Frontal rushes into tanks issue!

[Krieger Blitzer]

I have an idea considering this subject. As I think it's possible to solve it without getting into any weapon values.. decreasing a range or a damage input of a certain handled AT weapon.
Why don't we just decrease the number of the available or the allowed handled AT weapons per each game?! I mean that for example, WH AT teams to lose 1 PanzerSchreck as well as US AT teams to lose 1 Bazooka for a great cost reduction of probably about 250MP on the other hand?! PE AT squad to get a cost reduction as well but to make sure about that they should actually stay slightly more expensive than all the others as they have throw-able grenades and a PanzerFaust. Also, US AT squads should be surely still able to get 1 more Bazooka using the Inf doc bonuses! While restricting the AB 101st squads from being able of grabbing 6 Recoilless rifles will be then necessary indeed. Doing such a thing could be done just by decreasing the free Recoilless rifles found on their dropped package by a single one.

Generally now u will see less successful frontal rushes into tanks. However that I am surely aware that this will also lead to at least 1 additional Pak to be there in a result of these cost reductions! But if u think of it more deeply u will then find out that u lost 2 PanzerSchrecks or probably 2 Bazookas as well per each game too!!! Keep in mind that also the British Recce will no longer be available earlier of about 30 seconds usually than the WH AT teams now because of that; a cheaper cost simply means to be earlier available! But now with only a single one PanzerSchreck.

[Krieger Blitzer]

What u guys think? Spread ur opinions.

[Sukin-kot (SVT)]

Shortly

Very stupid idea which will make all inf units useless, since they will be smashed by even smallest vehicle, currently for ex 101s needs at least 4-5 recoiless to kill a Puma, 2 always missing, 2 Puma survives, for killing pz4 you need 4 recoiless + 2 zooks, and still its about 50:50 to kill it (add here 1330 mp for all that weapons). Same to axis inf, 1 schreck sometimes cant kill recce, Sandbaged e8 can survive up to 4 schrecks.
That also will lead to more heavy paks on field = less active game = more camping = more arty.

And i simply dont see frontal rushes problems at all, just people overstimating tanks power (because comparing it with real life, but game and rf cant be compared for sure). Players must learn how to cover their tanks with HE shermans\supression\abilities\scots\stuhs\ostwinds\wirbelwinds\crusaders\smoke\keeping inf forward and etc. For me all this frontal rushes are gone since commando have no ninja smoke and WH at Teams nerfed, i almost never loosing tanks by that. If player uses higly specified at squad against your tanks ( 101s with 6 at, Gebirgs with 2 Schrecks and faust, sas with 4 zooks or whatever) you should have a specified unit for covering tank....easy game balance rules.

So, there is no need in changing at numbers\range or other values, just fix silly fast shooting with this tread breaker ability.

[Krieger Blitzer]

Stuhs already die with 2 Bazookas, they take way too much time to reload too. Ostwinds are available only in Blitz doc. While Terror has nothing really effective against those frontal rushes! Shermans can only survive if they are able to avoid being hit by Schrecks but once they are close enough then just forget about it! Which is surely a silly thing... E8s are only rarely able to survive like that btw. This was just an idea anyways.. and let's see more opinions!! But Hs don't need 4 Recoilless to die, only 2 to hit and penetrate are usually enough for its low health! Also, I saw a Tiger belonging to a very good player being smashed and almost flying in the air by those 101 AT 'shit' team just frontally. I srsly can't tell how ugly it was... 2 US Inf doc upgraded AT squads are also able to kill a Tiger easily from an ambush or even by just rushing frontally.

And rushing Shermans frontally using Axis AT teams is way much harder than to rush a Tiger or a Panther frontally using Allies AT teams btw.

[JimQwilleran]

I agree with Sukin that reducing inf at effectivness will only make the game more campy. I dont think that the current way the things work is bad.

[Krieger Blitzer]

Well, sad to know that u also prefer the "hit and run" tactic to be more represented than to this... It's not leading to a more campy game-play at all I think! Why should it?! U just need to flank tanks more now and not just frontally run into them using very high numbers of handled AT weapons per each squad!! Also, u will have 1 more Pak.. so what's the problem??!!

[Warhawks97]

guys... really.... which vehicle can defend themself against enemie inf? Its only tank IV H/J, Panther with top mounted HMG and alte tiger... All other get frontally rushed (shermans without HE cant kill 4 men rushing towards them. Even when i have two with 6 Mg´s shooting they are able to make a shot)

And then pls check all the usless crap units. So many vehicles have no top turret gunner. Or have a look for the Brits sherman; short barreld and no HE rounds and no top turret gunner.


Also you think game would become more campy?`I dont think so because whenever someone starts moving forward with tank or vehicle forces they get instantly counter rushed by Hendheld AT´s with guided missiles hitting even the fastest moving vehicles quite well without even aiming! And more paks?.... If paks wouldnt take so many hits from Tanks and vehicle canons that prob could be solved as well.

(very light and light 0 cp arty for several docs could solve that problem as well). Thing is that esspecially this "flanking" enemie tanks etc fails because there is always a guy with schreck knocking these flanking tanks out. In late games (when booth sides have some arty) paks are gone anyway and the only reason why nobody uses vehicles or tanks aggressively in offensive is because of the quickly appearing inf blobbs with dozens of hendheld AT´s smashing entire armys of vehicles and tanks (esspecially vehicles die like flys even when they outnumber infantry unless they are very specific anti inf vehicles but all other not speciliazed anti inf vehicles are often pointless).


Also i think that booth sides have usually enough armor stuff to counter enemie armor (inf doc would have it a bit harder then maybe).


Maybe not reduce number of hendheld AT weapons but range reduction and some aim time would help a lot already and vehicles could become more usefull.

[Kasbah]

It's not only a problem of AT squads but ALL squads.

Yesterday a flame squad came running frontally towards my panzer IV. It managed to immobilize it and retreat loosing only 1 guy.

[lunarwolf]

It's not only a problem of AT squads but ALL squads.

Yesterday a flame squad came running frontally towards my panzer IV. It managed to immobilize it and retreat loosing only 1 guy.

agreed.

also AB w/ recoiless rifles, rangers, luft falls, etc... all can frontally rush without issues esp with their sprint ability

this is why I suggested increasing hull mg suppression since that mg only faces forward.

removing 1 AT from AT squads will make them almost useless tbh. PE only have 1 and I never produce those unless I go TH for that extra shrek. otherwise you will need to increase squad number back to 6 so they have some sort of versatility

my 2 cents

[Sukin-kot (SVT)]

If talking about it, id better increase effectivness of vehicles which lacks mounted mgs.

[Krieger Blitzer]

So now I think we have 3 different possible ways represented here;
-First is to decrease shooting ranges...
-Second is probably to increase hull MGs suppression of certain tanks instead..
While both are into changing values, I then consider the third way which is my idea to be the best.

[Warhawks97]

If talking about it, id better increase effectivness of vehicles which lacks mounted mgs.

and how? sample stuart or brits sherman. How you want to imporve such units?

Also they dont lack mgs... they have 2 MG´s just they are crap.


As markr wrote increasing suppression and damage wont avoid frontal rushes unless they are made totally OP. Nontheless they could get some buff. Thing of Hendheld AT is the insane "triple"; Range, accuracy (at longer ranges and fast moving vehicles), 0-0.5 second aim time.

[Krieger Blitzer]

There is another reason that makes me so much hating to see a single squad grabbing like 6 Recoilless rifles for example. It's that actually it's definitely not the same to shoot 6 rockets all at the same time at a single target.. and when to shoot same those 6 rockets at a target but not all at the same time... Cause I believe that obviously shooting them all at the same time seem to be dealing a lot of much more damage also while causing the enemy tank to probably 'fly' few meters in the air!

[Krieger Blitzer]

Also guys; by using the thread breaker ability.. it's then possible for a single Bazooka or a PanzerSchreck to shoot 3 times in a very short time! So removing 1 Bazooka or a PanzerSchreck wouldn't really hurt with the existence of this ability, or am I wrong?!

[Krieger Blitzer]

@Sukin; HEY, I watched back the full link this time which u sent to me through the topic titled as "Fix list" where u fought Mr.nobody in a 1vs1 game of about an hour length. U already lost 2 Tigers almost only by those fking Inf doc AT teams!!! o.O I know that their thread breaker ability still have a superior range but.. damn!
Man, the best option now is to just reduce the range of this ability for those US AT squads to be fair and like the WH ones currently and then to achieve this idea regarding the allowed numbers of handled AT weapons per each squad...

[Sukin-kot (SVT)]

I already wrote it in my fix list. Yep, i lost 2 tigers cause of this ability, but their basic shots didnt do any serious damage, although he tryed so much times. 1 penetration out of 6 was the best case.

[JimQwilleran]

Tiger, I think that u almost always propose changes that would serve only making Tigers still more and more OP. U deny any changes to stupid Tigerphobia that affects all units in ridiculous range, u deny that reverse 80 km/h with max speed is also ridiculous, recently u said that immortal top gunner on Tiger is perfectly ok. Now you want to make inf less effective vs tanks. So what? The only solution vs tanks will be planes? Shot down by Ostwind and base AA. AT Guns? Killed by rockets. Tanks? Yea with long range accurate shot of Tiger -_-. We saw many times Slugger's AP bullets bouncing off 3 times in the row from a tiger.

So I ask you to stop with more ideas of this sort.

If u guys lose your tanks because of inf, then think a moment about it and use your own inf to counter it. Is that that hard? Tanks were in reality very vulnerable to inf AT weapon and it should stay like that.

PS. Tiger, when u lost your tiger after SP killed it, u were saying "remove it, remove it". Now when someone used AB vs you, u say again "remove it, remove it". I think u should start thinking more in the sake of balance.

[Krieger Blitzer]

U gotta be kidding, right? I actually never asked for a SP removal! I asked for a PAce removal as it never existed and also because it's not really useful while setting the SP as to be a main tank... Tigerphobia ability range effectiveness is different to tanks than to inf. To inf it does have a very low range.. while for tanks it does have a quite good range. Plus that all the inf units are already able to deny such an ability by the charge running ability when they are veteran enough!! However that some units does have this charge ability running right by default like the AB 82nd units and the CQB team. The top gunner of the Tiger tank is like any other Axis tanks top gunner in values, and he does die but probably less often than others for some unknown reasons but hey; didn't I say that it's fine then for him to die more often if he currently doesn't???!!! Or are u just trying to whine bleeding muck statements as well?! The Tiger tank is too damn slow and is always very hard to control by most Axis players.. it's only fast if moving on roads or with a flank speed ability... Nonetheless it would be moving like an elephant! I can send u real archive videos showing Tigers moving on a very high speed specifically during the Afrika Korps campaign. The Tiger was the fastest heavy tank ever built during the ww2. It was faster than the Pershing even although that the Pershing was yet a medium tank!!

And hey u dammit, 486 update was almost a pure "Allies buff" patch increasing the cost of the Tiger too.. while I guess u already know that I was probably the one who truly and mainly managed for publishing its demanding list, how come u then claim such BS?! LOL?! I asked to remove the AB??!! Clear off my face illa.....

[Sukin-kot (SVT)]

IS-2 was definately much faster and better armored than Tiger.

[JimQwilleran]

I actually never asked for a SP removal!

Before u started playing allies, u always said that SP never saw battle, is unhistorical etc.

CQB team

Yeah, I wonder what CQB can do to a tiger...

The Tiger tank is too damn slow and is always very hard to control by most Axis players

You are wrong. Tiger's top speed forwards is 38 km/h, Elephant's is 30.


Model On-road Speed Off-road Speed

Panzer III 40 km/h 18 km/h
Panzer IV 40 km/h 20 km/h
Tiger I 38 km/h 20 km/h
Panther 46 km/h 24 km/h

(source: http://www.alanhamby.com/transmission.shtml)

I can send u real archive videos showing Tigers moving on a very high speed specifically during the Afrika Korps campaign

When u lack trees or other objects to compare u can't say if it's moving fast.

It was faster than the Pershing even although that the Pershing was yet a medium tank!

Again no.

The Pershing was a heavy tank of the United States Army. It was designated a heavy tank when it was first designed in World War II due to its 90mm gun, and its armor. In 1957, the U.S. developed the M103 tank, which had an even larger 120mm gun, and the M26 Pershing was re-designated as a medium tank.

Also, pershing's speed: 40 km/h on road, 8.45 km/h off-road.

I asked to remove the AB??!!

I don't say you want to remove it. I say that 80% of AT power of AB doc is inf. If u weaken AT capability of inf, AB will be again useless.

[Krieger Blitzer]

@Sukin;
IS-2 model 44 top speed is 37 km/h (23mph) according to wikipedia:-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IS_tank_family

'Tiger I' top speed is 45.4 km/h (28.2 mph) according to wiki as well:-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiger_I

@illa;
Why are u comparing the Tiger with the Panther, the Pz4 or the pz3??? o.O I said fastest 'heavy' tank...

Well, Pershing top speed is 40 km/h (25 mph) again according to the same source.. wiki!!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M26_Pershing

Although that some sources regard it a medium tank; and not even a heavy one......

And I said SP is unhistorical but I didn't demand for it to get removed.

Also... On this video about the Tiger tank, u can obviously see it moving in a quite very good speed although that it's a very old heavy tank.. while scattering the sand with its wheels roughly too! Look at the second 00:40
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WDtPtaI3h-U

[JimQwilleran]

The road speed of the Tiger 1 was 38km/h, a mere 2km/h slower than the Panzer III and IV. The cross country speed equaled the Panzer IV at 20km/h while slightly faster than the Panzer III which was 18km/h.

Source: http://www.worldwar2aces.com/tiger-tank/

Speed: Road 38km/h, Cross-Country 10-20km/h

Source: http://www.achtungpanzer.com/panzerkampfwagen-vi-tiger-ausf-e-sd-kfz-181.htm

The Tiger I road speed was 38 km/h. Cross country speed was 20 km/h

Source: http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/tiger1.htm

Wikipedia is bullshit.

[Krieger Blitzer]

Well, at least Wiki is a lot much more well known than ur sources! But what about the video btw??!!

[JimQwilleran]

The technology of old movies is not reliable enough to be an evidence of actual speed of anything. Those movies were played in a way that it is not sure if it is real frame rate.

As you probably know, the speed at which motion picture film runs through the camera determines its frame rate, given in frames per second (fps). When run through a projector (which you can think of as a backwards camera) at the same speed, the movement looks natural to us. If turned more slowly or quickly, however, it plays out in fast or slow motion, respectively (the terms "undercranking" and "overcranking" are still used for these techniques, derived from the literal cranking mechanism used to run early cameras and projectors).

[Krieger Blitzer]

That's true! But the camera for me seem to be on that part doing very well I think... Also the sand is being scattered by the wheels not in a quite easy way! Which is maybe reflecting the fact about that it was actually moving fast enough to a heavy tank like this! Anyways; We are sticking on Wiki then after all ^^

Now let me get back to our main subject... Leaving above all that shit said by u a side.. my idea is not going to weaken inf effectiveness against tanks anyhow... I would rather to use 2 Bazookas each with a separated squad which makes it easier to control both of them giving more flanking chances for a cheaper cost while having 2 paks maybe as well, than to use only a single costly unit with 2 zookas equipped on the same squad. This would lead in my opinion to a more tactical game playing and not to just rush Pz4s or Shermans frontally with those AT teams! While to keep in mind that Inf doc AT squads can still actually have 1 additional Bazooka. While PE AT team can get also the same when TH doc is selected....

I do also suggest then for the Inf doc AT teams to have already the upgraded zookas once the doctrine is selected as well. And not to yet upgrade them to a better version through the WSC!