Anti tank units for patch 1.03

[boudi]

Hi,

I suggest that the anti tank unit model should be reworked, i quote Pocus from here : fb.asp?m=4596801

Forget anti-tanks, first. They are far far from being interesting, they lack punch, cost too much in tech to develop and their force pool is too low to justify investing into them

[pjg100]

I disagree. They can be quite useful for both sides, if used properly, in Russia.

[amandkm]

ORIGINAL: pjg100

I disagree. They can be quite useful for both sides, if used properly, in Russia.

OK, you've got me curious. How do you employ them?

[boudi]

Interesting, the debate is open.

[Christolos]

ORIGINAL: pjg100

I disagree. They can be quite useful for both sides, if used properly, in Russia.

I too agree that they can be quite useful, particularly in Russia.

ORIGINAL: amandkm
OK, you've got me curious. How do you employ them?

I employ them against tank units
I'm kidding of course. For offensive purposes,I find it is best to concentrate them into a sort of tank trap deployment together with actual tank units. I generally strike first with the anti tanks units and then follow-up with the tanks...especially if the tanks being attacked, retreat.

C

[amandkm]

See, they just don't seem to inflict any damage when I use them. Do you invest in improving their tech level? I'd be very reluctant to spend on that, seems the money can go elsewhere that might impact a lot more units...

[pjg100]

Chris and I played a game of SC:WiE last year in which anti tank units figured prominently, for both sides, in the Ukraine. Discovering several AT units and a heavy in your vicinity can cause extreme anxiety in the subsequent replay.

[gamer78]

Does it work in Cairo? I've entrenched one in my pbem game. I'll see. [:)]
And did you research anti-tank. I think map scale and urgency a bit different here. Does experienced players invest resources on this unit in pbem games?

[Christolos]

ORIGINAL: pjg100

Chris and I played a game of SC:WiE last year in which anti tank units figured prominently, for both sides, in the Ukraine. Discovering several AT units and a heavy in your vicinity can cause extreme anxiety in the subsequent replay.

Hi pjg100,

Yes indeed! I remember that game well! You won a great victory over me as the Allies after a hard fought battle in Russia.

We should play a game of SC:WaW sometime soon! [:)]

Cheers,

C

[Christolos]

ORIGINAL: gamer78

Does it work in Cairo? I've entrenched one in my pbem game. I'll see. [:)]
And did you research anti-tank. I think map scale and urgency a bit different here. Does experienced players invest resources on this unit in pbem games?

I would say that for the way I like to use them offensively, they work better in SC:WiE North Africa (NA) than they do in SC:WiW NA, simply because there is more maneuvering room to deploy them and use them.

I generally try to upgrade them ASAP...but it can sometimes be latter than sooner depending on the type of opponent gameplay I am facing.

C

[ElvisJJonesRambo]

Use the Anti-Tank in Russian front, of course. Ram 'em. Sgt Guffy style. "Hey you lost your gun, you got half crew that's wounded."
Sgt Guffy --- "That' okay, he can still fight. I'm waiting for the Germans, we'll ram 'em".

Put the Anti-Tank in a city right where them Panzers are coming. What else you gonna stop 'em with?

[boudi]

ORIGINAL: pjg100

Chris and I played a game of SC:WiE last year in which anti tank units figured prominently, for both sides, in the Ukraine. Discovering several AT units and a heavy in your vicinity can cause extreme anxiety in the subsequent replay.

Don't sure mine cause extreme anxiety. [:D]

[pjg100]

Thanks Chris, that was a great game, would be fun to do it again. Will let you know when things clear up.

[AlbertN]

Not sure if it's scriptable but anti-tank should be a -defensive- unit against tanks.
Pratically place them in spots where you scream 'you got to attack me with infantry' (or simply have better tanks than the enemy anti-tanks).

But if AT attacks Tanks... well ... (Unless there are also SP-AT, Panzerjagers and SU-85 / 122 etc kind of tanks. There should work offensively too). Just at the scale of the game it's hard to have a whoile formation of a 'corps sized' mainly of these veichles.

[gamer78]

I'm not sure they're worth MPP. Expensive to purchase and research path up to level 5. Very low 'hard defense' value against infantry. Maybe they should be integrated to inf techs against tank attack as a support unit. I've been also playing SC Assault on Communism pbem I think unit much better suited to that separate unit role in there.

[Mithrilotter]

I frequently see Anti-Tank units easily destroyed by Tanks of equal tech level.

Anti-Tank Guns are currently too expensive for their value in the game. Historically, anti-tank guns were a cheap and very effective defense against tanks. Anti-Tank Research is very costly for the few units that it benefits. Tank research involves Armor, Gun and Vehicle for around 175 MPP (depending on the country). Anti-Tank research is mostly Gun for around 150 MPP. Motorized Anti-Tank Vehicles were created from modified existing tank chassis.

I believe that Anti-Tank research as a category should be eliminated. Tank research should also cover Anti-Tank. For the most part, the 57mm gun and the 17 pounder were the about the only new tank or anti-tank guns created in the war. Most countries just used already developed regular guns (37mm,45mm,50mm,75mm) or existing anti-aircraft or naval guns (76mm,85mm,88mm,90mm,100mm,120mm) for tank and anti-tank weapons.

[James Taylor]

If we're going to keep AT as a unit then my opinion is to make the research cheaper, say 100 MPPs as AT upgrades usually followed in the tracks of progressive tank designs.


The unit is and remains useful either way and provides another dilution of research.


The most realistic way to provide these assets (AT, AA, and Art.) is through attachments based upon HQ support, just as additional mobility could be through the "motor pool" concept.


No need for a research category of motorization as the technology was widely available in WW2, it was just a matter of fuel and $. When units are built the addition of motorized vehicles is a decision for the owning player to institute the integral expansion of action points.

Otherwise the HQ management of the motor pool could provide units that additional APs that have not had the vehicles added in the build phase.

[Pocus]

I'll rejoice to see any PBEM opponent with anti-tanks, particularly if upgraded to subsequent tech levels. I know he will have spent precious points in these and less in tanks. Good for me.

[boudi]

It's my first and for sure the last game where i buy anti tanks units. i support the idea to change the AT units on map to support units on HQ or infantry units.

[rob89]

I think there is a misunderstanding about the ATGs.

They - in the game - are considered as Light Armor (see the related table in Country Data/Combat Target Data, in the editor) and therefore more than ATG should be TDs / StuG / SU, perhaps at brigade level (with all the consequent modification of the relative values, of the costs etc.)

I have considered them as such in my modded scenario

regards