Canadian Bazooka

[Krieger Blitzer]

As an alternative of adding a Bazooka team for CW faction.

How about adding x2 Bazooka upgrade for Canadian inf in RA doc? Price of 75 ammo and limit on 2 squads only (same as how Tulips work).

RAF has SAS at just 2 CP now, so they are fine with handheld AT weapons.
RE already has plenty of other AT options anyways.

So, that's how i think about it.. it would also make Canadian inf more unique.

[Sukin-kot (SVT)]

Cool idea.

[Consti255]

mhhh.. cool idea.
It would make them actually more attractive over the normal section. Becuase right now i dont feel that its worth going for them.

[Sukin-kot (SVT)]

As we mentioned RE doc here, it will be great to get rid of absolutely useless 3CP Churchill there and bring back M10, which is absolutely vital for the late game.

[Warhawks97]

As we mentioned RE doc here, it will be great to get rid of absolutely useless 3CP Churchill there and bring back M10, which is absolutely vital for the late game.

you mean RA doc, right?
Agree.

[Krieger Blitzer]

Good to see that you guys think the idea is cool, I think MarKr will probably consider it then.

Regarding the Achilles in RA doc, well.. i personally don't mind it as replacement of Churchill, although i am reluctant because RA doc has 17pdr emp too.

[H.Drescher]

As we mentioned RE doc here, it will be great to get rid of absolutely useless 3CP Churchill there and bring back M10, which is absolutely vital for the late game.

I think that 3CP Churchill should be replaced with the Anti-Infantry variant instead. Currently much of Royal Artillery's anti tank actually comes from artillery and static emplacements. I think it's a little out of place for them to have this Churchill slapped into their tree over the HE variant.

As for the specialization of Canadian Infantry as an option, it certainly seems like an attractive option considering how nicely it plays on the SAS.

For "flavor" options, the entire Royal Artillery Doctrine could just have all their infantry units renamed as Canadians and having unique artillery support/utility abilities. Although this is a rather extreme change, it would lead to some very funny memes of Canadian War Crimes.

[kwok]

Why would the anti infantry option of the churchill be preferable when you exactly say that there is so many other artillery based anti infantry options? The reason behind the Churchill is to hold a front line for an extended period so that artillery can land during an engagement. The M10 will make the doctrine more tricky requiring both micro of a flimsy tank and a good sense of timing/prediction with artillery. The doctrine will be too hard to play with too little benefit. As opposed to now it’s a low risk low reward doctrine, better suited for lower skilled players who rely more on camping, surviving, and zero risk tactics like artillery.

[H.Drescher]

Why would the anti infantry option of the churchill be preferable when you exactly say that there is so many other artillery based anti infantry options?

I personally believe that this doctrine's vehicles should be weak against other mobile medium vehicles. The Infantry version of the Churchill struggles killing panzer iv's, whilst the anti-tank version of the Churchill has a fairly even chance against them. In this Doctrine's current iteration it slam-dunks infantry, emplacements, and slow moving heavy vehicles. Yet it struggles against more mobile armored/mechanized opponents. Locking down tanks and shelling them to death is this doctrine's true anti tank option.

The only defense they would really have is their AT emplacements and troops. Which is entirely fine as they are static/slow moving and can be avoided.

This is a very hard topic and needs to be expanded upon of what is the desired gameplay of Royal Artillery. Since it seems to me that the AT Churchill was added to "round" out a supportive factions for 1v1s.

[Krieger Blitzer]

i think the Achilles/Churchill thing should be on a different topic though, after all.. this was created for the Canadian Zooka upgrade.

[Walderschmidt]

i think the Achilles/Churchill thing should be on a different topic though, after all.. this was created for the Canadian Zooka upgrade.

Agreed completely.

Wald

[Consti255]

Question: normal rockets or the M6A3C?
I think it should be the normal version.

[Krieger Blitzer]

Yes, normal Zookas.

[CGarr]

Agreed with Tiger's original post in this thread, although I don't see why any inf in BK should have normal bazookas over the M6A3C. Normal bazookas are kinda garbage, its better than nothing but that isn't saying much. If AT inf are the issue, make it easier for tanks to fend them off, leaving AT inf with poor stats in the form of crappy weapons like the normal bazooka doesn't improve the game in any way over just giving them a competent weapon. I'm sure axis players would bitch just as much if the pshreck was as bad as the standard bazooka and you had to get a RPzB 54/1 upgrade to have it be competent. It's just dumb.

[Krieger Blitzer]

You seem to under-estimate normal Zookas too much, and over-estimate Shrecks, while it's true that Shrecks might be statistically better (although Zookas now have faster reload) yet i would say that game-play wise it doesn't differ that much, for 2 primary reasons:
- Zookas were buffed several times, most recently vs Axis TDs.
- Allied have early access to certain heavily armored tanks that can resist Shrecks (ex. Churchill Mk7, Jumbos).
- Zookas are also cheaper.

This makes the difference between them (game-play wise) very minimal and hardly observable in my opinion.

[Diablo]

Tbh the "balance" for infantry-held antitank weapons has always been heavily in favor of axis. Even the cheapest of german infantry carries an unstoppable warhead they can pull out of their pocket. Panzerschreck has always been superior, the Panzerfaust is a obscenely great ability.
The price argument doesn't really hold, since something isn't really cheaper if you need twice as many of them or otherwise it just doesn't reliably do it's job.

Also AT-nade > sticky bomb.

[CGarr]

You seem to under-estimate normal Zookas too much, and over-estimate Shrecks, while it's true that Shrecks might be statistically better (although Zookas now have faster reload) yet i would say that game-play wise it doesn't differ that much, for 2 primary reasons:
- Zookas were buffed several times, most recently vs Axis TDs.
- Allied have early access to certain heavily armored tanks that can resist Shrecks (ex. Churchill Mk7, Jumbos).
- Zookas are also cheaper.

This makes the difference between them (game-play wise) very minimal and hardly observable in my opinion.

-Shrecks still bounce much less often than zooks, they even have pretty good chances against the Mk7 frontally from what I've seen. They just don't do that much damage to it, so it isn't as big of a deal for the CW player, but it is still better than zooks just bouncing frontally on a panthers and superheavies, doing 0 damage.
-Axis has a lot more heavy armor than allies
-Who cares if they are cheaper if they don't do their job properly?

It's certainly better than it was before, but there is still a gap. I don't see the issue with just replacing the standard zook with the M6A3C version. From a gameplay perspective, it just makes the unit less frustrating to use. Don't take this as me saying the zook should be better than the shreck, I'd rather they be mirrored for ease of balance and just have them both be strong as hell. If the shreck needs to stand out, give it a little more range than the zook or something, but pen and damage should be standardized for these 2 weapons.

Look at EaW mod, inf AT there is extremely strong with good pen, decent range, and really high damage. The differences there between the shreck and zook aren't noticeable because both can merc any tank in the game with ease. In exchange, vehicles completely melt inf with their offensive firepower, so the vulnerability isn't that much of an issue if your positioning is good. For how unpolished that mod is, the damage model carries it a long way through just letting every unit kill their intended target type with ease, and the balance between tanks and AT options there is a great example that BK could pull from. No unit in that mod is underwhelming, they all do their job really well, even when talking about early game units in late game. Units don't ever really go obsolete in that mod the way they do in BK.

[Consti255]

Dicky, make a forum thread for it so more people can give their opinion.



note:
Stickys > AT nade.

[Krieger Blitzer]

You seem to under-estimate normal Zookas too much, and over-estimate Shrecks, while it's true that Shrecks might be statistically better (although Zookas now have faster reload) yet i would say that game-play wise it doesn't differ that much, for 2 primary reasons:
- Zookas were buffed several times, most recently vs Axis TDs.
- Allied have early access to certain heavily armored tanks that can resist Shrecks (ex. Churchill Mk7, Jumbos).
- Zookas are also cheaper.

This makes the difference between them (game-play wise) very minimal and hardly observable in my opinion.

-Shrecks still bounce much less often than zooks, they even have pretty good chances against the Mk7 frontally from what I've seen. They just don't do that much damage to it, so it isn't as big of a deal for the CW player, but it is still better than zooks just bouncing frontally on a panthers and superheavies, doing 0 damage.
-Axis has a lot more heavy armor than allies
-Who cares if they are cheaper if they don't do their job properly?

It's certainly better than it was before, but there is still a gap. I don't see the issue with just replacing the standard zook with the M6A3C version. From a gameplay perspective, it just makes the unit less frustrating to use. Don't take this as me saying the zook should be better than the shreck, I'd rather they be mirrored for ease of balance and just have them both be strong as hell. If the shreck needs to stand out, give it a little more range than the zook or something, but pen and damage should be standardized for these 2 weapons.

Look at EaW mod, inf AT there is extremely strong with good pen, decent range, and really high damage. The differences there between the shreck and zook aren't noticeable because both can merc any tank in the game with ease. In exchange, vehicles completely melt inf with their offensive firepower, so the vulnerability isn't that much of an issue if your positioning is good. For how unpolished that mod is, the damage model carries it a long way through just letting every unit kill their intended target type with ease, and the balance between tanks and AT options there is a great example that BK could pull from. No unit in that mod is underwhelming, they all do their job really well, even when talking about early game units in late game. Units don't ever really go obsolete in that mod the way they do in BK.

Shreck is 88mm, Zooka is 60mm so even the pen chance can not be standardised between the two. Like you said Zooka can't be better than Shreck.. but i also add that it can't be even equal, either.

And YES they do their job.. actually their damage is high enough to kill a Panther in 3 hits, and Pz4 in 2 hits. just you need to flank or use from ambush. Or even use them in transporter trucks...

You get 2x Zookas for the price of one Shreck on Canadian inf now.. and it's normal Zookas. So, the SAS get upgraded Zookas since they are more elite.. and Canadians get the normal version since they are standard inf. Makes total sense to me... Handheld AT weapons are fine as they are currently, in my opinion.

[Warhawks97]

Dicky, make a forum thread for it so more people can give their opinion.



note:
Stickys > AT nade.

i dont get how sticky is more deadly than AT nade. It has far less range, most sticky attempts are suicides and it gives you a crit. AT nade gives you crits usually and also kills a tank with two hits.

-Shrecks still bounce much less often than zooks, they even have pretty good chances against the Mk7 frontally from what I've seen. They just don't do that much damage to it, so it isn't as big of a deal for the CW player, but it is still better than zooks just bouncing frontally on a panthers and superheavies, doing 0 damage.
-Axis has a lot more heavy armor than allies
-Who cares if they are cheaper if they don't do their job properly?

It's certainly better than it was before, but there is still a gap. I don't see the issue with just replacing the standard zook with the M6A3C version. From a gameplay perspective, it just makes the unit less frustrating to use. Don't take this as me saying the zook should be better than the shreck, I'd rather they be mirrored for ease of balance and just have them both be strong as hell. If the shreck needs to stand out, give it a little more range than the zook or something, but pen and damage should be standardized for these 2 weapons.

Look at EaW mod, inf AT there is extremely strong with good pen, decent range, and really high damage. The differences there between the shreck and zook aren't noticeable because both can merc any tank in the game with ease. In exchange, vehicles completely melt inf with their offensive firepower, so the vulnerability isn't that much of an issue if your positioning is good. For how unpolished that mod is, the damage model carries it a long way through just letting every unit kill their intended target type with ease, and the balance between tanks and AT options there is a great example that BK could pull from. No unit in that mod is underwhelming, they all do their job really well, even when talking about early game units in late game. Units don't ever really go obsolete in that mod the way they do in BK.

Yes, Using zooks is more often frustrating than not. And killing a tank with two zooks is quite rare. Usually tanks get away with minimum health and crit perhaps.

Does zooks feel underwhelming when not upgraded to m6a3c? Yes, very. And even then M6A3C doesnt close the gap between schrecks and zooks, it just makes closes the gap a bit. But i would not standardize these weapons. Same as we dont simply standardize guns on tanks.
EaW gets a lot of stuff right, i agree. Handheld AT have more range but half the accuracy at that range as in BK. The accuracy drop is more severe as in BK. So you can fire earlier but will less often hit. RoF seems to be higher in EaW. But tanks have more range as well and can snipe inf from range pretty easily.


I mean i am not against having M6A3C more widely used, though those who really need them have it. Or making zooks somehow better. But i would not add range to any of these weapons or standardize both of them.

[Consti255]

i rather crit with the sticky and make it immobile and finish it of instead of missing with the useless at nade.
Unless the tank has pathing issues you can dodge it even after it was thrown.

[Warhawks97]

i rather crit with the sticky and make it immobile and finish it of instead of missing with the useless at nade.
Unless the tank has pathing issues you can dodge it even after it was thrown.

You can drive out of sticky range as well during throw animation.

[tarakancheg]

i rather crit with the sticky and make it immobile and finish it of instead of missing with the useless at nade.
Unless the tank has pathing issues you can dodge it even after it was thrown.

if your opponent managed to get a sticky on your tank somehow, then you did something wrong and your opponent used that as an opportunity.

[Consti255]

lol. Truck rangers can sneak up on every tank.. they normally get a sticky off 100%.
Anyway i get quite a few off and with the infantry doc CP upgrade you can swarm enemys with rifles.
i dont care what anyone says but it worked way too often for me to not try it.

[CGarr]

lol. Truck rangers can sneak up on every tank.. they normally get a sticky off 100%.
Anyway i get quite a few off and with the infantry doc CP upgrade you can swarm enemys with rifles.
i dont care what anyone says but it worked way too often for me to not try it.

Against bots or someone who just isnt paying attention to their tank maybe, lol.