Assault Guns. (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Advanced Tactics Series



Message

Josh -> Assault Guns. (6/3/2011 2:10:57 PM)

Have a question about the role of assault guns. They're new in ATG, and I haven't used them much. In their description it's said that they are best used as a cheap tank for defensive roles. In my memory Assault guns (like the Stug III, Brumbär, etc) are used to assist assaulting Inf, attacking fortified positions. The role ATG is giving to Assault guns looks to me more like the Hetzer and the Jagdpanzer series.
Any ideas how to use them best?



british exil -> RE: Assault Guns. (6/3/2011 2:45:47 PM)

The Stug, also Known as the STUrmGeschütz, was a mobile Inf gun. It's role was to support the Landser in their advances. Keep the moment of advance, giving the Inf a certain amount of cover in their attack. The Inf Geschutz was a bit to cumbersome to set up, fire, advance, set up, etc.
So a Stug should also have an attack bonus against Inf or other non mobile units. Tanks would also "fear" a Stug but only in ambush or high odds contacts. Otherwise a tank would come out as winner.

Mat



mgaffn1 -> RE: Assault Guns. (6/3/2011 3:06:15 PM)

I concur. This was the one feature I wasn't crazy about in ATGold. Assault Guns, as designed for this game, were too similar to Tank Destroyers - so I went into the editor and changed the stats for this SFType. My scenario should be appearing in the scenario bank soon...



GrumpyMel -> RE: Assault Guns. (6/3/2011 7:25:30 PM)

Yup, Assault Guns really should be close infantry fire support. Operationaly they did have some effectiveness against armor, but only in an emergency basis. Tanks and true TD's were better in the anti-armor role. You really wouldn't purpose build them to fight armor. They were popular for the Germans because they were cheaper to build then tanks as you didn't need to put a turrent on them.

That's the way I spec'd them for ETO anyways.

Note that on the Allied Side, something like the Sherman 105 would fill the same role.



Jeffrey H. -> RE: Assault Guns. (6/3/2011 8:59:13 PM)

It's a fine line between assault gun an self propelled artillery. The Soviets had the SU series TD's and later the 152 mm JSU I think. Awesome thing that was.



Twotribes -> RE: Assault Guns. (6/3/2011 9:54:00 PM)

In game turns the assault gun is a anti tank weapon or an Infantry support weapon? What does it target and what is it best at?



Josh -> RE: Assault Guns. (6/4/2011 2:17:43 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Twotribes

In game turns the assault gun is a anti tank weapon or an Infantry support weapon? What does it target and what is it best at?


Well yes that was my original question, still haven't figured that one out yet. [:)]
How is it best used in game?



Ande -> RE: Assault Guns. (6/4/2011 3:32:15 PM)

I use it as roadblock for anything lesser than a medium tank. There is nothing smaller that can displace it.But very often, Raw material is a pressing issue and then I just go ahead and use medium tanks for that role instead as they perform equally in this role but the tank performs better in attack.



Falkon1313 -> RE: Assault Guns. (7/22/2011 12:22:29 AM) 

Stats vs:
Soft Mobile: 300/400    3600/4500
Artillery:   300/400    3600/4500
Armor:       900/1200   4800/6000
Infantry:    750/350    2700/4500

Looks like they're defensive (like an AT Gun) against tanks, but intended to be used offensively to dislodge entrenched infantry (like an Infantry Gun). However, they have relatively lower HP in that case (60% of defensive HP, compared to 80% when attacking any other opponent). So perhaps they're meant to add punch to the big assault, but not expected to survive it.



Strategiusz -> RE: Assault Guns. (8/30/2011 8:54:39 PM)

Although Assault Gun is cheap, but for that price I would rather take 2 AT-Guns (and it is even less raw).



british exil -> RE: Assault Guns. (8/30/2011 10:08:44 PM)

Assault guns can move. AT guns need to be moved. So you're going to need some kind of transport. Horeses for slow but cheap movement, no oil needed.

Assault guns guzzle oil but they can move fast, either forwards or in retreat.

If you are building a defensive line then go for AT. If you want to maintain a fluid lind you're going to need to move.

Pros and cons. The dilema of ATG.

Mat



Josh -> RE: Assault Guns. (8/30/2011 10:20:29 PM)

Well I tend to go for AT guns too, they dig in well, add some Inf to them and you have a solid tough to break defense line. OTOH once you're out in the open Assault guns might be a better option.... then again I use Medium Tanks for that. So still not so sure about the pros and cons of Assault guns.



billd -> RE: Assault Guns. (8/31/2011 6:51:29 AM)

I think assault guns have a niche role in our motorized infantry divisions. To provide an anti-armor role in defense, artillery role in offense and be mobile enough to keep up with motorized infantry.Antitank guns are purely defensive and tanks would be in there own independent formations.





Stardog -> RE: Assault Guns. (11/18/2011 1:00:53 AM)

Maybe Assault Guns should have a Artillery range of 1 ?



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.96875