Anti-Tank Guns Rebalance

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Anti-Tank Guns Rebalance

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] >> Shadow Empire >> Suggestions and Feedback >> Anti-Tank Guns Rebalance

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Anti-Tank Guns Rebalance - 4/26/2021 5:45:25 AM

sillygoy

Posts: 17
Joined: 7/17/2020
Status: offline

So, it seems AT guns use the "against hard target" HP of vehicles to check against their attacks. I think this is a mistake that ultimately renders AT guns rather useless, especially once mid-game techs like Heavy Guided RPG and Polymer Armor start being deployed en masse. They will simply be too ineffective against their intended targets while being an order of magnitude more expensive than upgraded RPG's.

To make things worse, they cannot even be upgraded to Laser Guns - effectively leaving them in the dirt as they would be way too cost ineffective compared to RPG's against tanks armed with those weapons.

As someone who likes using motorized AT battalions, this is quite bad. But these two proposed changes will actually make them a viable unit to use, and force more combined-arms oriented gameplay:

-Have hard targets that are attacked by AT guns use their against-infantry HP
-Allow AT guns to use Laser Guns once the tech is unlocked

I really hope you read this Vic.

Post #: 1

RE: Anti-Tank Guns Rebalance - 4/26/2021 5:46:17 AM

Akrakorn

Posts: 100
Joined: 10/19/2020
Status: offline

He cannot post images yet, so he asked me to do it:

(in reply to sillygoy)

Post #: 2

RE: Anti-Tank Guns Rebalance - 4/26/2021 6:01:50 AM

GazBot

Posts: 84
Joined: 7/12/2020
Status: offline

I 100% agree with the argument from what my experience to date has been like. It gets especially noticeable when polymer armour comes out.

Be interesting to know what caliber AT gun it is.....

(in reply to Akrakorn)

Post #: 3

RE: Anti-Tank Guns Rebalance - 4/26/2021 6:29:14 AM

sillygoy

Posts: 17
Joined: 7/17/2020
Status: offline

I'm using a 105mm AT gun (hence the name 4" Anti-Def Gun). I'd show you its stats but I still need to wait a week before I can post pictures.

(in reply to GazBot)

Post #: 4

RE: Anti-Tank Guns Rebalance - 4/26/2021 8:26:16 AM

Zanotirn

Posts: 113
Joined: 3/12/2021
Status: offline

I think using hard defense makes sense. Lower soft defense represents vehicle's vulnerability to sneaky/flanking attacks from infantry. However since AT guns (at least those of a relevant caliber) need a vehicle or draft animal to be moved, they are not exactly suited to flanking something on a battlefield, they are strictly come-at-me-bro weapons.

Perhaps the problem is not with AT guns per se, but with the RPGs' lack of range not represented in game. They may be more balanced if RPGs have a larger/longer penalty in initial rounds.

(in reply to sillygoy)

Post #: 5

RE: Anti-Tank Guns Rebalance - 4/26/2021 11:27:43 AM

zgrssd

Posts: 3385
Joined: 6/9/2020
Status: offline

I did not realized it until recently, but the AT gun actually is dying out/has died out.
A RPG or ATGM can put the same firepower in a much, much smaler (thus easier to hide and ambush with) package.
None of the mayor military powers are producing AT guns anymore.
"As World War II progressed, the appearance of heavier tanks rendered these weapons obsolete, and anti-tank guns likewise began firing larger and more effective armor-piercing shot.[3] The development of the compact hollow charge projectile permanently altered anti-tank warfare, since this type of ammunition did not depend on a high muzzle velocity and could be fired from low-recoil, man-portable light weapons, such as the Panzerfaust and the American series of recoilless rifles.[3]

Although several large-caliber guns were developed during the war that were capable of knocking out the most heavily armored tanks, they proved expensive and difficult to conceal.[3] The later generation of low-recoil anti-tank weapons, which allowed projectiles the size of an artillery shell to be fired from the shoulder, was considered a far more viable option for arming infantry.[5] Recoilless rifles replaced most conventional anti-tank guns in the postwar period; nevertheless, the development of new anti-tank guns exhibiting similar low-recoil performance continued until the late 1950s in France, Belgium, and the Soviet Union.[6] A few Soviet designs saw combat well into the 1980s.[7] The People's Republic of China was still producing large-caliber anti-tank guns as late as 1988.[8] "
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-tank_gun

(in reply to Zanotirn)

Post #: 6

RE: Anti-Tank Guns Rebalance - 4/26/2021 12:02:50 PM

Soar_Slitherine

Posts: 426
Joined: 6/7/2020
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zanotirn
Perhaps the problem is not with AT guns per se, but with the RPGs' lack of range not represented in game. They may be more balanced if RPGs have a larger/longer penalty in initial rounds.

RPGs do not need a nerf, tanks are already more than dominant enough in the early- and midgame.

I think anti-tank guns mostly just need an IP discount, like assault guns and tank destroyers. In the game, tanks are powerful enough to win wars by themselves, while anti-tank guns are only good at fighting tanks - they are not cheap enough to account for the drastic reduction in utility, so relying on AT guns to fight tanks leaves you weak everywhere else. Allowing them to use laser guns would probably also help their cost-effectiveness.

(in reply to Zanotirn)

Post #: 7

RE: Anti-Tank Guns Rebalance - 4/26/2021 1:13:06 PM

zgrssd

Posts: 3385
Joined: 6/9/2020
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Soar_Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zanotirn
Perhaps the problem is not with AT guns per se, but with the RPGs' lack of range not represented in game. They may be more balanced if RPGs have a larger/longer penalty in initial rounds.

RPGs do not need a nerf, tanks are already more than dominant enough in the early- and midgame.

I think anti-tank guns mostly just need an IP discount, like assault guns and tank destroyers. In the game, tanks are powerful enough to win wars by themselves, while anti-tank guns are only good at fighting tanks - they are not cheap enough to account for the drastic reduction in utility, so relying on AT guns to fight tanks leaves you weak everywhere else. Allowing them to use laser guns would probably also help their cost-effectiveness.

But AT guns are not cheaper. That is one big reason we stopped using them in modern militaries.

The real world weapons development is unambigious - the man portable AT gun was a stopgap until decent Hollow Charge weapons came around.

(in reply to Soar_Slitherine)

Post #: 8

RE: Anti-Tank Guns Rebalance - 4/26/2021 2:23:49 PM

Zanotirn

Posts: 113
Joined: 3/12/2021
Status: offline

It's true that AT guns were dying out since the drastically increased armor during WWII made an effective AT gun too heavy to be easily used by infantry. They do technically have one advantage over RPGs - their range. In WWII a good AT gun could be effective at around 500 meters (depending on targets' armor) vs 100 for bazookas. It would still keep that advantage in cold war tech if people bothered to put good cannons on such platform then. Which they didn't since while the range against a tank is reduced by the need to penetrate its armor, the tank can use its full range vs unarmored gun, and a large gun is too unwieldy to be useful outside of ambushes and defensive lines - so the successor to AT gun was a tank destroyer (just as assault gun was successor to field artillery) and later simply MBT. In modern tech an AT gun would lose even the range advantage, since man-portable AT missiles can now reach targets ~5 km away, outside the range of a direct fire gun.

I think it makes sense that there is no laser version of AT gun (its obsolete by the time lasers arrive). Though when compared against bazookas and early RPGs it should lack their range disadvantage. So one way to fix it is like I said give earlier RPGs increased penalty at the start of the battle (to better distinguish RPGs and AT guns) and increase the hard attack of both RPGs and AT guns to actually make them a decent counter to tanks.

< Message edited by Zanotirn -- 4/26/2021 2:26:12 PM >

(in reply to zgrssd)

Post #: 9

RE: Anti-Tank Guns Rebalance - 4/26/2021 3:44:58 PM

DasTactic

Posts: 1083
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline

Taking some inspiration from the old '88, maybe combine the AT guns and AA guns into a single unit in the game. As it stands the AT guns are basically a useless unit but it would be nice to have a use for them.

(in reply to Zanotirn)

Post #: 10

RE: Anti-Tank Guns Rebalance - 4/26/2021 6:41:44 PM

Soar_Slitherine

Posts: 426
Joined: 6/7/2020
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: zgrssd

quote:

ORIGINAL: Soar_Slitherine

I think anti-tank guns mostly just need an IP discount, like assault guns and tank destroyers. In the game, tanks are powerful enough to win wars by themselves, while anti-tank guns are only good at fighting tanks - they are not cheap enough to account for the drastic reduction in utility, so relying on AT guns to fight tanks leaves you weak everywhere else. Allowing them to use laser guns would probably also help their cost-effectiveness.

But AT guns are not cheaper. That is one big reason we stopped using them in modern militaries.

The real world weapons development is unambigious - the man portable AT gun was a stopgap until decent Hollow Charge weapons came around.

As it happens, them "not being cheaper" can be close to literally true in the game. Right now, thanks to the IP discount for not having to go through the complicated manufacturing process required to make a tank turret, producing a tank destroyer with a 180mm gun and 50mm polymer armor (+ the largest diesel engine) costs 76 IP or so. An 180mm AT gun with Heavy Combat Armor does not get the discount, so it costs 69 IP - it is only barely cheaper in IP.

The problem with that is that it makes no sense whatsoever. I would love to hear your explanation for how manufacturing a gun + an entire armored vehicle to go around the gun is as simple as manufacturing just the gun in real life.

Giving AT guns the IP discount should be extremely quick and simple to implement. Even early on as a "stopgap", getting them is rarely worth it when light tanks are many times more effective against most targets for only about double the cost, so they deserve the buff.

(in reply to zgrssd)

Post #: 11

RE: Anti-Tank Guns Rebalance - 4/26/2021 11:44:05 PM

Pratapon51

Posts: 100
Joined: 6/28/2020
Status: offline

Cost concerns aside, expanded weapon options for AT Guns are on Vic's list, but likely after the S&S patch.

(in reply to Soar_Slitherine)

Post #: 12

RE: Anti-Tank Guns Rebalance - 4/27/2021 4:28:03 AM

sillygoy

Posts: 17
Joined: 7/17/2020
Status: offline

Also one big reason that makes AT guns cost inefficient is how oversized their battalions are. I'd like to ask Vic to reduce it from 80 guns per battalion to 50 guns like regular artillery. Because AT gun units are so oversized, they have trouble covering the same amount of frontage as tanks do. When facing 3 tank battalions of 50 tanks each, I think I would much rather have 3 AT gun battalions of equvalent size rather than 2 oversized ones.

(in reply to Pratapon51)

Post #: 13

RE: Anti-Tank Guns Rebalance - 5/15/2021 6:59:25 PM

BlueTemplar

Posts: 887
Joined: 4/29/2010
Status: offline

Remember that you're not forced to use the full Battalions, so if you can afford at least half of them and don't mind the extra micromanagement it's actually more of a bonus than a downside.

quote:

-Have hard targets that are attacked by AT guns use their against-infantry HP

You seem to be misunderstanding how this works (which is normal, as it's not easy to find out.)

Your suggestion would probably be hard to implement because High Velocity Guns are "hard weapons", whether mounted on an actual tank or on an AT gun chassis.
(AFAIK this works exactly the same way for Bazookas, which I suppose are "soft weapons" instead - so tanks use their soft HP to defend against them ? ... which makes them better against bigger tanks ?)

quote:

increase the hard attack of both RPGs and AT guns to actually make them a decent counter to tanks.

I'm not certain how to do that without either increasing hard attacks of all infantry or also increasing hard attacks of all HVG tanks too ?

You seem to forget that, unlike Tanks, AT guns have the upside that their movement doesn't suffer due to their calibre, because they don't care about weight, so you can easily put a 300mm HVG on them. (Which subunit then will have the same logistic bulk as any other infantry : 5 decatons.)
You can't even *mount* a 300mm HVG on any tank besides a Monitor. (But then Tanks also don't get their firepower halved because of foot movement.)

I'm not certain how Bazooka calibre works, if it's just equal to firepower, then it starts at 100, and you need RPG for 200 and Guided RPG to get 300.
Or are they instead stuck at 100mm for the first 3 RPGs ("Hollow"), then you get 200mm for the 400 FP Heavy RPG ("Heavy Hollow") ?

(But then if AT guns are like towed Arty, you might also need Tech lvl 4 to be able to mount 240mm and lvl 5 for 300mm HVGs ?)
Were AT guns affected by the nerfing of non-towed towed arty movement too ?

I guess that there's still the issue that while HVGs have huge firepower/calibre (1200 for 300mm), as the OP said they have to face against Hard HP instead (which makes them relatively better against smaller tanks, especially with side skirts... but then smaller tanks cannot mount thicker armor !), and they are also much more expensive than RPGs ?

EDIT: Hmm, what about fighting other "hard defense" units than Tanks ? Especially (Heavy) Walkers and Automated MG / Turrets which can mount a *lot* of armor ?

< Message edited by BlueTemplar -- 5/15/2021 7:47:30 PM >

(in reply to sillygoy)

Post #: 14