German AT - Beta 1.8.1

[Walderschmidt]

I feel like AT boys should be in every doctrine now, or at least blitz and terror. Jeep spam is back with a vengeance baby! I think it's be nerfed enough by losing the 76mm AT shot and gating the grenade and smoke behind T3 unlock. And losing the MP40. And rightfully losing the overlooked super dooper camo bonus when in buildings. And getting its accuracy nerfed. Lowered HP. Can't even damage the British HQ (I do miss the glory days when it could take down one in 8 shots). Like holy shit, it fell down the nerf tree and hit every branch on the way down. And then someone came by with the nerf bat to beat the horse deader than a doornail.

I get it. I should just get AT guns, but they don't feel so useful (pak 37mm). Thread on them coming.

Thoughts on German AT rifle?

Wald

[Warhawks97]

I feel like AT boys should be in every doctrine now, or at least blitz and terror. Jeep spam is back with a vengeance baby! I think it's be nerfed enough by losing the 76mm AT shot and gating the grenade and smoke behind T3 unlock. And losing the MP40. And rightfully losing the overlooked super dooper camo bonus when in buildings. And getting its accuracy nerfed. Lowered HP. Can't even damage the British HQ (I do miss the glory days when it could take down one in 8 shots). Like holy shit, it fell down the nerf tree and hit every branch on the way down. And then someone came by with the nerf bat to beat the horse deader than a doornail.

I get it. I should just get AT guns, but they don't feel so useful (pak 37mm). Thread on them coming.

Thoughts on German AT rifle?

Wald

When i started BK, jeep was vcoh stat peashooter for years. Then it got usefull but afterall its burst far less deadly compared to axis schwimms and stuff. Then it got its ass kicked by AT rifle and almost disappeared. Now its back and i think its good.
The HMG42 any any HMG doesnt cost ammo anymore, K98 got straight buff so they all are also more effective vs jeeps now.
I wouldnt want AT rifle squads again going for the hunt against everything weaker than a sherman. That just sucked. Just bc the jeep bothers some people it doesnt justify to bash every vehicle and light tank again.

[Black Panther]

Maybe we should give AT squad for US for e.x like a 210mp cost at HQ?
Why? Because WM has AT rifles, why this faction should have the shittiest AT in the game?
And yeah, leave 37mm AT and buff it to being able to penetrate stuarts

[Viper]

usa has 50cal so they dont need anti tank boys
50 cal is better against light vehicles

[The New BK Champion]

I agree that at rifle should stay in all wh docs. 50 cal buff means that now two 0.50 jeeps can kill axis players up to tier 3 if they manage to outmanoeuvre paks and light at vehicles (like 28mm car which sometimes dies to one 0.50 magazine). "Balance"

[Warhawks97]

I agree that at rifle should stay in all wh docs. 50 cal buff means that now two 0.50 jeeps can kill axis players up to tier 3 if they manage to outmanoeuvre paks and light at vehicles

Isnt it exactly what Pumas used to do for years? Sometimes double Puma with ultra turret traverse, TT´s that made them ghost like being never hit by AT guns, circling arround Paks and Greyhounds, shredding both within seconds.... and US hasnt got AT rifles at all. How many times games have ended within minutes just because a Puma or Puma combo (or any 20 mm armed vehicles with ultra turret traverse) won the entire game just because they danced arround AT guns. It happend many times from the early days of BK till lates versions where things such as turret traverse got fixed. And over all these years US did not get any sort of flexible AT in early stages to counter that. The Jeep doesnt even have a turret. So if it manages to dance with your AT gun, your AT gun is perhaps badly placed or badly protected.

These jeeps costing also as much, even more, than some halftracks and the armored jeep as much as a Puma with 20 mm canon. If you manage to micro the jeep well, it should be rewarded, if not, you get punished and you wasted 300 MP for nothing and delaying important tec. And again, for years nobody used cal 50 jeeps at all, now they are usuable and thats good. I would simply add like 5 fuel cost to normal cal 50 jeep in order to increase the risk/reward ratio a bit.

[Viper]

I agree that at rifle should stay in all wh docs. 50 cal buff means that now two 0.50 jeeps can kill axis players up to tier 3 if they manage to outmanoeuvre paks and light at vehicles (like 28mm car which sometimes dies to one 0.50 magazine). "Balance"

+

i think developers should listen to feedback such as this.
or the reworks will keep going only one linear way.

[Black Panther]

Guys. US bazooka team right now is the worst weapon of the game, comparing to others. Really, why you won't make them as starting units?
Killing light vehicles as AT gun? Pretty much the same. It could be one bazooka per squad, if you really want it.
It's just not fair giving the WM AT rifles, while US faction will clearly be the looser here.

Also, BK Champion and Viper, the current pak camo is still a thing, as like shooting with infantry from the green cover. I've never seen jeep being worth it's cost and getting much more enemy MP down, than it's own cost

[kwok]

We can take the feedback, but my question is why weren’t keeps an issue prior to the WH at rifle squad? Is it because the 50cal changes? If so, why not changes the 50cal instead of the AT rifle?

It’s true that Jeeps can dominate the early game, but it’s also true that AT rifles dominated all vehicles in the early game. Including the AT rifles with their former power is too much. Including them with their nerf is too little. It’s not that we don’t take feedback but all solutions were tried in prior patches already and the complaints never stopped.

[Viper]

i think after the nerf to the anti tank rifle boys.....less accuracy? less hp? less range? and removal of anti tank grenade? moved to barracks? no mp40?
they will not dominate light vehicles anymore when they are allowed in all wehrmacht doctrines again.

because at the moment they are over nerfed.

[Warhawks97]

i think after the nerf to the anti tank rifle boys.....less accuracy? less hp? less range? and removal of anti tank grenade? moved to barracks? no mp40?
they will not dominate light vehicles anymore when they are allowed in all wehrmacht doctrines again.

Alone the fact that all WH factions would have these AT rifles again would people think tiwce getting vehicles at all or not. Doesnt matter how low HP they have, if they have an M40 or whatnot. Its simply that they can appear anywhere (houses etc) anytime (sprint), without much risk as you can retreat them anytime. Its that "clusterfuck" thing where you put all your inf arround an HT with officer inside, these AT rifles being put arround them and perhaps a meatshield inf squad. These "clusterfuck" "tactic" (its an insult to call it that way already) creates something that is called A2/AD (Anti-Access/Area denial) in a 360 degree direction. And even if their accuracy would be like 35%, if both trigger hit, the vehicle is instantly dead. No one would risk a vehicle to go into this area no matter what how high the risk of losing them is.

So that whole debate about MP40, low HP and crap is just bullshit. It doesnt change the fact that no one would really dare to send a vehicle into their range by purpose. And when this is the case, no one would even invest in vehicles anymore at all or at least less often.


And the real thing that is pissing me so fucking off is the fact that over the last years this issue was present for the US forces in every game. Lots of PE players just spammed scout cars overruning US AT guns: Instant GG....Puma could do the same. Or in worst cases, Scout car spam and Puma spam.
And you know what? Nobody gave a fuck! "Oh, you got scout car tag teamed?" Too bad, try again. US players sometimes build 2 or 3 AT guns just to be prepared for scout car spam. But now its a big deal bc omg WH players suddenly get to feel the pain all US players have had for years. And i still think that PE vs US alone can do a lot of harm with scout cars when playing on standard res bc you can get two scout cars before US can get a single cal 50.


Anyway. Would be funny when devs would consider jeeps as "easy goings" and problematic despite the big investments (cal 50) jeeps require.
Overall, the US struggled for a long time a lot more against scout car spam as WH currently struggles vs jeeps.
And all the replays i watched didnt really show any sort of "unstoppable jeep".

On top of that, the Puma is afterall very well armored and cal 50´s cant really penetrate its front armor. I think PE is hit harder as they dont have a vehicle that is as heavily armored as Puma. Funnily, nobody is asking for PE getting AT rifles.

[Viper]

Alone the fact that all WH factions would have these AT rifles again would people think tiwce getting vehicles at all or not. Doesnt matter how low HP they have, if they have an M40 or whatnot. Its simply that they can appear anywhere (houses etc) anytime (sprint), without much risk as you can retreat them anytime. Its that "clusterfuck" thing where you put all your inf arround an HT with officer inside, these AT rifles being put arround them and perhaps a meatshield inf squad. These "clusterfuck" "tactic" (its an insult to call it that way already) creates something that is called A2/AD (Anti-Access/Area denial) in a 360 degree direction. And even if their accuracy would be like 35%, if both trigger hit, the vehicle is instantly dead. No one would risk a vehicle to go into this area no matter what how high the risk of losing them is.

i thought you were speaking about playing against british faction with camo anti tank rifle boys, when the situation is much worse for axis vehicles.

[Warhawks97]

Alone the fact that all WH factions would have these AT rifles again would people think tiwce getting vehicles at all or not. Doesnt matter how low HP they have, if they have an M40 or whatnot. Its simply that they can appear anywhere (houses etc) anytime (sprint), without much risk as you can retreat them anytime. Its that "clusterfuck" thing where you put all your inf arround an HT with officer inside, these AT rifles being put arround them and perhaps a meatshield inf squad. These "clusterfuck" "tactic" (its an insult to call it that way already) creates something that is called A2/AD (Anti-Access/Area denial) in a 360 degree direction. And even if their accuracy would be like 35%, if both trigger hit, the vehicle is instantly dead. No one would risk a vehicle to go into this area no matter what how high the risk of losing them is.

i thought you were speaking about playing against british faction with camo anti tank rifle boys, when the situation is much worse for axis vehicles.

I always avoided lots of vehicles when playing vs brits. Instead i got more infantry to outnumber and overrun them. I always only got max 1 puma to secure my mortar and 50 mm AT against sappers/commandos landing somewhere.

So you are right, the situation is the same. However, CW cant provide as meany meathsield units to protect them and losses hitting much harder.
But i am against any increase of such A2/AD units for vehicles. And if you followed my posts, you would have seen that i am voting for a general rework of how AT rifles work to be less super mobile vehicle denial units.


The whole point is vehicles are good in two things:
1. Skirmising and protecting flanks (against enemie inf or vehicles) and staying out of enemie-AT gun reach.
2. Quick and swoft flanking maneuvers (or swift maneuvers in general like quick hit and runs) in the right moment to force retreats and gain tactical victories.

AT rifles make these two things nearly impossible as they can walk/run forth and back with normal assault units and act like highly mobile AT guns while being also "unflankable". As a result, the usually very exciting and fast vehicle stage as well as well performed vehicle flanking maneuvers will disappear and the game becomes stubborn with "head against the wall" kind of attack gameplay with head-on attacks and head-on counterattacks over and over again.

It’s true that Jeeps can dominate the early game, but it’s also true that AT rifles dominated all vehicles in the early game. Including the AT rifles with their former power is too much. Including them with their nerf is too little. It’s not that we don’t take feedback but all solutions were tried in prior patches already and the complaints never stopped.

[Warhawks97]

delete this post pls.

[Walderschmidt]

Isnt it exactly what Pumas used to do for years? Sometimes double Puma with ultra turret traverse, TT´s that made them ghost like being never hit by AT guns, circling arround Paks and Greyhounds, shredding both within seconds.... and US hasnt got AT rifles at all. How many times games have ended within minutes just because a Puma or Puma combo (or any 20 mm armed vehicles with ultra turret traverse) won the entire game just because they danced arround AT guns.

Just because pumas used to wreck because they were broken/miscallibrated doesn't mean that the US now should get such a unit. Vehicles as a whole have gotten slower speeds and traverse, which combined with faster aim times and a slower set up time for AT guns means that positioning works the way it should.

It happend many times from the early days of BK till lates versions where things such as turret traverse got fixed.

That was then, this was now. Please stop justifying OPness on allies part because of past OPness on axis part. Two wrongs don't make a right. Secondly, this game is ever-changing with the doctrine reworks in the works.

And over all these years US did not get any sort of flexible AT in early stages to counter that. The Jeep doesnt even have a turret. So if it manages to dance with your AT gun, your AT gun is perhaps badly placed or badly protected.

The US now has standardized .50 cals which shred infantry and light vehicles alike an almost all tanks and even halftracks! Plus, the HEAT rifle grenade which two shots any light vehicle and one shots kets/bikes/schwimms. NO ONE is saying that the problem with the Jeep is it dancing around the AT gun if it's badly positioned.

These jeeps costing also as much, even more, than some halftracks and the armored jeep as much as a Puma with 20 mm canon. If you manage to micro the jeep well, it should be rewarded, if not, you get punished and you wasted 300 MP for nothing and delaying important tec. And again, for years nobody used cal 50 jeeps at all, now they are usuable and thats good. I would simply add like 5 fuel cost to normal cal 50 jeep in order to increase the risk/reward ratio a bit.

I'm fine with decreasing jeep costs slightly if every Wehr doc gets at rifles back and maybe a health increase or some slight buff like a lot more accuracy at close range.

[On top of that, the Puma is afterall very well armored and cal 50´s cant really penetrate its front armor. I think PE is hit harder as they dont have a vehicle that is as heavily armored as Puma. Funnily, nobody is asking for PE getting AT rifles.

Are you asking for the Wehrmach to get the 28mm Scout Car buildable at T1?

Wald

[Walderschmidt]

Guys. US bazooka team right now is the worst weapon of the game, comparing to others. Really, why you won't make them as starting units?
Killing light vehicles as AT gun? Pretty much the same. It could be one bazooka per squad, if you really want it.
It's just not fair giving the WM AT rifles, while US faction will clearly be the looser here.

Also, BK Champion and Viper, the current pak camo is still a thing, as like shooting with infantry from the green cover. I've never seen jeep being worth it's cost and getting much more enemy MP down, than it's own cost

Honestly, I think the US should be able to get bazookas with the WSC, and not be forced to build the motorpool to get zooks.

But otherwise, IMO, US early AT is fine - they have

1) .50 cal jeeps (and halftracks!)
2) 37mm at gun
3) HEAT rifle nade
4) [armor doc] AT Jeep

and you can bust that 57mm AT halftrack out super early if you know what you're doing/playing a team game

We can take the feedback, but my question is why weren’t keeps an issue prior to the WH at rifle squad? Is it because the 50cal changes? If so, why not changes the 50cal instead of the AT rifle?

It’s true that Jeeps can dominate the early game, but it’s also true that AT rifles dominated all vehicles in the early game. Including the AT rifles with their former power is too much. Including them with their nerf is too little. It’s not that we don’t take feedback but all solutions were tried in prior patches already and the complaints never stopped.

Jeeps didn't become an issue until .50 cal changes. They got a buff so .30 cal was no longer a peashooter and then the .50 cal buff made it almost a no brainer that in team games one or two guys would spam .50 cal jeeps. Or combined with a Recce that's impervious to pak 37mm at gun fire.

I'd prefer a middle ground where AT rifles are more wide spread but not the previous no-brainer units they used to be and .50 cals retain their killing power but maybe a slight cost decrease to if a player mishandles them losing one wouldn't hurt as much.

Wald

[Warhawks97]

Just because pumas used to wreck because they were broken/miscallibrated doesn't mean that the US now should get such a unit. Vehicles as a whole have gotten slower speeds and traverse, which combined with faster aim times and a slower set up time for AT guns means that positioning works the way it should.

fine, so why are jeeps an issue which have not even a turret? So US is fine now with AT gun bc vehicles got slower etc, but WH has issues? You are contradicting here.

The US now has standardized .50 cals which shred infantry and light vehicles alike an almost all tanks and even halftracks! Plus, the HEAT rifle grenade which two shots any light vehicle and one shots kets/bikes/schwimms. NO ONE is saying that the problem with the Jeep is it dancing around the AT gun if it's badly positioned.

Most cal 50´s are an upgrade, not free, so there is some expectation that these weapons actually do something.
Furthermore they can shred vehicles, but most vehicles they encounter can blow all vehicles with cal 50 mounted as well, even better.

I'm fine with decreasing jeep costs slightly if every Wehr doc gets at rifles back and maybe a health increase or some slight buff like a lot more accuracy at close range.

It wont change a damn thing. I mean it doesnt matter if i spend 200, 300 or 400 MP when i know that my enemie has a unit that can be everywhere at any time which with some luck takes it out in a shot. At the end you might just feed your enemie.

Thats why i wouldnt decrease jeeps cost and instead add fuel cost for the inf doc cal 50 jeep (AB/armor jeep costs fuel already)

Are you asking for the Wehrmach to get the 28mm Scout Car buildable at T1?

Wald

No, i dont. But as far as i can "hear" from that talk is that the cal 50 apparently shreds all vehicles "in a burst" before they can get a shot off. Thus i people playing PE might prefer going infantry rather than vehicles. And its apparently more often the case currently and apparently all are fine here with AT gun and K98 rifles to counter jeeps.


Why two posts?

Honestly, I think the US should be able to get bazookas with the WSC, and not be forced to build the motorpool to get zooks.

But otherwise, IMO, US early AT is fine - they have

1) .50 cal jeeps (and halftracks!)
2) 37mm at gun
3) HEAT rifle nade
4) [armor doc] AT Jeep

and you can bust that 57mm AT halftrack out super early if you know what you're doing/playing a team game

If you play low res, cal 50 jeeps and halftracks, AT jeep etc will first require some time to be fielded. WH has got the second building earlier available which at leasts gives 50 mm AT gun and halftracks.
using a Halftrack just for the cal 50 is a bigger investment as well, over 300 at least, even when putting only engis inside. All the stuff you mentioned is over or arround 300 MP per unit.

Jeeps didn't become an issue until .50 cal changes. They got a buff so .30 cal was no longer a peashooter and then the .50 cal buff made it almost a no brainer that in team games one or two guys would spam .50 cal jeeps. Or combined with a Recce that's impervious to pak 37mm at gun fire.

I'd prefer a middle ground where AT rifles are more wide spread but not the previous no-brainer units they used to be and .50 cals retain their killing power but maybe a slight cost decrease to if a player mishandles them losing one wouldn't hurt as much.

Wald

If you start HR, you can get the second WH building right away that provides solutions.
Thing about AT rifles currently is that they will probably keep some sort of no-brainer when they keep one and two shoting vehicles. Even if you lower the accuracy to a bottom low, they keep an area denial unit simply bc no one would drive into their zone knowing that one luck shot is enough. Also you can simply bump them together which doubles your chance to hit a unit that gets into range.

So i wonder how you will find this "middle ground" for AT rifles or how your idea would look like.



Ultimately, these light unrarmored reconassaince vehicles are quite tanky i would say, absorbing lots of bullets. So why would we want to hurt all vehicles by adding more AT rifles again and/or nerfing the cal.50 which has just got its right place.


Having issues with jeeps could be solved by:

1. Adding fuel cost
2. Make them more vulnerabe to small arms fire
3. Re-add AT rifles but in a way that they wont be denial units, without hurting/denying vehicles as much as they did and without posing a threat to light tanks anymore (those become more vulnerable to 37 mm AT gun) with their default shots.

But re-adding the Rifles in the same way as before would just be a sledgehammer again against all light armored vehicles just bc people had a problem with jeeps. Its like arresting an entire city just because one citizen commited a crime.

[kwok]

here’s another potential thought/solution.

1. A big reason why vehicles became so dominant is because of the 50cal changes, else previously the 37mm pak as WM was fine against vehicles

2. A big reason why the AT squads were too strong on release was its mobility to stop vehicles at any location plus other over compensated capabilities.
Given the offensive nature of the AT squad, it was moved only to blitz doc.

3. A big reason why the AT squads were too weak post nerf was the range and reclassification of role, it was too easy to kite the squads and vehicles ran rampant again.

Proposed solution:
1. Clearly define the role of the AT squad: it’s meant to aid in offensive AT capability in the early to mid game as a means of supporting pushes but not outright countering vehicles so that vehicles are not obsolete in the early-mid game. It should act as a deterrent of vehicles to secure areas. Skill should be needed to actually kill vehicles. This should stay in blitz only.

2. Nerf the 50cal effectiveness at longer ranges but keep their medium to short range so that they don’t easily kite units around any AT unit (including paks).

[Krieger Blitzer]

i don't think 50.cals need to be tweaked down.

And a "nerfed to death" AT rifle squad won't dominate vehicles anyhow if it was available in all WH doctrines, and in case someone thinks US early game AT capabilities would be the weakest among all.. then their AT equipment in early game could be improved as well, such as I recently suggested on a different topic, as I think allowing RL jeep in all US docs won't hurt in that case...

Shortly, i'd say enough messing around with unit values.. buffing 50.cal, nerfing 50.cal, buffing 50.cal, nerfing 50.cal.. buff, nerf, buff, nerf.
Enough of that.

[kwok]

I think the issue is the AT rifles don’t even do anything even if they’re made available to all doctrines. Even when it’s in blitz doc it doesn’t do that much.

And in terms of buff/nerf, the 50cal was hardly touched since adjusted. It was given a cost adjustment but not an effectiveness adjustment, it was just a flat vehicle buff with a nerf in cost. If anything, the AT squad was adjusted up and down repeatedly. If vehicles are just given flat buffs then it doesn’t matter if you make infantry AT squads available to all docs. See how the AT rifles in British are “never balanced” no matter how much it is adjusted.

[Walderschmidt]

I like Kwok's proposed solution, but would like increased AT rifle accuracy/aim time at close range.

Wald

[Warhawks97]

here’s another potential thought/solution.
1. A big reason why vehicles became so dominant is because of the 50cal changes, else previously the 37mm pak as WM was fine against vehicles

Dont generalize "vehicles". Most vehicles were never dominant at all. There were a handfull in the past.

1. Recce: Super over-mobility with broken stats:
viewtopic.php?f=15&t=3347

2. Puma variants were dominant due to their TT. And btw, tank guns still have super shitty TT against them. I always have to get 57 mm AT HT when my enemie starts throwing 75 mm Pak Puma against me bc all my shitty tanks cant hit them.
Also they bounced 37 mm shells and had fast turret rotation and the 20 mm just raped everything.

But they arent dominating so hard anymore since speed chances for wheeled vehicles when offroad, turret rotation fix and AT gun accuracy fix against them.

3. The 37 mm HT from BK doc had insane accuracy/scatter stats that made it dominating.

4. Greyhound got better due to cal 50 change, but Greyhound is just were it belongs to currently. You pay 330 MP, turret and cal 50 rotate not really fast, you pay for extra armor, you pay for cal 50. It can be "dominating" but has its cost.

5. The actual winner is the M20. Cheap and got the good cal 50 for free.

6. Perhaps the Staghound is strong, but its armor got weakned few patches ago and can be countered by 37 mm and 20 mm guns.

If someone says jeep, thats wrong. All cal 50 jeeps have never been used in the past, now they do get used which is a good thing. They require some tec and also delay tec significantly, esspecially in standard res.

So the bottom line is, that i can only count for M20 and recce to be perhaps overperforming. The Recce due to its broken acceleration and speed stats, the M20 bc its cheap but got its cal 50 for free.


Furthermore its depending against what faction you play. If you play only vs US in standard res and perhaps as double PE tag team, a mix of several scout cars and grens can be dominating as fuck already.

So stop generalizing "vehicles OP, Yes/no". I means Stuart tanks and daimler cars and bren carriers dont have cal 50´s.

2. A big reason why the AT squads were too strong on release was its mobility to stop vehicles at any location plus other over compensated capabilities.
Given the offensive nature of the AT squad, it was moved only to blitz doc.

3. A big reason why the AT squads were too weak post nerf was the range and reclassification of role, it was too easy to kite the squads and vehicles ran rampant again.

Yes, and lots of ideas had been presented. EG ambush capability, static mode for slight range increase... anything that would allow them to stand their ground at least.

Proposed solution:
1. Clearly define the role of the AT squad: it’s meant to aid in offensive AT capability in the early to mid game as a means of supporting pushes but not outright countering vehicles so that vehicles are not obsolete in the early-mid game. It should act as a deterrent of vehicles to secure areas. Skill should be needed to actually kill vehicles. This should stay in blitz only.

Which makes solutions like static mode and whatever usless again when its role is to be offensive AT unlike CW one that is supposed to work defensive.

I think it will be very hard to find a point were they can act offensively without being OP. Offensively means to be able to run arround and still stand chances vs vehicles, which in turn means you can hunt vehicles anywhere you want. I dont know how you want to get out of that contradicting ideas.

2. Nerf the 50cal effectiveness at longer ranges but keep their medium to short range so that they don’t easily kite units around any AT unit (including paks).

Nope. I mean i played test rounds today and my M20 fired bursts on an HT from max range and it took a few bursts from max range. Even the quad cal 50´s required 4 bursts to take out a not moving halftrack. Vs Pumas frontal armor they are outright usless.

So no, we got at a point where a cal 50 feels like one. Just dont touch it. If anything seems to be necessary, change costs or whatever. I mean in vcoh these things cost 75 ammo on each unit.

I think the issue is the AT rifles don’t even do anything even if they’re made available to all doctrines. Even when it’s in blitz doc it doesn’t do that much.

And in terms of buff/nerf, the 50cal was hardly touched since adjusted. It was given a cost adjustment but not an effectiveness adjustment, it was just a flat vehicle buff with a nerf in cost. If anything, the AT squad was adjusted up and down repeatedly. If vehicles are just given flat buffs then it doesn’t matter if you make infantry AT squads available to all docs. See how the AT rifles in British are “never balanced” no matter how much it is adjusted.

Perhaps make a brainstorm Topic and ask how AT rifles should finally work and what their role should be? That would be a good start. Perhaps make a poll and provide ideas on which the poll can be done.


Like idk...

Should AT rifles one and two shot vehicles or deal damage over time?
Should they be hard-counters or just support (for for example AT guns), deterence and flank protection?
Should they work as an offensive tool or more defenisve?
Should they have some sort of short set up time to deploy their weapons?
Unit limit?
Ambush?
Squad Size?
How many rifles shall they have per squad? (Originally the effect of AT rifles came in their numbers, not the power per shot.)


I think AT-rifles can never become an offensive tool without making them a denial unit. I mean how shall it work? The nature of being offensive means to be able to deal damage and heavy blows, like a Knight charge with lances. For the squad it would mean to be relatively durable, hard hitting, accurate and good range. But that would mean high cost which is problematic bc then your early AT eats all the MP at once.

Making them defensive could also mean to be denial, but it doesnt have to be.

Its like with an 88. You can have it defensively for low cost but with severe drawbacks such immobile or sluggish and vulnerable. Or you can have it on a KT. Mobile, durable, hard hitting. But you cant get a KT for the cost of an 88.

For AT rifles this translate into:
1. Hard hitting, denial but sluggish and vulnerable but at managable cost.
2. Hard hitting, durable, offensive (which includes offensive) but at a very high cost.
3. Mobile deterence unit without hard hitting potential which would be left over to AT guns/vehicles with big Guns. But the cost would acceptable/low.


Do you get what i mean?

[kwok]

warhawks

dont generalize "vehicles". Most vehicles were never dominant at all. There were a handfull in the past.

As far as the context of this thread is concerned, it is regarding the beta only and in reference to the WM AT squad in the beta which means:

1. recce, out of scope
2. puma, out of scope
3, 37mm ht, out of scope
6. staghound, out of scope

what's left in scope? greyhound, m20, m15, 50cal jeep, what do they all have in common? the 50cal. it was specifically mentioned in this thread that since the 50cal playing as WM became extremely hard. Yes, the 50cal jeep wasn't use before and now it is maybe BECAUSE the 50cal was over nerfed. if you're feeling like your pride is being attacked because the 50cal adjustments were your idea to begin with, dont... we are still keeping the idea in tact, we are merely adjusting it... yes. stuarts, daimlers, etc. are not over dominant and that's even more why the 50cal needs to be adjusted not the AT squad. No one here is complaining about the stuart.

So no, we got at a point where a cal 50 feels like one. Just dont touch it. If anything seems to be necessary, change costs or whatever. I mean in vcoh these things cost 75 ammo on each unit.

Just look at how often the 50cal was referenced in this topic. Sorry but we are most likely going to touch it at least a little bit... maybe/probably among other things. don't be afraid of tweaks...

Perhaps make a brainstorm Topic and ask how AT rifles should finally work and what their role should be? That would be a good start. Perhaps make a poll and provide ideas on which the poll can be done.

I mean.... isn't that what this topic is about...? it's in the title and i applaud walder for being one of the only people on this forum trying to keep topics focused and organized... follow his example on this thread and his recce thread.

[Warhawks97]

´



what's left in scope? greyhound, m20, m15, 50cal jeep, what do they all have in common? the 50cal. it was specifically mentioned in this thread that since the 50cal playing as WM became extremely hard. Yes, the 50cal jeep wasn't use before and now it is maybe BECAUSE the 50cal was over nerfed. if you're feeling like your pride is being attacked because the 50cal adjustments were your idea to begin with, dont... we are still keeping the idea in tact, we are merely adjusting it... yes. stuarts, daimlers, etc. are not over dominant and that's even more why the 50cal needs to be adjusted not the AT squad. No one here is complaining about the stuart.

add fuel cost for jeep so it becomes a bigger risk to lose it and a harder loss. Rise M20 cost a bit and perhaps the upgrade cost of cal 50 if neccessary.

Just look at how often the 50cal was referenced in this topic. Sorry but we are most likely going to touch it at least a little bit... maybe/probably among other things. don't be afraid of tweaks...

I am afraid.

I mean.... isn't that what this topic is about...? it's in the title and i applaud walder for being one of the only people on this forum trying to keep topics focused and organized... follow his example on this thread and his recce thread.

I meant that devs shall make a public question towards the community of what they think AT rifles should be.

[kwok]

We could make a public poll, but i get a feeling that we won't be able to capture every idea and every spectrum of ideas within a poll, unless the poll was 50 choices long. Don't get me wrong, we really like polls because it is one of the best ways for us to know which direction to take the game with concrete numbers and we can always go back to it to counter argue to say "YOU all decided this not us"... but I think the best way to handle this particular topic is to just have more people participate in the discussion with new ideas and others to come into the discussion just to say "i agree with xyz" even if they have nothing new to say. So if you really like your own ideas, I suggest you go find friends to come here to support you so that we have a general idea what the community wants. This doesn't mean we will definitely go with the ideas but a perceived majority REALLY helps.