ATG vs ATG put a stop to it?

[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

[31stPzGren]

O noes my doom fort line is taking innaccurate fire from a pak. Where could it be? Maybe i should do something.

-Wolfgor

I would be very very very very very very very very very very very happy if I can start building my doom forts again and spam rifleman only. I thoroughly enjoyed myself during those days of "doomfort", tankreaper + 137MP rifles... ah those were the days. 119 MP Volks w/ Fausts was more fun at times though.

Still, nothing beats rows and rows of tank traps and the expression made in chat by your opponent when he found your fort.

AT v AT is quite fine if they change the pak to single shot decloak and move while cloak. I've given up debating on forums on whats right and wrong. Just wait for the developers to churn out their ideas.

As to Bubz, yes, having an indication of where the pak is, is half the battle won. I agree that short of artillery most of the time, theres not much way to take out a well positioned pak covered by HMG and lord forbid, more ninjas like storms.

Therein, lies the fault with game design, which is not up to us to say, how it should be fixed.

[Malevolence]

AT v AT is quite fine if they change the pak to single shot decloak and move while cloak. I've given up debating on forums on whats right and wrong. Just wait for the developers to churn out their ideas.

+1

[Dragon2008]

People whine that the pak can be cloaked and move and ask to be nerfed and so now can only clock when still. Now you come back with more stupid whining about it been able to take 3 shots before it uncloaks. How about you just get rid of the pak entirely?  

I come onto the forums and keep seeing people with the stupid lets nerf everything that the axis have that is better than the allies. Half the people that come up with these stupid topic don't even play both sides but just one.

If you move ur ATG up on it own with no support u deserve to loose it.

You have to remember that this game is based on after the allies invaded France. By that time the axis was in the defensive and that fits in perfectly with the Pak been able to hide it self waiting for vehicles to come into range.

[BigDick]

People whine that the pak can be cloaked and move and ask to be nerfed and so now can only clock when still. Now you come back with more stupid whining about it been able to take 3 shots before it uncloaks. How about you just get rid of the pak entirely?  

i suggested that in a sarcastic way but people didnt got it

there are so many retarded suggestions
- pakscout -> make them not moveable while cloaked (powered by ... )
- change line of sight to nothing (powered by malevolence)
- let the pak decloak on first shoot not on third (powered by malevolence)
- make cloak an upgrade for munition (powered by ...)
- remove first strike bonus (powered by probably Gamesguy)

we have a complete useless unit than but people don't get it

[Mgallun74]

People whine that the pak can be cloaked and move and ask to be nerfed and so now can only clock when still. Now you come back with more stupid whining about it been able to take 3 shots before it uncloaks. How about you just get rid of the pak entirely?  

i suggested that in a sarcastic way but people didnt got it

there are so many retarded suggestions
- pakscout -> make them not moveable while cloaked (powered by ... )
- change line of sight to nothing (powered by malevolence)
- let the pak decloak on first shoot not on third (powered by malevolence)
- make cloak an upgrade for munition (powered by ...)
- remove first strike bonus (powered by probably Gamesguy)

we have a complete useless unit than but people don't get it

lolololololol.

[31stPzGren]

we have a complete useless unit than but people don't get it

Don't be so pessimistic... there is always schreck spam and panther w/ skirts for AT roles. Actually I think the pak could be quite fine, except that the state of the game is such that everything the axis have seems imba.

The state of balance is summarise by both the economic cost of unit and now... availability as well... and also the cohesiveness and force multiplier effects a faction receives as part of combined arms. The Pak could be perfectly balanced but because of a combination of HMG (insta suppress), ninja storms and whatever not, the pak looks overpowered where as it is actually the sum of it parts creating overpowering force multipliers.

[Scyn]

My personal take on it would be that if we change it now.. without anyone benefiting from the full doctrine trees, then we might be making the Pak severely gimped in comparison. It's quite hard to change things that are going to be influenced by doctrine trees and still be balanced afterward.

[RikiRude]

This wasn't meant to be a whine thread about pak sniping or nerfing the pak, it's a thread saying that ATG vs ATG combat shouldn't be any kind of an issue. yes its true that wher has the most benefits from starting an ATG battle, but that's not the issue, the issue is they shouldn't WANT to start one in the first place.

and people are also assuming that these ATGs are sitting around out in the middle of nowhere duking it out, no of course not. my ATG always has a rifle squad or MG covering it, but guess what? the axis player is just as smart as me and guess who wins that battle too? the mg42. so its easy to get pushed out of your territory by this little combo til you bring up something to take care of it. But that's getting off topic anyways.

[Scyn]

I rarely ever see ATG duels... the player with the 57mm typically backs it up so it lives, which is always the correct thing to do.

[Bubz]

back with a half dead atgun, which a lucky tank hit/schrek hit/other paksnipe can kill easily.

[Scyn]

That's completely irrelevant to the subject since the 57 lives to fight another day after foregoing the battle with the pak.

[Malevolence]

there are so many retarded suggestions
- pakscout -> make them not moveable while cloaked (powered by ... )
- change line of sight to nothing (powered by malevolence)
- let the pak decloak on first shoot not on third (powered by malevolence)
- make cloak an upgrade for munition (powered by ...)
- remove first strike bonus (powered by probably Gamesguy)

BigDick to the rescue, lying once again!

My original proposition was that in order to make the PaK less powerful compared to the 57mm that it should not remain cloaked after a certain number of shots. In this instance, it should decloak after the initial first strike shot, much like any other cloaked unit decloaks while attacking. I then suggested that if "pak scouting" is determined to be a big issue by the development team in addition to the actual cloak to simply reduce the PaK's line of sight by ten units (to 45, the same as most infantry) when it is cloaked - but only if that is required and thought useful by the development team. I've been against this "immobile PaK cloak" junk and prefer my own take on the balance question because it's less obnoxious (PaK won't just sit still, have coding problems, et c.) and a lot more realistic and in sync with the rest of the gameplay (every OTHER unit decloaks after firing, why should the PaK get extra free hits?)

Gamesguy also never said to remove first strike bonus, he also said to simply have it uncloak after one shot. None of those changes were proposed in conjunction with each other, unlike what you are implying.

BigFail.

That's completely irrelevant to the subject since the 57 lives to fight another day after foregoing the battle with the pak.

Except when it gets into Battle #2 and dies as a result of being weakened in Battle #1, so not at all irrelevant, really.

[Dragon2008]

I got an idea, let's make the pak shoot once then uncloak but then 1-2 secs l8er recloaks like the snipers. /sarc/

[Bubz]

Except when it gets into Battle #2 and dies as a result of being weakened in Battle #1, so not at all irrelevant, really.

Exactly, I didn't know why it was so hard to understand for Scyn.

[Scyn]

Someone is going to have to explain to me why I don't get into this ridiculous situations, but everyone else does. And unless you're a dumbass there won't be a battle #2.

3-4  57mm on average in every American player's battalion. 2 Paks on average in a Wehrmacht battalion. So their primary Anti-tank must be coming from shrecks. Whose for nerfing Shrecks? say *I*.

[Malevolence]

Someone is going to have to explain to me why I don't get into this ridiculous situations, but everyone else does. And unless you're a dumbass there won't be a battle #2.

PaK moves forward 15 feet, recloaks, fires again. Battle #2 underway.

Alternatively, grenadier with panzerschrek moves forward, shoots once, hits the AT gun and it explodes instead of being fine, Battle #2 victory, dead AT gun.

3-4  57mm on average in every American player's battalion. 2 Paks on average in a Wehrmacht battalion. So their primary Anti-tank must be coming from shrecks. Whose for nerfing Shrecks? say *I*.

Both my Wehr and US company had four AT guns until recently, when I sold one PaK and bought one panzerschrek for my Wehr company. Also, where are you getting these amazing statistics? Thin air?

[Scyn]

You're just trying to be a douche and create an argument that isn't there.

[Mgallun74]

You're just trying to be a douche and create an argument that isn't there.

lol

[Malevolence]

You're just trying to be a douche and create an argument that isn't there.

Please don't verbally attack me over a debate regarding AT guns.

What you're saying is that after you retreat an AT gun from a PaK firing at it (probably gets two shots, meaning probably one is going to hit) it will never again become engaged in a battle where the gun itself is in danger, thus rendering HP damage to the gun moot? That's totally preposterous.

[Scyn]

You're not debating, you're creating a scenario that is highly unlikely and you know it.