Camouflage trait for AT guns

[Vorskl]

Non mechanized AT guns are probably the least appreciated / used equipment in the game (Acht-acht is not an AT gun, it's in game prestige deposit vehicle patented by Edmon:) ).
One of things that can make them much more attractive is built-in camouflage trait, such as that you'll discover them when only 1 hex away. That will encourage use AT for traps and road blocks - just like they were used in real life and make gameplay more spicy. Once discovered they'll die fast, but will buy precious time for the defending party - 1942 retreat to Stalingrad as an example.

[brumleek]

Non mechanized AT guns are probably the least appreciated / used equipment in the game (Acht-acht is not an AT gun, it's in game prestige deposit vehicle patented by Edmon:) ).
One of things that can make them much more attractive is built-in camouflage trait, such as that you'll discover them when only 1 hex away. That will encourage use AT for traps and road blocks - just like they were used in real life and make gameplay more spicy. Once discovered they'll die fast, but will buy precious time for the defending party - 1942 retreat to Stalingrad as an example.

I second that opinion. Stationary and self-propelled AT guns were heavily used during WWII and their current state in the game is almost obsolete. Camouflage trait would make them quite attractive and - in my opinion - kept them historically accurate. Any almost stationary low initiative defensive weapon system needs to rely on not being seen by the enemy till the last moment.

... that being said - only God knows how this change would affect game mechanics . Everything can be balanced somehow - for example:
- Make this trait as an award after some amount of kills. Let the player work for this trait instead of hoping to get a certain hero or get it "for free".
- Limit the trait somehow - for example, reveal this unit after its first support shot and keep it revealed as long as enemy units remain in certain distance (1 or 2 hexes) from this AT unit.
- Give this trait to more AI AT units to raise the challenge bar a little. I believe it would promote heavier use of strategic bombers from the player side also.

[Grondel]

i thought the thame.
to test it i had a DLC playthrough with camouflage heros in all at guns.
what i noticed:
- capturing enemy tank units(t26 in SCW, B1 in 1940) gets really tough since they tend to kill themselves
- the AT-gun does not prevent attacks and losses on rare units (KV-2 from denmark e.q.)

all in all i don´t think having camouflage on AT-guns is a good idea for the way i tend to play.

AT-guns in general could use an overhaul. Especially the not - selfpropelled ones. maybe they could be made an equipment for units, like the SDKfz for the infantrie, that boosts the units stats instead of being a unit themselves. that would be more like how they were used in reality. most infantrie regiments had their own PaK-unit. i don´t know about any PaKonly-regiment or some such.

[Vorskl]

i thought the thame.
to test it i had a DLC playthrough with camouflage heros in all at guns.
what i noticed:
- capturing enemy tank units(t26 in SCW, B1 in 1940) gets really tough since they tend to kill themselves
- the AT-gun does not prevent attacks and losses on rare units (KV-2 from denmark e.q.)

all in all i don´t think having camouflage on AT-guns is a good idea for the way i tend to play.

AT-guns in general could use an overhaul. Especially the not - selfpropelled ones. maybe they could be made an equipment for units, like the SDKfz for the infantrie, that boosts the units stats instead of being a unit themselves. that would be more like how they were used in reality. most infantrie regiments had their own PaK-unit. i don´t know about any PaKonly-regiment or some such.

Guess what - not only Wehrmacht had PAK units. In RKKA they were called IPTA (tank-destroying artillery) and were formed en masse since July 1942. These units (brigades, regiments, and even divisions) were considered the elite of Soviet artillery and were a part of Stavka Reserve. This was considered one of the most dangerous military professions since once discovered, a gun would last seconds. The commanders were paid x1.5 and soldiers x2 of normal payouts. But.. 70% of ALL GERMANS TANKS WERE DESTROYED BY IPTA. The balance is by infantry, tanks and aviation COMBINED. Guns used: 45, 57, 76, 100mm + German Pak38 and Pak40.

Now compare with what we have in the game now - AT considered largely a useless noise, just smth you quickly steamroll and keep moving.

[Grondel]

Guess what - not only Wehrmacht had PAK units. In RKKA they were called IPTA (tank-destroying artillery) and were formed en masse since July 1942. These units (brigades, regiments, and even divisions) were considered the elite of Soviet artillery and were a part of Stavka Reserve. This was considered one of the most dangerous military professions since once discovered, a gun would last seconds. The commanders were paid x1.5 and soldiers x2 of normal payouts. But.. 70% of ALL GERMANS TANKS WERE DESTROYED BY IPTA. The balance is by infantry, tanks and aviation COMBINED. Guns used: 45, 57, 76, 100mm + German Pak38 and Pak40.

Now compare with what we have in the game now - AT considered largely a useless noise, just smth you quickly steamroll and keep moving.

not sure what ur trying to say. german and russian units are different? yes they are i agree.

[Vorskl]

Sorry for confusion, I meant on both sides of the front AT was a serious danger - 88 are legendary, but so are soviet 'rutsh-boom' ZiS-3

[Grondel]

i´m not talking about the "big"-guns. what i would like to see is AT-guns up to 45mm/3inch removed from the AT-class and instead added as equipment to infantrie/light tank units.
just like the SDKfZ that gives infantrie more attack values, if u add a 37mm to an infantrie the infantrie gets better hard attack and AT-Support.

something like that.

[Vorskl]

I see... yes this, OR make AT-specialized infantry that will have guns up to 75/76mm

[Tassadar]

I'd argue that's it's a case of balancing out a few things and suddenly AT guns are a lot more tempting even without camouflage.

1. Further reduce slot cost, for example 5 cm Pak 38 should still be 1 slot and some more expensive AT guns should be reduced as well, leaving the high cost only on those huge stat efficient ones.
2. Reduce prestige cost for towed guns. Currently they are still relatively expensive. This reduction does not have to be large, even a small amount would make them more valid as they would be able to replace losses cheaply.
3. Boost exp gain from support fire - AT guns are tediously slow at gaining exp. If they managed to do this better and have a boost similar to the way recons gain exp faster, they would be a tempting alternative.

If we want to go with Camouflage type trait, it should be conditional, not universal - for example only working in close terrain.

[sakura006]

My opinions are based on Axis operation dlcs. I think the mechanics of the AT guns only works in a defensive mission for some obvious reasons, and there are not many defensive missions until 1943. All AT weapons, self-propelled or stationary have a initiative penalty when attacking enemy tanks, which means that enemy tanks will strike first. Considering the poor ground defense of AT guns, they will take heavy casualties before dealing much damage. They are also very fragile against infantry. Another issues is that AI enemies rarely attack you unless your weak units are exposed, making your AT guns even less useful. Even in the rare case where a swam of T-34s charge you, you still have other options. Some artilleries also provide AT support. Artilleries are almost mandatory in any missions, but AT guns are not. In fact, I have never brought any AT weapons to the battlefield since 1939 dlc, and I never had any problems dealing with any tanks even in the highest difficulty. Simply giving AT guns a camouflage trait does not solve any above problems. You ambush might work for once, but after being exposed, your AT guns will quickly be destroyed, and you lose all the experience. What for?

[sakura006]

i´m not talking about the "big"-guns. what i would like to see is AT-guns up to 45mm/3inch removed from the AT-class and instead added as equipment to infantrie/light tank units.
just like the SDKfZ that gives infantrie more attack values, if u add a 37mm to an infantrie the infantrie gets better hard attack and AT-Support.

something like that.

I really like this idea. The most complains I have in PZ2 is the lack of customization of infantry weapons. Although there are many types of infantry, the only useful infantry are engineer and common infantry in the AO. The supporting weapons of infantry are only half-tracked transports, which provides +4 soft attack and +1 hard attack. But in fact, there are many variants of sdkfz, which are infantry supporting weapons rather than tanks. All those variants should be available to infantries even if they cost more core slots.

[George_Parr]

AT-guns in general could use an overhaul. Especially the not - selfpropelled ones. maybe they could be made an equipment for units, like the SDKfz for the infantrie, that boosts the units stats instead of being a unit themselves. that would be more like how they were used in reality. most infantrie regiments had their own PaK-unit. i don´t know about any PaKonly-regiment or some such.

I have to disagree. The majority of AT-guns were used in their own battalions that were seperate from the infantry. If engineers / pioneers, grenadiers, and bridge engineers are seperate units, then AT-guns must be their own unit as well. AT-guns, just like pioneers and recon, existed in their own battalion. That for some nations infantry-regiments got their own bunch of AT-guns on top of that as well, doesn't negate that the majority where handled seperately. Merging them into the infantry would not be a good idea.

Giving smaller guns the camouflage trait, however, sounds like a pretty good idea. That's something that should end once you move beyond 5cm guns though. Unless there is a possibility to have a connection to entrenchment, e.g. a bigger gun that is entrenched well could also be hidden due to the extensive work being done whil digging in. That would make a large entrenched AT-gun very powerful though.
Maybe even get rid of the initiative penalty for smaller guns. The Germans made heavy use of an offensive deployment of their AT-guns. Which was still possible due to the light weight and small size of the early guns. This changed later on, when guns couldn't be moved that easily by hand anymore.

[Grondel]

I have to disagree. The majority of AT-guns were used in their own battalions that were seperate from the infantry. If engineers / pioneers, grenadiers, and bridge engineers are seperate units, then AT-guns must be their own unit as well. AT-guns, just like pioneers and recon, existed in their own battalion. That for some nations infantry-regiments got their own bunch of AT-guns on top of that as well, doesn't negate that the majority where handled seperately. Merging them into the infantry would not be a good idea.

and back to the old discussion if PC(yes PC not PC2 that discussion is as old as that) is battallion per unit or regiment per unit.

i guess we all can agree that anti-tank guns below 45mm/3inch are not used and could use some love to enhace them. i like the idea to link camouflage to entrenchment.

[scott_mathieson]

for me this also brings in the entrenchment issue you should be able to entrench units like earlier versions of the game. for defensive maps you should be able to dig in at guns and infantry. enemy seems to be able to entrench vehicles a nd we cant entrench infantry

[adiekmann]

I have to disagree. The majority of AT-guns were used in their own battalions that were seperate from the infantry. If engineers / pioneers, grenadiers, and bridge engineers are seperate units, then AT-guns must be their own unit as well. AT-guns, just like pioneers and recon, existed in their own battalion. That for some nations infantry-regiments got their own bunch of AT-guns on top of that as well, doesn't negate that the majority where handled seperately. Merging them into the infantry would not be a good idea.

and back to the old discussion if PC(yes PC not PC2 that discussion is as old as that) is battallion per unit or regiment per unit.

Actually, I remember this debate/question going back to Panzer GENERAL II a full 20 years ago! The answer still is most of the time either regiment or battalion, depending on which class of unit. But if you really wanted to split hairs, bridge engineers were sometimes not even a company in size! A "column" which is maybe only about 20 guys! So go figure...

i guess we all can agree that anti-tank guns below 45mm/3inch are not used and could use some love to enhace them. i like the idea to link camouflage to entrenchment.

[Grondel]

Actually, I remember this debate/question going back to Panzer GENERAL II a full 20 years ago! The answer still is most of the time either regiment or battalion, depending on which class of unit. But if you really wanted to split hairs, bridge engineers were sometimes not even a company in size! A "column" which is maybe only about 20 guys! So go figure...

but those guys can carry them tiger-tanks across any river in there little boats. awesome, just awesome.

[gf85]

I constantly field 1 to 2 towed AT every scenario to protect my inf in case they have to stay open ground. If enemies tanks move in front of my inf and decide not to attack the AT actually have their job done.

The major problem as some players mentioned above is that AT can't get exp from these "protective" actions, and also Artillery with AT support can get the job done too. But if 5cm pak can get a 1 core slot cost cut I will be more than happy to deploy a few more of them in the field.

Cheap AT is not a must, but good to have. They make inf deployment and positioning more flexible.

[Xenos]

Non mechanized AT guns are probably the least appreciated / used equipment in the game (Acht-acht is not an AT gun, it's in game prestige deposit vehicle patented by Edmon:) ).
One of things that can make them much more attractive is built-in camouflage trait, such as that you'll discover them when only 1 hex away. That will encourage use AT for traps and road blocks - just like they were used in real life and make gameplay more spicy. Once discovered they'll die fast, but will buy precious time for the defending party - 1942 retreat to Stalingrad as an example.

I've an 88 with a camouflage hero. It's *extremely* powerful, to the point of being broken. The AI, both aircraft and tanks, just can't deal with it and routinely suicide itself. Having the trait built-in would be interesting, but really overpowered.

[Vorskl]

Kerensky can add a disposable camouflage that dissipates once the gun is discovered for the first time