Allied AT.

[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

[Mysthalin]

we miss you

I know.

[Tymathee]

I know.

who are you again?

[tank130]

The discussion is Allied at. Please keep it on topic or it gets locked.

[aeroblade56]

Back on topic, thank you tank as i said before. For armor doctrine it is a bit harder for them to fend off PE units in the early game that is untill you get the T2 unlocks. or advantages for fuel and provide greyhounds for soupport.

As Airborne have handheld AT and Infantry has handheld AT in the first T1 i do not see why  armored should not have it?. All of axis have Schreks without paying a Doctrine of course they can pay a doctrine for 2 schreks. But that is fair. i think it puts Armored players in the early stages of company development at a certain disadvantage that every other doctrine in every faction does not have. All brits have piats.

[Poppi]

Back on topic, thank you tank as i said before. For armor doctrine it is a bit harder for them to fend off PE units in the early game that is untill you get the T2 unlocks. or advantages for fuel and provide greyhounds for soupport.

As Airborne have handheld AT and Infantry has handheld AT in the first T1 i do not see why  armored should not have it?. All of axis have Schreks without paying a Doctrine of course they can pay a doctrine for 2 schreks. But that is fair. i think it puts Armored players in the early stages of company development at a certain disadvantage that every other doctrine in every faction does not have. All brits have piats.

well im not going to agree with the armor needs AT doc upgrade.
Rangers are barely AT. As most AT tactics goes inf and armor are the same... 57mm. So i think any MU restriction or ATG cost inrease puts a HUGE strain for US options.

But i do agree that early doc skills suck for armor. (Mobility exception). BTW i like the T4s for armor. Very unique.

[aeroblade56]

well im not going to agree with the armor needs AT doc upgrade.
Rangers are barely AT. As most AT tactics goes inf and armor are the same... 57mm. So i think any MU restriction or ATG cost inrease puts a HUGE strain for US options.

But i do agree that early doc skills suck for armor. (Mobility exception). BTW i like the T4s for armor. Very unique.

Ah but Rangers still provide a reasonable counter for PE strafers and the such. does it not? you try having a scout car come at you or a puma and AT phase through it. And when the only other AT you have is considered a greyhound it puts a certain amount of strain on you.

[CrazyWR]

so you would prefer we fill the hole of every doctrine and leave no weaknesses, so that everything is nice and easy?  Thats not how it works.  There are tradeoffs to picking each doctrine.  If a certain doctrine doesn't fit your style of play, or you aren't comfortable with it, play another one, there are 12, no one makes you pick a certain one, I think armor is a fantastic doctrine that can be played in many many different ways, and all extremely viable.  I don't think we should be looking to change it, rather I think we should try to emulate that type of doctrine in other doctrines that are either incomplete or subpar.

[AmPM]

so you would prefer we fill the hole of every doctrine and leave no weaknesses, so that everything is nice and easy?  Thats not how it works.  There are tradeoffs to picking each doctrine.  If a certain doctrine doesn't fit your style of play, or you aren't comfortable with it, play another one, there are 12, no one makes you pick a certain one, I think armor is a fantastic doctrine that can be played in many many different ways, and all extremely viable.  I don't think we should be looking to change it, rather I think we should try to emulate that type of doctrine in other doctrines that are either incomplete or subpar.

Actually, for Blitz, Terror, Defensive, Armor, Infantry, RCA, RE, etc thats exactly how it is....but yea, Allies have plenty of AT options as they are.

[Spartan_Marine88]

so you would prefer we fill the hole of every doctrine and leave no weaknesses, so that everything is nice and easy?  Thats not how it works. 

If everyone has it nice and easy then no one should have it nice and easy and no one should have a reason to bitch.

[PonySlaystation]

A real Airborne doctrine would be a huge boost to allied AT handheld firepower. Then it wouldn't be a problem that riflemen and rangers have weak and overpriced bazookas that obviously can't replace the role of RRs.

[Ahnungsloser]

A real Airborne doctrine would be a huge boost to allied AT handheld firepower. Then it wouldn't be a problem that riflemen and rangers have weak and overpriced bazookas that obviously can't replace the role of RRs.

The Airborne Doctrin actual is a huge AT boost to the allied but if you have less experience with them your brutally lacking in AI. With a small
boost Airborne becomes more useful and you will see it much more on the battlefield.

[smurfORnot]

smokaz ab with LMG's were quite effectiv,and biatch to kill!

[Smokaz]

Thats because I had WTW MFM and AOD

[Poppi]

so you would prefer we fill the hole of every doctrine and leave no weaknesses, so that everything is nice and easy?  Thats not how it works.  There are tradeoffs to picking each doctrine.  If a certain doctrine doesn't fit your style of play, or you aren't comfortable with it, play another one, there are 12, no one makes you pick a certain one, I think armor is a fantastic doctrine that can be played in many many different ways, and all extremely viable.  I don't think we should be looking to change it, rather I think we should try to emulate that type of doctrine in other doctrines that are either incomplete or subpar.

nicely said. i agree with it. Unfortunately i feel some docs fill that role where they are able to fill weaknesses and make everything nice and easy. theres been a lack of assymetric balance in this mod. but then again i hate units that excel at AI and AT.

[Herrpants]

sticky bomb is infinetly more useful than fausts and is the primary reason you dont see wehr doing lulzy infantry crushing ala m10, i know what your gonna say tho "Hurr derr herrpants youre an autistic spazz and dont even play this game anymore" but the fact remains that both sticky bomb nd faust do similar damage but oh wait sticky bombs have near 100% chance of engine or track damage? are you sure? thats kind of awesome oh and you always say zook sucks which it does im guessing you want it buffed too? maybe give the amis some sort of anti tank guided missile? and it is as they say roflmanz atgs and hellcats are all youl ever need.

lets discuss other holes in faction rosters!
1. PE has no medium tank ala sherman/p4 (ist doesnt count cus it does squat to tanks)
2. Axis Tds cannot into turret
3. pigs cant fly
4. ??
5. Profit!

[Smokaz]

Allies have no marder, ack.

[CrazyWR]

should just make everything into one faction and let skill win

[Smokaz]

should just make everything into one faction and let skill win

crazy im just saying its pretty boss to have a 6 pop marder or a 5 pop ht, when the closest thing is as 12 pop firefly

if allies had a vehicle 80gun it would be baller

[Herrpants]

dont pretend that the marder is anywhere near as good as the firefly
 
1. firefly has turret
2. firefly has sherman health (which is good)
3. firefly doesnt need to set up
4. firefly doesnt have wet tissue paper for armor
5. firefly is the only tank thats an actual threat to axis panthers and tigers
6. firefly has cct

[AmPM]

dont pretend that the marder is anywhere near as good as the firefly
 
1. firefly has turret
2. firefly has sherman health (which is good)
3. firefly doesnt need to set up
4. firefly doesnt have wet tissue paper for armor
5. firefly is the only tank thats an actual threat to axis panthers and tigers
6. firefly has cct

FF costs nearly 3 times as much fuel.