Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

antitank misnomer

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Strategic Command Series >> Strategic Command WWII: World at War >> antitank misnomer Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
antitank misnomer - 1/17/2020 12:58:09 AM   
Treefrog


Posts: 613
Joined: 4/7/2004
Status: online
IMHO "antitank" is a bit of a misnomer, they seems to me to be super non-tank troops. Compare them to infantry.

Infantry have certain attack/defense values which are increased an unspecified amount by research; research is limited to two levels.

Antitank likewise have specified values increased by +1 per level of research; research has five levels.

I'm not a "math guy" but it seems to me the potential fighting capability of the antitank units is greater, perhaps justifying their greater initial cost (200 mpps vs. 150 mpps for an infantry corps).

What do you think?

Do you buy antitank units?

_____________________________

"L'audace, l'audace, toujours l'audace."
Post #: 1
RE: antitank misnomer - 1/17/2020 2:19:54 AM   
lwarmonger

 

Posts: 98
Joined: 8/17/2008
Status: offline
The thing that always gets me about anti-tank units is the cost of the research line that benefits 3 or 4 units only. You are putting in 500 mpps (in addition to the opportunity cost of 100 MPPs of your research capacity for quite some time) to improve a unit you will only have a few of. The Soviet Union doesnt usually have the MPPs until it as already won (after which, why not?), the Germans also have many other things to spend research on and units to buy. The Americans and the British must also research many things... so spending a lot of time down 100 MPPs in research capacity to improve a niche unit seems like too steep a cost until late in the game.

< Message edited by lwarmonger -- 1/17/2020 2:20:55 AM >

(in reply to Treefrog)
Post #: 2
RE: antitank misnomer - 1/17/2020 4:00:30 AM   
taffjones

 

Posts: 195
Joined: 3/25/2016
Status: online
I agree with Treefrog

AT units at the moment are overpowered especially at even at level 1. They can move and rip armoured units apart but when attacked by infantry, even army's suffer very low losses, Even if the infantry unit hasn't moved and should have the attack bonus.

Under the v1.05 patch I have seen At units move forward and take up to 5 points off a tank unit, on my turn attacking with an entrenched army I am lucky to get a 1-3 kill on the AT unit.

I used to play Axis, but to get a better understanding of the balance issues ,I have started to play the Allies and have found this to favour the allies AT playing both sides. Note I don't tend to do upgrade Axis AT units , but am considering it seeing how effective lvl 1 Allies AT units are even against lvl 3 Axis panzer units.

(in reply to lwarmonger)
Post #: 3
RE: antitank misnomer - 1/17/2020 6:59:58 AM   
EarlyDoors

 

Posts: 102
Joined: 12/16/2018
Status: offline
AT units are ace. I use them in a defensive coordination with corps. Slightly withdrawn and if a panzer sticks it nose out I punch them with an AT.

It's normally a 3-3 trade but it's the only way to slow the panzers

(in reply to taffjones)
Post #: 4
RE: antitank misnomer - 1/17/2020 1:38:25 PM   
HamburgerMeat

 

Posts: 169
Joined: 7/22/2017
Status: offline
I only consider getting antitank as either Germany or the USSR. However, the USSR can't really afford both anti tank and tank units, so I usually end up going tank in order to be able to counter punch.

I might keep up antitank tech in the next patch though, depending on how they buff the USSR. Youre right that they are powerful units

< Message edited by HamburgerMeat -- 1/17/2020 2:25:53 PM >

(in reply to EarlyDoors)
Post #: 5
RE: antitank misnomer - 1/17/2020 7:00:21 PM   
BillRunacre

 

Posts: 3351
Joined: 7/22/2013
Status: offline
This is very interesting, and in the past the wisdom seemed to be that they weren't worth the MPPs to buy and develop, and that they were easy for tanks to destroy. Have we swung things too far or is the cost now more or less right?

_____________________________

Follow us on Twitter: https://twitter.com/FurySoftware

We're also on Facebook! https://www.facebook.com/FurySoftware/

(in reply to HamburgerMeat)
Post #: 6
RE: antitank misnomer - 1/17/2020 8:10:31 PM   
taffjones

 

Posts: 195
Joined: 3/25/2016
Status: online
Hi Bill

I think they are slightly overpowered against tanks, unless it's a surprise encounter.

I don't think they should get even results when they have moved next to a entrenched tank unit.

They even hold their own against Army's. They should defiantly be more vulnerable against infantry units

(in reply to BillRunacre)
Post #: 7
RE: antitank misnomer - 1/22/2020 10:41:28 PM   
Mercutio

 

Posts: 206
Joined: 12/26/2006
Status: offline
Interesting, I may have to try this if I have some time. I do agree they should have limited attack/defense against infantry though. Maybe 1/2 vs mech and full vs armor. Interesting discussion though!

(in reply to taffjones)
Post #: 8
RE: antitank misnomer - 1/23/2020 10:55:47 AM   
EarlyDoors

 

Posts: 102
Joined: 12/16/2018
Status: offline
Don’t touch those ATs

(in reply to Mercutio)
Post #: 9
RE: antitank misnomer - 1/23/2020 4:46:05 PM   
Tanaka


Posts: 3129
Joined: 4/8/2003
From: USA
Status: offline
I think for the few you get and the cost to research and upgrade for the few they are probably balanced. They used to be too weak before patches and no one would build them.

_____________________________


(in reply to EarlyDoors)
Post #: 10
RE: antitank misnomer - 1/24/2020 3:19:42 PM   
James Taylor

 

Posts: 565
Joined: 2/8/2002
From: Corpus Christi, Texas
Status: offline
I like'em, I use'em, and I'm with Early Doors, they're perfect against tanks although the defensive value should be emphasized.

IRL it was the defensive located AT unit that had the advantage against attacking/moving tanks, when they(AT) were on the move is when they were most vulnerable.

_____________________________

SeaMonkey

(in reply to Tanaka)
Post #: 11
RE: antitank misnomer - 1/24/2020 7:00:01 PM   
taffjones

 

Posts: 195
Joined: 3/25/2016
Status: online
I don't have a problem with the AT units ripping Tanks or Mech inf apart if they haven't moved or the enemy units have run into them (Ambush).

But when a AT unit can move into a hex against a tank or mech inf and still get better results then there is a problem.

Also against inf armies /corps there is no way they should get equal or better results.

Keep the Hard Defence the same + a bonus if they ambush a hard unit, reduce the soft defence is my opinion.

(in reply to James Taylor)
Post #: 12
RE: antitank misnomer - 1/24/2020 7:04:11 PM   
taffjones

 

Posts: 195
Joined: 3/25/2016
Status: online
Sorry line 2 should have been

When they can move into a hex against an entrenched Tank or Mech inf

(in reply to taffjones)
Post #: 13
RE: antitank misnomer - 1/25/2020 2:03:04 AM   
Tanaka


Posts: 3129
Joined: 4/8/2003
From: USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: taffjones

I don't have a problem with the AT units ripping Tanks or Mech inf apart if they haven't moved or the enemy units have run into them (Ambush).

But when a AT unit can move into a hex against a tank or mech inf and still get better results then there is a problem.

Also against inf armies /corps there is no way they should get equal or better results.

Keep the Hard Defence the same + a bonus if they ambush a hard unit, reduce the soft defence is my opinion.


I would agree with that. Defensive only.

_____________________________


(in reply to taffjones)
Post #: 14
RE: antitank misnomer - 1/25/2020 7:51:22 PM   
Helsingor

 

Posts: 42
Joined: 12/26/2019
Status: offline
I agree. They should be strongest defending against Tanks or Mech, less strong attacking same. I don’t have a problem with their values vs Inf, especially at Level 3 when they are presumably some form of Tank Destroyer or Assault Gun.

(in reply to Tanaka)
Post #: 15
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Strategic Command Series >> Strategic Command WWII: World at War >> antitank misnomer Page: [1]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.137