Matrix Games Forums

I played WaW a few months ago but didn't get around to writing feedback before now. I really like the game and think it plays well overall. During my playthrough as the Allies I noticed a few issues:

---

A small but Important issues is that German AI really should take better care of Paris. As I was waiting for a good window to start Operation Overlord in spring 1944 I noticed to my great surprise that while most of the French coast was well garrisoned, the Paris was left completely empty for a turn. I dropped my airborne units around Paris (for which they easily have the range thanks to WoW's map scale) and just walked in, liberating Paris and ensuring a quick access to Major Capital level supply when my landing force made contact few turns later.

I really think the Axis AI should under no circumstances leave Paris empty even for a single turn .

---

While most unit types had at least some use, I really can't see why anyone in their right mind would invest in Anti-Tank guns beyond the almost free African gun.

Anti-tank guns generally can't be built cheap or in great numbers. They are way too specialized to be used effectively in most situations. The seemingly army-sized AT gun units neither make much sense, nor do they work particularly well on the condensed map size of WaW. This alone doesn't make Anti-Tank units useless but the Anti-Tank research definitely does:

AT technology doesn't effect the Hard defense/attack values of infantry unlike the Anti-Air tech. Unlike SC:WW1, research cost doesn't change much according to the importance of the tech so anti-tank technology ends up being just absurdly expensive investment with minimal gain compared to investing the MPP in tanks, infantry, economy or pretty much anything else. (There could be more cost variance in WaW technologies in general. SC:WW1 does research costs fantastically for the time period in my opinion)

What I would suggest is making everything about Anti-Tank cheaper, both production and research, as well as making them available in greater numbers. I really think it should be the cheap alternative to just investing in tanks (and there's currently no reason not to invest in tanks instead).

Additionally, Anti-Tank weapons should work like Anti-Air or Artillery and support the nearby infantry units. This would make it more viable to invest points into what is otherwise the most specialized and unnecessary research in the entire game (along with rocket technology). It would also make Anti-Tank units much more realistic strategic concentrations of defensive anti-tank weaponry, rather than the unrealistically specialized front line unit it currently is depicted as.

To prevent Anti-Tank units from getting too powerful with the changes, their offensive capability could be greatly reduced so their main role would be supporting infantry units in defense.

All this would give Anti-Tank a clear, unique and realistic role on the battlefield and make them prominent enough to warrant the research cost in the first place.

---

One broader issues with the late campaign I noticed was that German AI would really benefit from having a more focused defense when the things start going badly. Currently it really hurts its chances (or rather hastens the inevitable) by committing too many high value units to places like Italy and the Balkans even when Allied columns are approaching Berlin virtually unopposed.

The German AI could also really use some extra scripted units near the end because currently I don't see how the Germany could last until 1945 if Western Allies make a landing in spring/summer of 1944.

---

Naval warfare has lot of the same issues as it does in WW1. Cruisers don't really have a role and there's no situations where I would produce them. Destroyers are too vulnerable to "running into" enemy capital ships when realistically they should be able to avoid direct combat.

Here I would suggest the same changes I have suggested for CS:WW1: Make it so that Destroyers and Light/Heavy Cruisers don't automatically trigger retaliation from Battleships that they run into, but they would still trigger retaliation from running into Destroyers or Light/Heavy Cruisers. This would make scouting and searching subs with Destroyers viable and give Cruisers an important role as screening ships that can prevent destroyers from just spotting the capitals and sailing away.

---

I really think the British could use a few levels of logistics at the start of the game. As it currently stands, I never had the MPP to move a lot of the Commonwealth forces from their starting islands. Britain is simply too strapped for MPP until very late in the war and by then, an under-strength New Zealand corps can't really contribute much even if it somehow makes it to a shore before the war ends.

---

Other than these issues I think SC:WW2 is a great game! Especially the Chinese front and Pacific war are something I haven't really done in a proper strategy game before. The Chinese/Pacific fronts also add some interesting choices or possibilities when it comes to deploying the American forces and opening a second front against the Soviet Union.

ORIGINAL: MVP7

I played WaW a few months ago but didn't get around to writing feedback before now. I really like the game and think it plays well overall. During my playthrough as the Allies I noticed a few issues:

---

A small but Important issues is that German AI really should take better care of Paris. As I was waiting for a good window to start Operation Overlord in spring 1944 I noticed to my great surprise that while most of the French coast was well garrisoned, the Paris was left completely empty for a turn. I dropped my airborne units around Paris (for which they easily have the range thanks to WoW's map scale) and just walked in, liberating Paris and ensuring a quick access to Major Capital level supply when my landing force made contact few turns later.

I really think the Axis AI should under no circumstances leave Paris empty even for a single turn .

---

While most unit types had at least some use, I really can't see why anyone in their right mind would invest in Anti-Tank guns beyond the almost free African gun.

Anti-tank guns generally can't be built cheap or in great numbers. They are way too specialized to be used effectively in most situations. The seemingly army-sized AT gun units neither make much sense, nor do they work particularly well on the condensed map size of WaW. This alone doesn't make Anti-Tank units useless but the Anti-Tank research definitely does:

AT technology doesn't effect the Hard defense/attack values of infantry unlike the Anti-Air tech. Unlike SC:WW1, research cost doesn't change much according to the importance of the tech so anti-tank technology ends up being just absurdly expensive investment with minimal gain compared to investing the MPP in tanks, infantry, economy or pretty much anything else. (There could be more cost variance in WaW technologies in general, SC:WW1 does research costs fantastically for the time period in my opinion)

What I would suggest is making everything about Anti-Tank cheaper, both production and research, as well as making them available in greater numbers. I really think it should be the cheap alternative to just investing in tanks (and there's currently no reason to not invest in tanks instead).

Additionally, Anti-Tank weapons should work like Anti-Air or Artillery and support the nearby infantry units. This would make it more viable to invest points into what is otherwise the most specialized and unnecessary research in the entire game. It would also make Anti-Tank units much more realistic strategic concentrations of defensive anti-tank weaponry, rather than the unrealistically specialized front line unit it currently is depicted as.

To prevent Anti-Tank units from getting too powerful with the changes, their offensive capability could be greatly reduced so their main role would be supporting infantry units in defense.

All this would give Anti-Tank a clear, unique and realistic role on the battlefield and make them prominent enough to warrant the research cost in the first place.

---

One broader issues with the late campaign I noticed was that German AI would really benefit from having a more focused defense when the things start going badly. Currently it really hurts its chances (or rather hastens the inevitable) by committing too many high value units to places like Italy and the Balkans even when Allied columns are approaching Berlin virtually unopposed.

The German AI could also really use some extra scripted units near the end because currently I don't see how the Germany could last until 1945 if Western Allies make a landing in spring/summer of 1944.

---

Naval warfare has lot of the same issues as it does in WW1. Cruisers don't really have a role and there's no situations where I would produce them. Destroyers are too vulnerable to "running into" enemy capital ships when realistically they should be able to avoid direct combat.

Here I would suggest the same changes I have suggested for CS:WW1: Make it so that Destroyers and Light/Heavy Cruisers don't automatically trigger retaliation from Battleships that they run into, but they would still trigger retaliation from running into Destroyers or Light/Heavy Cruisers. This would make scouting and searching subs with Destroyers viable and give Cruisers an important role as screening ships that can prevent destroyers from just spotting the capitals and sailing away.

---

I really think the British could use a few levels of logistics at the start of the game. As it currently stands, I never has the MPP to move a lot of the Commonwealth forces from their starting islands. Britain is simply too strapped for MPP until very late in the war and by then, an under-strength New Zealand corps can't really contribute much even if it somehow makes it to a shore before the war ends.

---

Other than these issues I think SC:WW2 is a great game! Especially the Chinese front and Pacific war are something I haven't really done in a proper strategy game before. The Chinese/Pacific fronts also add some interesting choices or possibilities when it comes to deploying the American forces and opening a second front against the Soviet Union.

A lot of great ideas here! Did you notice if the AI had the Volkssturm units defending Berlin? In my most recent MP game this event never fired for me so I had much less defense in the Berlin area.

This had me mostly nodding my head. The only quibble I would raise is that about heavy cruisers. They take a long time to build, and are pricey, but that reflects their historical situation. The only CA any of the Axis powers launched after the war began was Prinz Eugen. Of the allies, only the US built any Heavies after hostilities started. There was a need for and building of lighter units, but heavy cruisers sort of priced themselves out of the market. I'd second your changes for naval untis, but only for DD's and CL's (This has the added advantage of helping to differentiate between heavy and light cruisers as well.)

ORIGINAL: Tanaka

Did you notice if the AI had the Volkssturm units defending Berlin? In my most recent MP game this event never fired for me so I had much less defense in the Berlin area.

Are you able to check the situation with the conditions for the Decision in the Strategy Guide to see if there's a valid reason or a bug in there that we need to fix?

At least in my campaign the Volkssturm event did trigger. They aren't even a speed bump though, and what I would like to see is German AI getting enough units to pull of something like Battle of Bulge to delay the loss of Berlin by a month of two. On Eastern Front the Axis forces just dwindle away until the Soviet army can pretty much just race from Ukraine to Germany without any real resistance as fast as the supply allows. The German AI tries to hold on to everything instead of regrouping before it's too late and while that in itself might not be inaccurate, it does prevent the AI from putting up any kind of resistance after the winter of 43-44.

---

ORIGINAL: amandkm
This had me mostly nodding my head. The only quibble I would raise is that about heavy cruisers. They take a long time to build, and are pricey, but that reflects their historical situation. The only CA any of the Axis powers launched after the war began was Prinz Eugen. Of the allies, only the US built any Heavies after hostilities started. There was a need for and building of lighter units, but heavy cruisers sort of priced themselves out of the market. I'd second your changes for naval untis, but only for DD's and CL's (This has the added advantage of helping to differentiate between heavy and light cruisers as well.)

I would still argue for including the Heavy Cruisers in this kind of arrangement. Historically the role of heavy cruiser wasn't that different from light cruiser. It's mostly just a cruiser that is better off against a light cruiser than what another light cruiser would be. Without the ability to intercept Heavy Cruiser would remain in the same redundant position that the cruisers currently occupy.

I don't think ability to intercept would harm the historical trend of ship building either. US would still be the only country with any real MPP to spend on ships (and might hence choose to splurge on the extra firepower). For anyone else it's more likely a case of "I really need something to screen the navy" and for that purpose, destroyers and light cruisers would be the sufficient, cheap and fast solution while heavy cruiser would offer fairly little for the price and time increase.

---

One ship type I forgot to mention in the suggestion was the Battle Cruiser. Those would interact like Battleships.

ORIGINAL: BillRunacre

ORIGINAL: Tanaka

Did you notice if the AI had the Volkssturm units defending Berlin? In my most recent MP game this event never fired for me so I had much less defense in the Berlin area.

Are you able to check the situation with the conditions for the Decision in the Strategy Guide to see if there's a valid reason or a bug in there that we need to fix?

"Event fires: From the 1st January 1942 when Berlin is in Axis hands, Germany is aligned with the Axis and
not surrendered, the USA, USSR and France are all aligned with the Allies and not surrendered, and at least 2 Allied units are within 4 hexes of Warsaw, 3 of Königsberg, 8 of Berlin, 4 of Munich or 7 of Prague."

We ended our game so I cannot go back and check unfortunately but I thought it strange since he was on the gates of Berlin and no Volkssturm. But when I think back he may not have been as close to Warsaw or Munich/Prague. He did an amphibious landing in north Germany.

ORIGINAL: MVP7


I would still argue for including the Heavy Cruisers in this kind of arrangement. Historically the role of heavy cruiser wasn't that different from light cruiser. It's mostly just a cruiser that is better off against a light cruiser than what another light cruiser would be. Without the ability to intercept Heavy Cruiser would remain in the same redundant position that the cruisers currently occupy.

I don't think ability to intercept would harm the historical trend of ship building either. US would still be the only country with any real MPP to spend on ships (and might hence choose to splurge on the extra firepower). For anyone else it's more likely a case of "I really need something to screen the navy" and for that purpose, destroyers and light cruisers would be the sufficient, cheap and fast solution while heavy cruiser would offer fairly little for the price and time increase.

---

One ship type I forgot to mention in the suggestion was the Battle Cruiser. Those would interact like Battleships.

I see where you are coming from, but I have to say that I think the situation you are describing fits how the history played out. They needed a screen, so they built light units. The CA's were too pricey and large and slow for the job, so they weren't built up. The one thing you are forgetting about CA's is that they can bombard, which light units can't, and that does give them use beyond screening vessels.

Actually, not sure if CL's can bombard, but if they can, they should lose that in return for the ability to avoid interception by a capital ship.

ORIGINAL: amandkm
I see where you are coming from, but I have to say that I think the situation you are describing fits how the history played out. They needed a screen, so they built light units. The CA's were too pricey and large and slow for the job, so they weren't built up. The one thing you are forgetting about CA's is that they can bombard, which light units can't, and that does give them use beyond screening vessels.

Actually, not sure if CL's can bombard, but if they can, they should lose that in return for the ability to avoid interception by a capital ship.

The problem is that heavy cruisers of 1930's and 1940's aren't big and slow. For example Brooklyn and Cleveland class ships are light cruisers, Pensacola and Baltimore class are heavy cruisers. All of these ships have top speed of 32-33 knots. All of these ships have loaded displacement between 11,500 to 17,000 long tons. The belt armor doesn't differ that much either.

As far as I understand the reason these ships are classified as light or heavy is the main guns which are 6" (150mm) for lights and 8" (203mm) for the heavies. All of these are guns perfectly capable of bombarding coastal targets.

The lightest and most weakly armoured of these ships is actually the Pensacola class heavy cruiser, which was originally designated as light cruiser. Ultimately the difference between light and heavy cruisers is a political distinction more than it is practical so there's simply no historical justification for greatly differentiating the roles of light and heavy cruisers in gameplay.

---

And just to be fair, those light cruisers I mentioned are indeed on the heavier end of what is typically classified as light cruisers. One of the lighter examples from 1940's would be Atlanta class which was armed with 16 fast firing 5" (127mm) guns (which are typically destroyer size guns, but in practice the cruiser still had more firepower than an US field artillery battalion or two). It had loaded displacement of 7,400 long tons. It has notably weaker armour in most places than the other ships mentioned, but it still has the same ~32 knot top speed that almost all US cruisers seem to share.

ORIGINAL: Tanaka

"Event fires: From the 1st January 1942 when Berlin is in Axis hands, Germany is aligned with the Axis and
not surrendered, the USA, USSR and France are all aligned with the Allies and not surrendered, and at least 2 Allied units are within 4 hexes of Warsaw, 3 of Königsberg, 8 of Berlin, 4 of Munich or 7 of Prague."

We ended our game so I cannot go back and check unfortunately but I thought it strange since he was on the gates of Berlin and no Volkssturm. But when I think back he may not have been as close to Warsaw or Munich/Prague. He did an amphibious landing in north Germany.

The event should have happened when the Allies got within 8 hexes of Berlin though, so that is indeed odd.

What I will add is a check for the Allies being within a certain distance of a city in north west Germany.

ORIGINAL: BillRunacre

ORIGINAL: Tanaka

"Event fires: From the 1st January 1942 when Berlin is in Axis hands, Germany is aligned with the Axis and
not surrendered, the USA, USSR and France are all aligned with the Allies and not surrendered, and at least 2 Allied units are within 4 hexes of Warsaw, 3 of Königsberg, 8 of Berlin, 4 of Munich or 7 of Prague."

We ended our game so I cannot go back and check unfortunately but I thought it strange since he was on the gates of Berlin and no Volkssturm. But when I think back he may not have been as close to Warsaw or Munich/Prague. He did an amphibious landing in north Germany.

The event should have happened when the Allies got within 8 hexes of Berlin though, so that is indeed odd.

What I will add is a check for the Allies being within a certain distance of a city in north west Germany.

Makes sense thanks Bill!

What I would suggest is making everything about Anti-Tank cheaper, both production and research, as well as making them available in greater numbers. I really think it should be the cheap alternative to just investing in tanks (and there's currently no reason not to invest in tanks instead).

It is already cheaper for the US and the UK, and the US can employ more of them. I've started a few games intending for the US to use AT highly upgraded with both AT and AA but the games didn't last until Overlord so I've never been able to try this in PBEM. I still suspect it could be potent, so I recommend additional testing before changing anything.

Of course the US should invest in Tanks as well- it can do both- but AT's have more staying power, especially in the beginning.

ORIGINAL: Jackmck
It is already cheaper for the US and the UK, and the US can employ more of them. I've started a few games intending for the US to use AT highly upgraded with both AT and AA but the games didn't last until Overlord so I've never been able to try this in PBEM. I still suspect it could be potent, so I recommend additional testing before changing anything.

Of course the US should invest in Tanks as well- it can do both- but AT's have more staying power, especially in the beginning.

In my experience the UK will need to spend every single MPP with high efficiency (i.e. economy, infantry, air and ASW) and even then it's unlikely you'll be able to transport all of your colonial units or keep your air units at fighting strength before mid 1944. Building early AT for them just for the sake of survival might not be a terrible idea on its own but keeping the said AT up-to date is prohibitively expensive.

As for the US, they can pretty much build and research whatever they fancy. The US research is only really limited by the total research MPP cap and you can build your army from the ground up. The question is, why would you really opt to go with the AT weapons when you can churn out Heavy Tank units on monthly basis (and still lay down a few capital ships every year).

Even if the AT-heavy US turned out to be fairly potent in 1944 with the current balance, it doesn't really matter. As your opponents have pointed out, the war is already decided by the Overlord, early on US has little need for AT weapons and after 1942 I'd argue that US can do with tanks anything it can with the AT but better. I think it's safe to say that the potency of the current AT is nowhere near the self-evident power of infantry and tanks. Some experimental edge case where AT kinda works for one or two factions won't change that overall picture.

That being said, the wider balance implications of AT-weapon buffs would of course need to be carefully considered like any balance changes. Cheaper AT units that support infantry would have the most significant impact on the early Eastern Front battles, in North Africa and in defense against Sealion. Germany would probably require some small buff to compensate for the early Eastern front but by late war it might actually be the Axis who would benefit the most from having something cost effective to fight the endless tide of US and USSR armor.

MVP7 is right, AT is not good. It's better to use the MPP:s to tanks etc. Same goes with rocket weapons. But the most poorest thing to do is mobility. It's super expensive, not only cost of researching, but then upgrading and reinforcing units. It's pretty rare to really have some big benefit for 1 extra movement point.
Manual says about mobility: Production and Reinforcement cost increase per level: 20% (Germany:30%). I would only think mobility maybe for few Japan units to faster advance in China. And at this point, i have always found better use to those MPP:s [:)]

MVP7 is right, AT is not good.

I suggest reading this AAR. Gives some insight about AT units.

I read it when it came and now again. I'm not sure what was the reason for Germany to lose so many tanks?
Of course I might be terribly wrong, but I have to say, with all due respect, that i don't believe AT is worth the MPP.
If i remember correctly, Soviets can buy 3 anti-tank units, i think that's not enough.

I'm not sure what was the reason for Germany to lose so many tanks?

Check this post.

In 1941 Russia will probably have 4 tanks - 1 from the game start, one from Syberia, 2 from production que. The last two come late, in Nov and Dec respectably. That's if Axis player kept USSR mobilization low. Therefore, in 1941 you won't have any real means to defend from 8-9 GER tanks. Additional tank will cost you around 280-300 MPP and will take 5 turns to land. On contrary, you may get an AT gun for around 220 MPP in 3 turns. That's a different story. Place them in strategic positions and an Axis players has a puzzle to solve.

Not trying to convince you or anybody, in fact about 5-6 months ago I didn't buy them. Now I try to get all of them ASAP, as USSR and US.

ORIGINAL: Marcinos1985

MVP7 is right, AT is not good.

I suggest reading this AAR. Gives some insight about AT units.

Glancing over the AAR (with very interesting stratagems by both sides) it seems like no AT units are built or used by anyone other than US and USSR. Even for them the allied player only seems to have invested in Anti-Tank after maxing all of their Tank units and research. The AT units only start appearing on the front in 1944.

To me this is just an example of the mischaracterisation of the AT in the game. It has not been researched and built as an affordable stop gap measure against the enemy armor. It is instead a late extravagant investment made well after the war has already been decided (i.e. in the 1942 when half of German army is fighting Allies in Spain instead of finishing off Russia).

Yes, when researched and manufactured the AT can destroy tanks (which the Germans here had heavily invested in), I'm not debating that. However, from strategic point of view the US (and to lesser degree USSR) might as well have been spending half of its MPP after 1942 on research and manufacture of fish & chips and the allies would still be winning by 1944. The war itself was won by prioritizing tanks, infantry, air and navy — years before any AT units faced the remaining enemy tanks. You never see the underdog investing in AT to fight off the enemy armored superiority because it's just not economically feasible.

---

Investing in economy pays itself back massively; Investing in infantry greatly increases the fighting power of the bulk of your army; Investing in tanks gives many majors their greatest striking power; Investing in some air techs effects less units but their mechanics makes them an invaluable strategic force multiplier (same goes for artillery for some majors); Investing in Anti-Air lets you upgrade virtually every unit without wings (plus even some hexes)!; And then there is Anti-Tank which effects only one single specialized unit type that can't even be built that cheap or in significant numbers.

The only technologies less worthy of investment are some special cases like researching tanks for China or Japan; Beyond the important Submarine and ASW techs there's fairly little point in investing in Naval research: Axis will either win before the naval tech starts having an impact, and the late-war Allied production capacity would overwhelm the Axis fleet even if they were churning out 18th century 3rd Rates; Rocket technology mainly exists to be a pointless (or actively detrimental) vanity project for the Germans. All of these cases make sense in the context of WW2 but in my opinion the Anti-Tank being expensive and largely irrelevant rarity does not.

---

EDIT

ORIGINAL: Marcinos1985

I'm not sure what was the reason for Germany to lose so many tanks?

Check this post.

In 1941 Russia will probably have 4 tanks - 1 from the game start, one from Syberia, 2 from production que. The last two come late, in Nov and Dec respectably. That's if Axis player kept USSR mobilization low. Therefore, in 1941 you won't have any real means to defend from 8-9 GER tanks. Additional tank will cost you around 280-300 MPP and will take 5 turns to land. On contrary, you may get an AT gun for around 220 MPP in 3 turns. That's a different story. Place them in strategic positions and an Axis players has a puzzle to solve.

Not trying to convince you or anybody, in fact about 5-6 months ago I didn't buy them. Now I try to get all of them ASAP, as USSR and US.

Didn't notice the AT unit there (I'm still not sure which gun here it is as I have been playing with one of the counter mods). Barbarossa defense is one of those very specific cases where getting an AT unit or two might not be a terrible idea in short term.

However the Eastern Front is wide and even those base level Anti-Tank guns are a big investment in a time where you could be using just a bit more MPP and wait a bit longer for tanks (that you are probably already researching), or rebuilding and re-arming your infantry (a lot of which should be rebuildable at half price). Unless you build all three Anti-Tank guns or operate them a lot, it shouldn't be that hard for the highly mobile German armor to avoid them or for the German combined arms to take them out.

If you could have survived without those AT-guns until 1942 that MPP would probably have been better spent on Tanks and Infantry because by then those AT will be either outdated or you'll be spending a lot of MPP just to bring those 3 units up to date. Then again if those AT-guns saved (or damaged) more than their MPPs worth of other units it wouldn't have been a bad short term investment even if they end up redundant.

Even for them the allied player only seems to have invested in Anti-Tank after maxing all of their Tank units and research. The AT units only start appearing on the front in 1944.

In mentioned AAR, the first USSR AT guns are already in play in 08.1941. Well before tanks are maxed out.

I see your point(s), there are more important areas to spend MPP's on. But still AT's are not that big investment (something like 125 per tech chit, 200 per unit). And they are also useful to close tech gap against the axis, which for most of the games has tech advantage in tanks.

Unless you build all three Anti-Tank guns or operate them a lot, it shouldn't be that hard for the highly mobile German armor to avoid them or for the German combined arms to take them out.

Place them near Kursk/Charkow and Taganrog and suddenly it's not that easy to bypass them. WaW map is not that big. What is more, they have 4 AP's, they are quite mobile and can counterattack from behind an infantry wall.

I would post a screen to ilustrate, but quite nice is from a tournament game and would bring unneccesary spoilers for the rival.

ORIGINAL: Marcinos1985

Even for them the allied player only seems to have invested in Anti-Tank after maxing all of their Tank units and research. The AT units only start appearing on the front in 1944.

In mentioned AAR, the first USSR AT guns are already in play in 08.1941. Well before tanks are maxed out.

I see your point(s), there are more important areas to spend MPP's on. But still AT's are not that big investment (something like 125 per tech chit, 200 per unit). And they are also useful to close tech gap against the axis, which for most of the games has tech advantage in tanks.

Yeah, thanks. I edited a response to that into my previous message.

The 125 MPP chit or 200 MPP unit in itself might not be a big investment in grand scale of things, but it is extremely high when you consider what else you could have gained for 125 MPP (i.e. Infantry Warfare, Anti-Air) or just 25 to 50 points more (Industrial technology, Infantry Weapons etc). There are just so many objectively better ways to spend MPP than anti-tank research that I don't see how you would ever have the MPP to spare before late 1943.

Instead of 2 anti-tank units and anti-tank chit, you could have bough two units of Tanks with 25 MPP to spare. Alternatively you could spend 25 more points and upgrade one of the Tanks to Heavy Tanks instead, which USSR gets early. They have almost as high Tank stats as the anti-tank guns and are great against other units unlike the easy-to-counter Anti-Tank guns. Heavy Tanks are versatile and benefit from the widely useful Tank research, while the anti-tank units will either become outdated, or end up costing more per unit than the Heavy Tanks if you keep investing in the research.

ORIGINAL: Marcinos1985

Unless you build all three Anti-Tank guns or operate them a lot, it shouldn't be that hard for the highly mobile German armor to avoid them or for the German combined arms to take them out.

Place them near Kursk/Charkow and Taganrog and suddenly it's not that easy to bypass them. WaW map is not that big. What is more, they have 4 AP's, they are quite mobile and can counterattack from behind an infantry wall.

I would post a screen to ilustrate, but quite nice is from a tournament game and would bring unneccesary spoilers for the rival.

Yeah, I can see the guns themselves being useful before you get Armoured Warfare researched (or heavy tanks deployed) for the USSR, but the Anti-Tank unit and research costs are still extremely high all things considered.

In SC:WW1 limited impact technologies (air, subs, tanks) and units are handled in much better way as their manufacture and research is generally much cheaper than those of the important stuff (infantry, artillery). If anti-tank research in WAW cost 75 MPP per chit and the units cost 150 points (while also being available in larger numbers to most factions) I would seriously consider them even in their current form.

If anti-tank supported nearby units against enemy tanks (like the dedicated anti-air and artillery units work) I would certainly get and research them for Soviets, US and Germany even with the current price and availability. This would also be far more realistic function for them than the current over-specialized army-sized standalone unit. (Change like this would probably require reducing the Tank stats of the anti-tank unit to not make it overpowered)

If anti-tank was an upgrade for non-tank land units (like anti-air) it would be one of the best researches in the game and that would mean building the dedicated units on the side wouldn't be that unthinkable either. (Massive change and I don't think the engine can even take fourth upgrade so maybe something for the next generation of Strategic Command.)

The way it currently is, anti-tank just isn't a competitive or balanced unit/tech. It's overall one of the worst ways to spend your MPP. Only USSR can genuinely benefit from them in short term in the early war while only US has such an exorbitant income that they can deploy them effectively in the late war without making unreasonable economic sacrifices in the early-to-mid-war.