2 seconds delay versus tanks

[EstadoMayor]

Well, my first impression with the "2 seconds delay" is simple, infantry has absolutly nothing to do against jumbo with HE, sherman with HE, crusader and scott, and nothing it´s nothing, whole squads die doing absolutly nothing or the tank scapes while the squads die again, this "2 second delay" can ruin the game to be honest, it was really hard kill those tanks with infantry before, now it´s almost impossible. I cannot understand the reason why this is like that, but for this pain in the *** I would prefer the previous version. I think it´s the bigget mistake that I have seen in the new patch.

[Krieger Blitzer]

Adding aim time to handheld AT weapons, as well as improving HE shells.. are my most favorite changes throughout this entire patch!

Tanks now are much more valuable; specifically German tanks. However.. infantry aren't useless either, they just need to be used more wisely... No more frontally rushing, and no longer double or triple shooting with Bazookas and PanzerSchrecks anymore

[EstadoMayor]

wich means that a single jumbo with HE cannot be stopped anymore, just with some miracles a 3 ATs squads surrounding the tank. I only play axis as you know and a single bloody sherman can be a pain with the 50 caliber plus the HE rounds plus the aim time means 2 squads of grenadiers with vet 2 dead, I have seen it mate and it´s not funny at all, specially if the bloody sherman is still alive due to the supression of the MG and the HE shell itself. Well, again will be even more difficult for axis survive to shermans and jumbos in the mid-early game, while airborned guys are almost inmortals with vet 3 the grenadiers still are like butter after vet 3-4. Thank you.

[kwok]

50mm, 75mm, stugs, p4s, all fine counters to the shermans.

If you came complaining about the churchills... then I might be more convinced it's an actual problem. But it seems like people have no problems with that YET.

[sgtToni95]

Well...maybe you didn't have time to try the counterpart, but since it works the same for zooks and german tanks balance is not broken at all.. what you're saying here is basically "inf is not good against anti inf tanks".. did you try anything else to take down those tanks?
I was using AB yesterday and pz4 F was killing almost entirely my ab squads with he shots. I'm serious when i say they did the same on allies handheld AT as well, you should check it.

[MarKr]

wich means that a single jumbo with HE cannot be stopped anymore, just with some miracles a 3 ATs squads surrounding the tank. I only play axis as you know and a single bloody sherman can be a pain with the 50 caliber plus the HE rounds plus the aim time means 2 squads of grenadiers with vet 2 dead, I have seen it mate and it´s not funny at all, specially if the bloody sherman is still alive due to the supression of the MG and the HE shell itself. Well, again will be even more difficult for axis survive to shermans and jumbos in the mid-early game, while airborned guys are almost inmortals with vet 3 the grenadiers still are like butter after vet 3-4. Thank you.

Hi,
what other people told you here is true - AT infantry is NOT the only AT unit you have (and you sort of make it sound like it is the other way). You can use PaKs or PIVs. AT infantry is now more of a defensive squad - they can be used from cover (with or without ambush) because the cover gives them protection for the two seconds...yes, they can still die but definitely not so easily as with frontal rush. People were just used to use the AT infantry with the "sprint to tank, fire immediately, retreat" tactics which was honestly weird. So try to drag along with your infantry some unit that has AT gun...there are tons of them from AT halftracks to medium tanks and tank hunters. The PIV F2 is now cheaper, has smoke ability and also can mess up opponent's AT rush with HE shot.
Also it works the same way for Allies; bazookas, Recoilless Rifles and Piats have this too - I know you said you don't play allies but just for testing with a friend try to rush a PIV F1 (this one has top MG too) with US AT team...they will get shred to bits.

I think this is sort of the same situation that we saw with Churchills when they got buffed armor. People were used to destroying them with pretty much anything and when anything under 75mm/l48 became weak, everyone was like "OMG WTF??? Churchills are OP!" but after a while they adjusted and found ways to take them down. People just need time to adjust to this change.

[Redgaarden]

But panzerjeagers are very expensive manpower wise so it hurts your manpower losing just a few models becasue they are so expensive to reinforce. And armor shermans with sandbags + overrepair will survive 2 hits regardless if they pen or not, and this applies too with some churchills. Just saying that even if you pull off a textbook ambush it wont pay itself directly. But there are alot of advantages too, so I dont really mind the change I'm just happy how good light vehicles are against anti tanks squads now.

[Sukin-kot (SVT)]

This change killed any sense in having a single AT weapon in squads though ( it will only waste the slot and barely ever kill something ).

[kwok]

I have a suggestion, maybe set it so the aim time changes based on distance? This way the risk-reward curve scales proportionately.

I'm a big fan of the change like tiger and markr (schreck snipes and scurries are stupid veterancy generators), but I can see potential problems against churchills and what sukin mentioned has merits too.

[Panzerblitz1]

Well the meta changed regarding this AT squad units, there is no longer Kamikaze Banzaï single unit who one shoot shermans "flashGordon style" frontaly like a one man army and retreat to do it again, and again, now they need to place themselves correctly and needs more supports to aim and wipe out tanks with precision.
The PanzerFauts aiming system is similar, and its working very nicely for YEARS without any complains, you just need to get used too, the insta. shoot was a bit too arcadish, and yes its now a bit more tricky to attack frontally tanks, just for infos, it was better to shoot on the side/rear of a tank, and not from the front where the steel is more thick with 2 MG's and a nice 75mm Guns with cute HE shells, if your team use the side/rear of the tanks, the MG's/Gun turn delay will never have the time to wipe out your AT team, especially if they are vets.

Conclusion, DO NOT ENGAGE in a frontal assault your AT squads OR ANY SQUADS IN GENERAL against tanks, the AT squads camo ability is also made to use tanks weak points.

[MarKr]

I have a suggestion, maybe set it so the aim time changes based on distance? This way the risk-reward curve scales proportionately.

I'm a big fan of the change like tiger and markr (schreck snipes and scurries are stupid veterancy generators), but I can see potential problems against churchills and what sukin mentioned has merits too.

I experimented with this but the results are not very satisfactory. There is a parametr called "aim_time" and parametr called "ready_aim_time" and there's also multiplier for aim time which can change the aiming time based on range between weapon and target. However "aim_time" starts counting as soon as weapon is in range - so if you set this to 2 seconds the countdown starts as while the squad is still moving and by the time the squad finishes its rush towards the tank the 2 seconds had passed and they can shoot immediately so the rush tactics still works. "ready_aim_time" starts the countdown at the moment when the weapon can fire and for hand-held AT this is once they stop moving. The problem is, at least according to results of my tests, that the aim time multiplier only applies to "aim_time" but not to "ready_aim_time" so you either have rush possible (using aim_time) or not (using ready_aim_time).

[EstadoMayor]

Those theories are very nice, but I don´t see you playing games with veteran people, while they use spotters to detect camo units, infanty to kill them, shermans, arty to kill paks and so on, you think is just tank versus at squads and you are very wrong. Don´t worry i am used to be ignored in this forum as everybody who tries to get a bit of common sense, now the planets need to in line to kill a bloody sherman, bravo guys, bravo!

[Panzerblitz1]

Those theories are very nice, but I don´t see you playing games with veteran people, while they use spotters to detect camo units, infanty to kill them, shermans, arty to kill paks and so on, you think is just tank versus at squads and you are very wrong. Don´t worry i am used to be ignored in this forum as everybody who tries to get a bit of common sense, now the planets need to in line to kill a bloody sherman, bravo guys, bravo!

So you are saying pretty much that the only units capable to kill shermans in bk are AT squads...right? AT's squads CAN disengage and retreat quickly to HQ or retreat points to refit, this is not the case for AT guns, or Tanks, so even with the aiming system, AT's squads are a great at what they do in game, steel brakers, if well managed of course.

Veterans or not, you also have spotters, infantry and most of the time arty and fighters too.

[Devilfish]

I personally like the change, for the sake of changing meta, having more fun observing new approaches.

Balance wise, only time will tell, in my opinion. Even though it might seem "fair", because it applies the same to both allies and axis, yet not discovered efficiency of support vehicles and other alternative AT tools might prove the otherwise.

Also there is a point that Sukin and Red made. Even though we all (almost) like the change, and even if it won't cause any balance issues, it can still render AT squads, schreck/zook upgrades not worth it to an extend that nobody will bother using them. And that would be shame.

[MarKr]

Those theories are very nice, but I don´t see you playing games with veteran people, while they use spotters to detect camo units, infanty to kill them, shermans, arty to kill paks and so on, you think is just tank versus at squads and you are very wrong. Don´t worry i am used to be ignored in this forum as everybody who tries to get a bit of common sense, now the planets need to in line to kill a bloody sherman, bravo guys, bravo!

Problem with veterans is that they have their formulas of playing and when a change comes that messes this formula, they say how it is fucked up but when people tell what can be done, they just say "I am veteran and know better than you" without giving it a shot.

Anyway, you simply want to be able to rush to tank, blow it to bits and retreat while the tanks cannot do anything? Sorry, but no. If your opponent has enough resources to build a medium tanks, where are your mediums tanks to counter them? Low on fuel? Build PaKs for defense but AT teams require no skill to use and are insanely cost-effective when they have no aim-time.

[kwok]

Ah darn about the aim time vs ready aim time.

Welp, I guess we will have to start using stugs and other assortment of units and position them in smart formations instead of blind right clicking with the same infantry generating veterancy and hoarding fuel for panthers.... [sarcasm] what a shame. [/sarcasm]

[Panzerblitz1]

Ah darn about the aim time vs ready aim time.

Welp, I guess we will have to start using stugs and other assortment of units and position them in smart formations instead of blind right clicking with the same infantry generating veterancy and hoarding fuel for panthers.... [sarcasm] what a shame. [/sarcasm]

Exactely

[SnowLeo]

Ah darn about the aim time vs ready aim time.

Welp, I guess we will have to start using stugs and other assortment of units and position them in smart formations instead of blind right clicking with the same infantry generating veterancy and hoarding fuel for panthers.... [sarcasm] what a shame. [/sarcasm]

Exactely

Well. Folks of course you @know@ better what we need, and what need with balance (sarcasm) But why you not wanna see what after this AT squad = waste res ? I agree with Sukin.
So, about pak ..... You check value ? Pak40 have very more miss shots versus m26. Now you low penetrataion versus shermans. And now spam shermans destroy all on the way...
About stug and other AT units (axis). Stug iV not have chanse versus m26 or jumbo. After buf 90 mm canon - m26 easy destroy tiger andpanters... you may say - this is real... of course, but real what pak40 with AP rounds made 6 shots, 4 miss and 2 no damage ? or when 3 pak can penatration m26 and nothing.... after m26 easy destroy paks .... and when at team try shot to rear armor, m26 rear faste go then at car axis pe ? Now very hard stoped spam shermans or m26.... repeat after byf 90 mm panters have a little chance win versus m26... we play 2 days and all agree with me .. lets try play ... you will see what we try to say.... Or jumbo ... stug iV cant penetration, pak40 made 5-6 shots and only one may be can made damage... I think need buf AT parametrs axis at gun...

And it's interesting, You talk about what type of veterans say they know something better, because I play according to the scheme and therefore they deny something new. But at the same time you say that YOU KNOW BETTER than the VETERANS. although I can assume you don't play so much games as they. Can still listen to the players ? p.s. That's just not necessary for me to say that now the balance is the best in the entire history of this mod. It is mildly not true and too tendencioso and suguru subjective opinion. But this does not apply to this post.

[Leonida [525]]

I think we should see how these new mechanics change the game.. I also like them while at the same time i've some doubts.. If they make game very difficoult in some situation for all players then we could think something.. But at the moment the only good thing we can do is playing with new approaches and seeing.. i'm optimistic
1 thing.. Since AT squads are diffcoult to ambush even now, what about making AT squad able to crawl ambushed like spotters? Just an idea

[SnowLeo]

I think we should see how these new mechanics change the game.. I also like them while at the same time i've some doubts.. If they make game very difficoult in some situation for all players then we could think something.. But at the moment the only good thing we can do is playing with new approaches and seeing.. i'm optimistic
1 thing.. Since AT squads are diffcoult to ambush even now, what about making AT squad able to crawl ambushed like spotters? Just an idea

Now this is real difficoult. Shermans He, PZ with short canon, m16 and other not stay any chance for at squad... and have more distance for atack then at team... i think this is may kill at team.. and nobody not build .... because this is waste res...

[sgtToni95]

What about lowering AT squads aim time with vets? Is this possble?
I think this could be more "rewarding": you start with killing halftracks, less durable and USUALLY less deadly than a tank, starting with 2 seconds. A player needs decent micro to keep them safe from an inf rush even now, so it would be quite tricky to start getting vets. Then you get buff to like 1.5 (? just an example) for facing medium tanks, if you've been good enough at that time your opponent's won't have armor upgrades yet, then with other vets aimtime will decrease even more, going back to a "arcadeish" situation, but this time the possibility to hit-and-run would be earned as a reward for wisely using your AT squad throughout the previous phases of the game.

I really appreciate the mechanic how it is now, though while playing today i thought exactly what Kwok suggested, since i was at 2m from an halftrack and my squad having to aim for 2 seconds really looked a little weird.

@EstadoMayor
Did you ever try using piats? Even without new aim time delay, they had really hard time hitting even halftracks, let alone Panthers and Tigers. This means that what you're talking about (immortal he shermans killin everything) would come even earlier in the game for a CW player as soon as a mortar halftrack appeared (trust me, they're sooooooo hard to counter if used with a not even so good micro to keep them safe).
You talk about enemy having arty to counter paks, stuff to counter stuff, and that it's not an AT squad against a tank. Did you ever consider this happens on both sides?
I don't think the problem here is people in forum ignoring you, i think, and i really suggest you to do so, that you are not considering the situation from other points of view, which means it's you ignoring what they show you, and not the contrary. I used to play only allies, and after each game with my 525 games we spent hours discussing how OP things on opponet's side were, then i started playing games with axis, and found out how to destroy more effectively this or that unit and got a more objective point of view. I really wish you to get this as well sooner or later

[MarKr]

Well. Folks of course you @know@ better what we need, and what need with balance (sarcasm) But why you not wanna see what after this AT squad = waste res ? I agree with Sukin.

There is a huge difference between what players "need" and what they "want". Players want easy solutions to everything - powerful units that can take on more opponents units easily. Do they need them? No. But it is easier for playing so they want them. People want reliable arty in every doctrine. Does every doctrine need reliable arty? Definitely no. But players want it because using smoke on emplacements and infantry to decrew/destroy them is "harder" than just click on arty and bomb it to hell. There are options to deal with the problems but people want simple solutions to everything.

So, about pak ..... You check value ? Pak40 have very more miss shots versus m26. Now you low penetrataion versus shermans. And now spam shermans destroy all on the way...

Pershing is the US top tier tank and you want it to be reliably destroyed by PaK40? PaK40 is how much? 310MP? Pershing costs 830MP and 110F. If PaK40 countered M26 well, then it would be incredibly cost-effective. That is the same as if US 76mm AT gun would easily destroy...what would be same tier tank of Axis? Panther? Yes, let's say Panther. So would you be OK with 76mm guns easily destroying Panthers? I bet people would cry like hell about it.

About stug and other AT units (axis). Stug iV not have chanse versus m26 or jumbo. After buf 90 mm canon - m26 easy destroy tiger andpanters... you may say - this is real... of course, but real what pak40 with AP rounds made 6 shots, 4 miss and 2 no damage ? or when 3 pak can penatration m26 and nothing.... after m26 easy destroy paks .... and when at team try shot to rear armor, m26 rear faste go then at car axis pe ? Now very hard stoped spam shermans or m26.... repeat after byf 90 mm panters have a little chance win versus m26... we play 2 days and all agree with me .. lets try play ... you will see what we try to say.... Or jumbo ... stug iV cant penetration, pak40 made 5-6 shots and only one may be can made damage... I think need buf AT parametrs axis at gun...

Comparing the effectiveness of StugIV vs Pershing. Can't you at least compare units of same tier? StuG IV will help you deal with Shermans. Against Pershings you need something of same tier - Panthers, tigers, KTs, JTs. Sorry but if your opponent managed to tier up and save resources to have Pershings and your best unit is StuG IV, then there is some serious problem or no?
And why is everyone acting as if AT teams are the ONLY AT units in the game? Those tanks are not there just for looks.

And it's interesting, You talk about what type of veterans say they know something better, because I play according to the scheme and therefore they deny something new. But at the same time you say that YOU KNOW BETTER than the VETERANS.

I don't know if I know better but I know that since I don't play much, I don't play according to a formula/scheme and this makes me able to see what options are in the game. I keep telling here what people can use now instead of AT teams and veterans (who play according to schemes) keep saying how AT teams are absolutely needed. Who do you think has more objective point of view here?

[SnowLeo]

Well. Folks of course you @know@ better what we need, and what need with balance (sarcasm) But why you not wanna see what after this AT squad = waste res ? I agree with Sukin.

There is a huge difference between what players "need" and what they "want". Players want easy solutions to everything - powerful units that can take on more opponents units easily. Do they need them? No. But it is easier for playing so they want them. People want reliable arty in every doctrine. Does every doctrine need reliable arty? Definitely no. But players want it because using smoke on emplacements and infantry to decrew/destroy them is "harder" than just click on arty and bomb it to hell. There are options to deal with the problems but people want simple solutions to everything.

So, about pak ..... You check value ? Pak40 have very more miss shots versus m26. Now you low penetrataion versus shermans. And now spam shermans destroy all on the way...

Pershing is the US top tier tank and you want it to be reliably destroyed by PaK40? PaK40 is how much? 310MP? Pershing costs 830MP and 110F. If PaK40 countered M26 well, then it would be incredibly cost-effective. That is the same as if US 76mm AT gun would easily destroy...what would be same tier tank of Axis? Panther? Yes, let's say Panther. So would you be OK with 76mm guns easily destroying Panthers? I bet people would cry like hell about it.

About stug and other AT units (axis). Stug iV not have chanse versus m26 or jumbo. After buf 90 mm canon - m26 easy destroy tiger andpanters... you may say - this is real... of course, but real what pak40 with AP rounds made 6 shots, 4 miss and 2 no damage ? or when 3 pak can penatration m26 and nothing.... after m26 easy destroy paks .... and when at team try shot to rear armor, m26 rear faste go then at car axis pe ? Now very hard stoped spam shermans or m26.... repeat after byf 90 mm panters have a little chance win versus m26... we play 2 days and all agree with me .. lets try play ... you will see what we try to say.... Or jumbo ... stug iV cant penetration, pak40 made 5-6 shots and only one may be can made damage... I think need buf AT parametrs axis at gun...

Comparing the effectiveness of StugIV vs Pershing. Can't you at least compare units of same tier? StuG IV will help you deal with Shermans. Against Pershings you need something of same tier - Panthers, tigers, KTs, JTs. Sorry but if your opponent managed to tier up and save resources to have Pershings and your best unit is StuG IV, then there is some serious problem or no?
And why is everyone acting as if AT teams are the ONLY AT units in the game? Those tanks are not there just for looks.

And it's interesting, You talk about what type of veterans say they know something better, because I play according to the scheme and therefore they deny something new. But at the same time you say that YOU KNOW BETTER than the VETERANS.

I don't know if I know better but I know that since I don't play much, I don't play according to a formula/scheme and this makes me able to see what options are in the game. I keep telling here what people can use now instead of AT teams and veterans (who play according to schemes) keep saying how AT teams are absolutely needed. Who do you think has more objective point of view here?

Ok. M26 The Best usa tank - ok. Panters, tigers - now very weak after buf canon. this is write you another mate, and you answer - this is good, because this is good canon.. But maybe need reduce cost fuel for axis tanks ? Compare
how need fuel for m26 and tiger ? Really now ask ALL WHO play pvp... What doing m26 now ? M26 now easy kick ass tiger and panters. Easy very easy.. And if you have 1 pantera and 1 tiger versus m26 - i think m26 won. MarKr you say me what all you play to schemes but this is wrong... we play a lot of time and we will see... Look not Estado or i try say what 2 sec delay possible need tune... But no, you answer - you are mistake we know better then you what need doing...If M26 the best tanks then maybe need limited ? or up cost ?
but now 2-3 m26 and you at def broke.. I'm afaraid but you must see may be some replays ? when m26 destroy all ? May be this is change you mean.

[EstadoMayor]

Prshing costs 830 mp and 110 fuel, tiger costs 980 mp and 160 fuel, Pershing can beat a tiger as butter, maybe before the price was OK because the tiger was harder, but now it´s ridiculous, now we build a tiger thinking it´s like a 76W, a Jumbo or a hellcat, not a heavy tank, but the price is still like a heavy tank, wich is unfair. You say Markr about simple solutions, well ask allies for simple solutions and they have all of them, I haven´t seen any pantherturm since long long time ago, I haven´t seen any pack 40 emplacement, axis MG nests few few times, I mean there are units/buildings they are useless because of allies has always something to counter attack axis army, looks like the game is the axis armies and then the allied armies design to beat the axis army previously desgined, and the biggest frustration arrive when you come here and everybody tell you you know nothing and you want simple solutions.

[kwok]

Now.... I might be wrong about this... but I couldn't find a target table for jumbos for the 75mm pak. I think that means that the base stats apply which means a penetration of 85% at long range, 90% at medium, and 125% at close... I don't know but that doesnt' sound remotely invincible to me. Am I missing something?