When would you use the infantery gun?

[Willburn]

The infantery gun has 2 attacks and 200 hp, it does 200 attack on infantery. For the same cost you could get an armored car that has 2000hp, 10 attacks and 650 attack vs infantery. (And also acts as an attack soaker when inf try to attack it with bad odds.) Also the infantery gun has to be dragged around causing even more cost. while the armored car even supply transport! (Not to mention the fact the armored car supply you with recon points...) The only use I can see is if your against a totaly superior tank enemy and want to use a rear troop to inflict casualities instead of getting your armored cars wreaked. But if your fighting anti infantery at that point when the enemy is owning you with tanks your really loosing anyhow. With that said I am sure there are uses for it, I just havent realised them. Anyone on the forum want to comment with suggestions?

[cdbeck]

Well, off the top of my head, I would say that the Infantry gun is more for defense and the armored car is for offense. The IG is a rear area weapon, so it has less of a chance to be damaged than the AC. According to the manual, versus 20 infantry, the AC has a 33% chance to be destroyed. The IG "augments" the damage of the infantry it is stacked with, with very little chance to be destroyed unless you have a breakthrough in your line (or are hit with artillery, or  heavy bombers - but these things target armored cars too). The IG has a lack of mobility (to move it requires a higher cost, with trucks or halftracks than a single AC) so it seems to be a bit better suited to defense.

I guess this is the main difference. Not sure about the damage specifics.

SoM

[Willburn]

Doesnt the IG have only 50 attack on defence, the description of it says its an offensive weapon. Btw the manual is very misleading as its just a pure armored car vs 20 infantery fight. If you put say 5 infantery with the armored car the chances to survive increases dramatically as the infantery draw fire from the enemy infantery, the few shots the armored cars take are most likly absorbed because of its high hitpoint stat. (Thats what i mean with armored car being a damage soaker for infantery..and vice versa..) (Unless infantery allways targets AC over inf?)

I still cant see any reasons for getting the IG over the AC. Both are offensive weapons to take on infantery, both are vounerable to dive bombers (the counter) and both suck vs tanks. But the AC is far superior in stats.

Anyways thanks for the discussion. If anyone has figured out how each unit prefers unit types it attacks that information would also be great to have.

[Willburn]

Hmm maybe the key to its use is the fact that it can upgrade a lot with tech while the AC cannot. Still this leaves you at an early disadvantage, not something you want due to snowball effect of having power early making your later power (Relative) to opponent bigger due to using the advantage early. (Snowball effect is something I could talk a lot about and its a big part of any turn based tactical game.) Again that leaves only one option,using it defensivly. But it has only 50 attack in defence so this isnt a viable use of it either.

[Willburn]

I have just watched some combat logs, and attack strengh is equal to: strenght vs current target / number of attacks. So having few number of attacks is a way of making each attack STRONGER, basically an advantage in some situations. In the AT gun vs Armored car situation the AT gun would attack with 100 strenght each of its 2 attacks, having a high chance of causing 2 kills. The AC on the other hand would attack with a strenght of 65 but with 10 different attacks (if there is only inf.) I STILL think this makes the armored car too strong compared with AT GUN. I would gladly take 10 shots at 65 vs 100 instead of 2 shots of 100 vs 100. (not counting any modifieres.)

UPS: EDited I ment the infantery gun not AT gun.. sigh. so replace AT gun with IG in the above sentance.

[Vic]

its a rear-area subformationtype, which makes it a more durable asset. also you should not use armour to attack towns or heavy forest.

[seille]

If i remember right it also has a bonus in attacking fortifications !
For a attacking player with enough transport capacity this is a nice weapon,
but often i tend to use mortars instead.

[seille]

AT gun and Armored Car are two completely different Subformation Types.
AT gun is completely defensive and more static and the Armored Car is offensive and good against
infantry. I would not fight tanks with. I mostly had higher losses among my armored cars, so i prefer
to invest in tanks when i need armor.
 

[Awac835]

As vic and others have said a key difference is if something is a rear end or frontline weapon.
Its the frontline troops that will take the dmg and die. In that respect the InfGun and ATGun will last alot longer then a AC or tank would. Also have you tried tanks against just a single tank destroyer? Those things cut through tanks like a hot knife trough butter.

[Willburn]

Sorry guys for the wrong text above. I said AT gun when I really still was talking about the infantery gun (IG). Btw vic is really being rear an asset? I mean its not drawing any fire from the enemies. Id rather have an armor car draw counterfire from the enemy so my infantery lives to tell another tale than my IG firing from rear but my rifles getting targeted a lot more. Isnt this what happens vic?

If IG has a bonus attacking fortifications that gives it perhaps a small usage in such cases, I still question if its worht its cost compared to the AC.

[seille]

The rear area units can be attacked when the attacker broke the lines (yellow soldiers on the battlescreen)
or in other words the attack has to be hard enough.

[Willburn]

yes and then its even worse a scenario because your rifles are not protecting it at all with theyre numbers and its not that great defending.. While an armored car on the other hand can take a looooot of hits from infantery, in fact they have to get lucky to kill an AC. (odds wise.)

I will try and say it more clearly, the armored car packed with infantery will during combat be just as good if not better (due to 10 attacks with the IG's puny 2 attacks = more chances to kill) than the ig, while also drawing more counterfire (and since rifles only have 1 attack that means more of the total number of attacks from the enemy) and having a very low chance of getting killed by that counterfire - while the infantery gun on the other hand will fire for 2 rounds (or is it 3 rounds before you can get rear break throughs?) with a lot less attacks (2 vs 10 from ac) but with a slightly higher probability to kill (100 vs the AC's 65 unmodified attack ratings) while not helping the rifles at all by drawing counterfire (you cant counter a rear troop) then if the enemy breaks through the rear it will get slaughtered as its not great on defence (200hp ?). Add to that all the other advantages to an ac compared to a infantery gun and you have a clear winner of the two units: Ac gives transport capaicity of 5, Ac gives recon of 10 - while IG on the other hand will REQUIRE transport capacity if your gonna move it anywhere any fast at all.

I will give IG one thing and that is with tech upgrades it can become better than AC, but thats trading off early advantages for later ones, a bit NONO in my book. 

Again im hoping im wrong but I have seen no convincing argument that the IG has any uses when you compare it with the AC. As far as im concern I would allways take the AC over the IG since they are equal in cost.

[freeboy]

hope this is in the same vein, not meaning to hijack.. what is the use of a tank detroyer, surely it is worse on offence thank tanks even against tanks?

[Banquet]

ORIGINAL: freeboy

hope this is in the same vein, not meaning to hijack.. what is the use of a tank detroyer, surely it is worse on offence thank tanks even against tanks?

I don't know the detailed stats offhand but I believe it's about as effective against tanks as the heavy tank - but more vulnerable to infantry. Presumably cheaper to build?

[Willburn]

Yes the tank destroyer is cheaper to build. Dont worry about the hijacking, this is all about discussing the units worth in the game so definitivly on topic. Tank destroyer is 4500 heavy tank is 6000.

[Xenomath]

I think you can't compare the attack values directly, because you forget that the IG not only gets a bonus against cities and fortification, but the armored car also gets a malus against these and nearly all other terrain types, too.
So in plains and light forest, the armored car is a clear winner, just imagine it had an attack bonus in this terrain.
But when you got a lot of mountains and heavy forest, IG will probably be the better choice attack wise. Will have to do the numbers.

With movement it's the same, if you buy a horse for the Gun (not that expansive).
AC is faster on roads and plains, but a horse is faster for Heavy forest and low mountains. In swampy terrain and over high mountains, forget all vehicles, tracked or wheeled.

I think it's the Mortar is more of a rival to the IG.
The IG is specialized on attacks against entrenched infantry in cities or fortifications,
while the Mortar seems more versatile and better in most other case.

[Willburn]

Thats the most convincing argument I have seen so far xenomath, thanks for comming with it. I checked the IG now and as far as I can tell it has no bonuses on any terrain. But on the other hand it does indeed have no negative penalties on anything but river and stream. While the armored car have -50 on urban and heavy forest etc. So lets run the numbers again:
 
Ac has 10 attacks with 65. Demodded thats 32.5. The IG does a clean shot 100 but only 2 attacks. Rifle has 100 hp. Default entrenchment in city is 100 so rifle is 200hp. chance for ac to hit once = 32.5/200 16.25% chance for IG to hit 50%. (100/200)  on average with ac 10 attacks it would hit 1.6 times and the ig would hit 1 time. Not to mention the fact the ac is drawing away 10 attacks from other units due to the counterfire it produces, that it can pretty easy fend off with its high hitpoint value. Add to that the recon bonus and carry bonus and I still think the AC is superior in every way.
 
Anyways thats how my line of thinking goes, perhaps you think about it differently? Feel free to explain, all I want is a healthy discussion about the units.

[Xenomath]

ORIGINAL: Willburn

Thats the most convincing argument I have seen so far xenomath, thanks for comming with it. I checked the IG now and as far as I can tell it has no bonuses on any terrain.

Check again!
Maybe you looked at the AT-Gun?
The IG has +50% against fortification, fortress and urban.

[Willburn]

Aha. I checked the editor and there finaly I found what you are refering too. Indeed you are correct urban fortifcation and fortress has 1.5 attack. (50% bonus)
 
Ok lets do the calculation again!
 
Ac has 10 attacks with 65. Demodded thats 32.5. The IG does a clean shot 150 (100*1.5) but only 2 attacks. Rifle has 100 hp. Default entrenchment in city is 100 so rifle is 200hp. chance for ac to hit once = 32.5/200 16.25% chance for IG to hit 75%. (150/200)  on average with ac 10 attacks it would hit 1.6 times and the ig would hit 1.5 times. Not to mention the fact the ac is drawing away 10 attacks from other units due to the counterfire it produces, that it can pretty easy fend off with its high hitpoint value. Add to that the recon bonus and carry bonus and I still think the AC is superior in every way.

The AC is still superior to the IG even in the terrain the IG has the highest bonus in compared with the AC.

[Xenomath]

OK, that's bad...
My last argument is that they probably survive longer and thus build up more XP.
And it's still not every way: you can't move over mountains and through swamps with an AC

I'm currently using IGs in a game on the Mountain and forest pbem map.
My idea was that tanks are no good in attacking forests. So I tried IGs, but I'm not impressed with the damage output...

Maybe they really need some help stat wise.
Vic?