[WM] Flak 88

[Guest]

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever

Login with username, password and session length

[brn4meplz]

I run with a single 17lbr and its saved my ass numerous times. with the AP rounds you half health a panther in a single shot pretty much. If the 17lbr was mobile like the 6Pdr I'd like it alot more as a platform. There is a version of it without the actual emplacement. and when everything is finished doctrine wise the plan was to go through and tweak doctrines/change some things around.

The bofors is utter shit though and the MG nest is irrelevant. If the bofors was more in line with the Flakvierling I might like it better but the Bofors is not only immobile and a huge target but it can't kill shit. Soak up a fire cycle and then run grens at it

[DarkSoldierX]

Yet again - it's not about the 88 being impossible to beat or anything of the like.

It's about the SHERMAN being stronger against the 88 than the Pershing due to a stupid damage modifier.

Well a marder on lockdown is better against a pershing then a hetzer from camo because of a damage modifier...

[LeoPhone]

only marder actually does more damage in the first place. and marder is a mobile AT gun while the hetzer is a "tank destroyer"

[Hasek10]

How about some input from a Defensive player who can make a coherent argument against changing things that shouldn't be changed?

The Flak 88 is an immobile and incredibly situational anti-tank option. So much so that an aggressive Armor company with a Pershing will likely be able to prevent the Flak from being erected in a position that would be extremely detrimental to their maneuverability. It is also trivially easy to bring a Flak down with any form of indirect fire. Mortars, Howitzers, 25 pounders, Priests, Calliopes, and FOO instantly negate the presence of a Flak if it built within range of their barrage. The Flak is also extremely vulnerable to AP-round AT guns if it does not have the scouting it needs to defend itself properly. Airborne players can easily deal with it through the judicious use of Airborne with RRs or a satchel.

The point being then, a Pershing certainly can aid in an attack against an 88, but just like everything else in this game, it is folly to attack an extremely strong AT unit with a single tank, infantry support or not, and expect it to win.

The Pershing needs no damage increase against the Flak. There is already a plethora of more effective and more intelligent choices to use if you want to bring down Defensive's centerpiece unit.

[Groundfire]

This needs to be a Defensive doctrine ability.



Bunker 88mm, for arty protection.

Dont know how it would rotate in there, but meh.

[EliteGren]

Can it change it's arc of fire? Looks gimped like the MG42 bunker.

[LeoPhone]

lol nvm, the pic wasnt there yet when i posted ^

and it has about the same firing arc as the mg42 bunker yes, so you will get an 88 that wont die and cant be captured, but it will also be useless LOL.

[Mysthalin]

How about some input from a Defensive player who can make a coherent argument against changing things that shouldn't be changed?

Like, you know, me? I'm not Duke Von Volk because I spam terror grenadiers or blitzkrieg storms...

The 88 is far from being as hard to set up as people try to make it out to be. Sure there are other, more inteligent options in taking out the 88 when compared to the Pershing - but it makes absolutely no sense that the SHERMAN is among one of these options - and that is the point we are trying to make. Have in mind Howitzers, 25 pounders, Priests and FOO are not available to the Armor player at all - whereas mortars can easily be taken out by their wehr counterparts or the T3 88 barrage.
And stop trying to make the 88 look like a pure anti-tank option. I've had numerous 88s gain 15+ kills sherely through firing normally, without even looking at the arty barrage option. Misten can even confirm me having sniped 7+ guys of his through a treegrove via the use of attack ground - the 88 has both the accuracy and the splash to do quite massive damage to infantry.

And, yet again - the Pershing will NOT, even with the proposed removal of the damage modifier, win against an 88. Even if the Pershing somehow teleported right next to the 88, it would still lose in a slugfest.

[Uunderfire]

This needs to be a Defensive doctrine ability.



Bunker 88mm, for arty protection.

Dont know how it would rotate in there, but meh.

Ah,I'm dreaming about a fortress unit : a big bunker with a 88 inside and mg at each cardinal point , with counterbatter always active -> pwn unit 

[Hasek10]

Sure there are other, more inteligent options in taking out the 88 when compared to the Pershing - but it makes absolutely no sense that the SHERMAN is among one of these options - and that is the point we are trying to make.

The Sherman is NOT a more viable option compared to the Pershing.  Consider your previous scenario of a pershing taking shots from a Flak as it closes in for a kill. Now substitute in a Sherman. Without taking into account the lower acceleration speed of the sherman, it too will take approximately 12 seconds to close range with the Flak. Taking 225 damage per shot (penetrating roughly 1/2 of the the time), the sherman will be dead after firing perhaps a single shot.

I leave it up to you to determine if sacrificing multiple shermans to the jaws of a Flak 88 to bring it down is more feasible than using a Pershing that either has plenty of repairs for later or HE shells to gib the Flak crew when its finally within range.

[Uunderfire]

Don't forget too that the T2 ability which unlock the flak unlock walking stukas. If you choose the T3 doctrine unlock "artillery experts", the flak gain artillery barrage, but the stukas also gain +50 % damages. So mortars and howitzers will quickly be decrewed / destroyed. So the only unit I can see destroying a flak without any counterbatter is the calliope, but then you won't fight against a pershing.

[Mysthalin]

Except that both popwise and cost-wise - the sherman IS indeed far more viable than the Pershing ever will be. It makes utterly no sense in the least that a Pershing should lose to an 88 having dealt less damage to it than the sherman would have. Heck - with dual M10s you'll actually stand a very good chance of outright killing the 88 without losing either M10 - yet again for far less resources, if with some more micro-intensity and popcap than the single pershing.

[Hasek10]

Don't forget too that the T2 ability which unlock the flak unlock walking stukas. If you choose the T3 doctrine unlock "artillery experts", the flak gain artillery barrage, but the stukas also gain +50 % damages. So mortars and howitzers will quickly be decrewed / destroyed.

The Flak Barrage/Stuka rockets have roughly the same range, just long enough to take out an American/British Mortar. In that sense, these units are able to remove a potential threat for the Flak. Neither of these abilities apply to the howitzer as you suggest however. A Howitzer far outranges any artillery that defensive has to throw at it. In such cases, Military Intelligence and an offmap are usually necessary to touch these units.

Except that both popwise and cost-wise - the sherman IS indeed far more viable than the Pershing ever will be. It makes utterly no sense in the least that a Pershing should lose to an 88 having dealt less damage to it than the sherman would have.

How exactly is a Sherman dealing more damage than a Pershing? Unless you are throwing your proposed situation out of the window and insinuating a new one (perhaps the Flak is approachable from an angle that prevents it from firing more than one shot at long range, or is flanked by multiple Shermans and is without the support it needs to fight off two units at once), the Sherman will both lose and deal less damage overall than a Pershing. That should be obvious.

In regards to the M10s performance versus the Flak, I will agree that they are probably a far more cost effective alternative to using both Shermans or the Pershing. Well micro'd M10s are some of the scariest things I've seen on the field, and an unsupported Flak deserves to be killed in these situations.

[SX23]

I don't actually understand the point of this thread....
Leophone, you are asking to lower the dmg of the 88 against the only thing it can counters, wich means tanks? I'm gonna give you a tip leo. If you see and 88, don't charge a LONE pershing up to it and then come posting in the forums that the pershing should win against the BEST anti tank from axis...

[FailHammer]

^
+1
this thread is fail

[Spartan_Marine88]

88 should inspire fear, and be able to back it up as well. Its fine the way it is.

[LeoPhone]

Don't forget too that the T2 ability which unlock the flak unlock walking stukas. If you choose the T3 doctrine unlock "artillery experts", the flak gain artillery barrage, but the stukas also gain +50 % damages. So mortars and howitzers will quickly be decrewed / destroyed.

The Flak Barrage/Stuka rockets have roughly the same range, just long enough to take out an American/British Mortar. In that sense, these units are able to remove a potential threat for the Flak. Neither of these abilities apply to the howitzer as you suggest however. A Howitzer far outranges any artillery that defensive has to throw at it. In such cases, Military Intelligence and an offmap are usually necessary to touch these units.

Except that both popwise and cost-wise - the sherman IS indeed far more viable than the Pershing ever will be. It makes utterly no sense in the least that a Pershing should lose to an 88 having dealt less damage to it than the sherman would have.

How exactly is a Sherman dealing more damage than a Pershing? Unless you are throwing your proposed situation out of the window and insinuating a new one (perhaps the Flak is approachable from an angle that prevents it from firing more than one shot at long range, or is flanked by multiple Shermans and is without the support it needs to fight off two units at once), the Sherman will both lose and deal less damage overall than a Pershing. That should be obvious.

In regards to the M10s performance versus the Flak, I will agree that they are probably a far more cost effective alternative to using both Shermans or the Pershing. Well micro'd M10s are some of the scariest things I've seen on the field, and an unsupported Flak deserves to be killed in these situations.

I suggest you to take a look at this: http://forums.europeinruins.com/index.php?topic=14995.0 to get your facts right.
Flak 88 range is 100, US mortar range is 75.

And how does the point of the m10 being much more cost effective than a sherman or pershing help you to agree the m10 should beat a flak?
the m10 is a tank destroyer.

I don't actually understand the point of this thread....
Leophone, you are asking to lower the dmg of the 88 against the only thing it can counters, wich means tanks? I'm gonna give you a tip leo. If you see and 88, don't charge a LONE pershing up to it and then come posting in the forums that the pershing should win against the BEST anti tank from axis...

You dont understand it because you dont READ IT.
Again, I do NOT suggest to lower the dmg of flak vs pershing,  i suggest to increase the dmg of the pershing vs the flak so it will AT LEAST match the sherman damage.

[Hasek10]

I suggest you to take a look at this: http://forums.europeinruins.com/index.php?topic=14995.0  to get your facts right.
Flak 88 range is 100, US mortar range is 75.

Did you honestly read what I wrote? Something about agreeing that the Flak barrage can protect the Flak from mortars? If you're trying to tell me its more than "Just long enough to take out mortars", you'll have a hard time selling me the idea that the Flak barrage can counter-battery any other artillery piece the allies have. It will take out Mortars/ATGs and infantry squads that are unlucky enough to be suppressed within its range. Anything more is wishful thinking.

And how does the point of the m10 being much more cost effective than a sherman or pershing help you to agree the m10 should beat a flak?
the m10 is a tank destroyer.

Myst was pointing out that well micro'd M10s are a better solution to Flak 88s than a Pershing. I agreed with him.

[LeoPhone]

And how does the point of the m10 being much more cost effective than a sherman or pershing help you to agree the m10 should beat a flak?
the m10 is a tank destroyer.

Myst was pointing out that well micro'd M10s are a better solution to Flak 88s than a Pershing. I agreed with him.

He ment how BS it is those things are more useful vs flaks than a pershing. not that it is a good thing.
and he did not ment at all that a flak should lose to 2 m10s while it can eat a pershing for breakfast.

[Hasek10]

He ment how BS it is those things are more useful vs flaks than a pershing. not that it is a good thing.
and he did not ment at all that a flak should lose to 2 m10s while it can eat a pershing for breakfast.

The reason that two M10s are more useful against a Flak 88 is because there are two of them. A single M10 nearly gets two-shot, but two of them working together can easily overwhelm the Flak's turret rotation speed for long enough to do significant damage, at a lower cost than risking a Pershing.

The Pershing has a myriad other uses, like fighting smaller/comparable (ie:Panther) axis tanks, turning infantry squads into mush, and generally scaring the hell out of people who only have a Pak and a Shrek squad on the field.

Just because it isn't the best choice at fighting the Axis Stationary Rape Cannon doesn't mean it isn't nice or even a bad idea to have when the Flak is on the field. Its resilient enough to take plenty of shots, deals mediocre damage, and lets your other units finish off an 88 directly.