower but definitely mobile.
If it were possible to implement a tow mechanic i would definitely add it, using HT to move super ATGs.

I would also remove it from OST and give it exclusively to OKW, and make it stock (?, they fit better their style.

A lot of balance should be done afterwards.

Its never used, because its never meta and people know their way around it.
It also isn't in doctrines with super infantry or tigers and for that reason it'll never be used.

In case of 17pounder, sim city was murdered and this one with it, last I checked everyone hated emplacements and building only a single, most expensive one was a stupid idea.
28 Jun 2019, 06:54 AM
#32
avatar of murky depths

Posts: 607


+1

Don't pounders actually already have a flare ability tho? I forget since I almost never use them.


Yep.
28 Jun 2019, 13:25 PM
#33
avatar of Grim

Posts: 1093

Make the Pak43 an emplacement like the 17pdr and remove its ability to shoot through buildings.

That would make it more durable in many ways and also less frustrating to deal with when it's flanked rather than the rng attack ground scenario you have to do currently.
28 Jun 2019, 18:18 PM
#34
avatar of SkysTheLimit

Posts: 3423 | Subs: 1

jump backJump back to quoted post28 Jun 2019, 13:25 PMGrim
Make the Pak43 an emplacement like the 17pdr and remove its ability to shoot through buildings.


I think both should be able to fire through buildings. Just not auto-target/track or whatever the right word is. You should be able to attack ground through just about anything with the super AT guns IMO
28 Jun 2019, 18:36 PM
#35
avatar of LoopDloop

Posts: 3053



I think both should be able to fire through buildings. Just not auto-target/track or whatever the right word is. You should be able to attack ground through just about anything with the super AT guns IMO

+1

Otherwise they're not super useful and aren't really worth making over other AT options, but at least it'd take micro to use.
28 Jun 2019, 19:10 PM
#36
avatar of Lago

Posts: 3260

+1

Otherwise they're not super useful and aren't really worth making over other AT options, but at least it'd take micro to use.


What if you removing firing through blockers entirely, but increased their range to 120? (+50%)

It'd then be about giving them the biggest sight lines possible rather than literally building them behind houses.

Their brittleness also wouldn't matter as much with ranges like that. You could make them both decrewable no-brace units like the Pak 43 is now.
28 Jun 2019, 19:37 PM
#37
avatar of Doomlord52

Posts: 959

jump backJump back to quoted post28 Jun 2019, 19:10 PMLago
What if you removing firing through blockers entirely, but increased their range to 120? (+50%)

It'd then be about giving them the biggest sight lines possible rather than literally building them behind houses.

Their brittleness also wouldn't matter as much with ranges like that. You could make them both decrewable no-brace units like the Pak 43 is now.


120 range would mean locking down 'lane' maps like Redball entirely, and from ranges that even mortars/ISGs couldn't hit.
28 Jun 2019, 19:42 PM
#38
avatar of Lago

Posts: 3260

120 range would mean locking down 'lane' maps like Redball express entirely, and from ranges that even mortars couldn't hit.


Only the open spaces. Even Red Ball has blockers.
28 Jun 2019, 19:51 PM
#39
avatar of SkysTheLimit

Posts: 3423 | Subs: 1

jump backJump back to quoted post28 Jun 2019, 19:42 PMLago


Only the open spaces. Even Red Ball has blockers.


How about 2v2 example like Rails and Metal or Minsk Pocket. On both of those would be way too strong IMO. I feel like you'd have to reduce damage or make the cone narrower so it needs to be re-positioned very often
28 Jun 2019, 20:07 PM
#40
avatar of Lago

Posts: 3260



How about 2v2 example like Rails and Metal or Minsk Pocket. On both of those would be way too strong IMO. I feel like you'd have to reduce damage or make the cone narrower so it needs to be re-positioned very often


Remember it needs line of sight. It doesn't lock down its entire firing cone.

Reducing the damage is a good counterbalance. A higher range, lower damage Pak 43/17 Pounder is more area denial and less "surprise! your tank died"
1 user is browsing this thread: 1 guest

Ladders Top 10

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

Replay highlight

VS
  • U.S. Forces flag cblanco ★
  • The British Forces flag 보드카 중대
  • Oberkommando West flag VonManteuffel
  • Ostheer flag Heartless Jäger
uploaded by XXxxHeartlessxxXX

Board Info

471 users are online: 1 member and 470 guests
DIRTY_FINISHER
18 posts in the last 24h
44 posts in the last week
100 posts in the last month
Registered members: 44647
Welcome our newest member, Vassarh9
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM