anti tank unit performance

[Steakenglisch]

I have question about the anti tank units in the game. I think they are too weak when they are attacked by tanks.

During the '39 campaign played on NORMAL i attacked Su-85 and Su-152 with Tiger I tanks with different expierience, besides the
bug of the same hardattack of this two Su's overall the Tigers won each fight often without casualities or only 1 or 2 points of strength.

Is the level of difficulty "normal" the reason? Or need the anti tank class an modification?

Cause in fact anti tank units working like snipers, they used to find a good position, they dug in and after they are camoflaged they wait for enemy tanks to destroy.

Ingame this means if a tank moved in a anti tank unit and is surprised or if a tank attacks an anti tank unit.
In this cases the anti tank must have an initiative bonus and maybe an bonus on hard attack and ground defense.

On the other hand a common anti tank units (not the US witch were equipped with turrets) have an disadvantage, because of the construction. Without a turret an anti tank unit witch is attacking has not the same options as an tank with an turret.

So i think a anti tank unit should have an Bonus during defending and an malus during attacking.
Maybe if it is possible to code this then it would be fine if the expierience negated the Malus.

for example:
table for mobile anti tank units
0 Stars = Full Malus
1 Stars = 75% Malus
2 Stars = 50% Malus
3 Stars = 25% Malus
4 Stars = 0% Malus
5 Stars = 15% Bonus

table for anti tank guns
0 Stars = Full Malus
1 Stars = 80% Malus
2 Stars = 60% Malus
3 Stars = 40% Malus
4 Stars = 20% Malus
5 Stars = 0% Bonus

like this there could be something for the bonus but with lower values to avoid an overpowered anti tank unit

Rudankort and Uran21 what do you guys think about this? Is this feasible

[Kakrafoon]

Nice idea. I like the amount of thought you put into depicting self-propelled AT guns in a realistic way.
However, since there are no "hidden" units in Panzer Corps, an attacker always knows what kind of enemy he is attacking. The only way ambushes have been implemented was to give units like infantry a chance for a "rugged defense", where they can have a shot at an enemy unit's close defense value. The same should hold true for an ambush by towed AT guns, wich can also be camouflaged pretty easily. Here, the "rugged defense" event means that the enemy were not able to spot the AT guns in time and stumbled right into a well-prepared killing zone. In principle, self-propelled AT guns like the SU-152 should work in the same way: Just give them a chance to play out a "rugged defense" against careless attackers, especially if the difference in experience is high and the defenders are well entrenched.
On the offense, this should be a different matter. Here, tanks with a turret should be at an advantage, at least in a melee-like tank battle where a 360-degree-field-of-fire is invaluable. In a long-range engagement, the assault guns shouldn't be at such a severe disadvantage - in fact, their lower silhouette and heavier frontal armour should be a huge benefit. So, for a conventional tank force to defeat assault guns in a defensive engagement, they have to flank them or get in among them, to maximise the disadvantage of having a limited firing arc.

[Steakenglisch]

Nice idea. I like the amount of thought you put into depicting self-propelled AT guns in a realistic way.
However, since there are no "hidden" units in Panzer Corps, an attacker always knows what kind of enemy he is attacking. The only way ambushes have been implemented was to give units like infantry a chance for a "rugged defense", where they can have a shot at an enemy unit's close defense value. The same should hold true for an ambush by towed AT guns, wich can also be camouflaged pretty easily. Here, the "rugged defense" event means that the enemy were not able to spot the AT guns in time and stumbled right into a well-prepared killing zone. In principle, self-propelled AT guns like the SU-152 should work in the same way: Just give them a chance to play out a "rugged defense" against careless attackers, especially if the difference in experience is high and the defenders are well entrenched.
On the offense, this should be a different matter. Here, tanks with a turret should be at an advantage, at least in a melee-like tank battle where a 360-degree-field-of-fire is invaluable. In a long-range engagement, the assault guns shouldn't be at such a severe disadvantage - in fact, their lower silhouette and heavier frontal armour should be a huge benefit. So, for a conventional tank force to defeat assault guns in a defensive engagement, they have to flank them or get in among them, to maximise the disadvantage of having a limited firing arc.

yeah rugged defense for towed anti tank units against all vehicles sounds good!

[Steelslayer]

Nice idea. I like the amount of thought you put into depicting self-propelled AT guns in a realistic way.
However, since there are no "hidden" units in Panzer Corps, an attacker always knows what kind of enemy he is attacking. The only way ambushes have been implemented was to give units like infantry a chance for a "rugged defense", where they can have a shot at an enemy unit's close defense value. The same should hold true for an ambush by towed AT guns, wich can also be camouflaged pretty easily. Here, the "rugged defense" event means that the enemy were not able to spot the AT guns in time and stumbled right into a well-prepared killing zone. In principle, self-propelled AT guns like the SU-152 should work in the same way: Just give them a chance to play out a "rugged defense" against careless attackers, especially if the difference in experience is high and the defenders are well entrenched.
On the offense, this should be a different matter. Here, tanks with a turret should be at an advantage, at least in a melee-like tank battle where a 360-degree-field-of-fire is invaluable. In a long-range engagement, the assault guns shouldn't be at such a severe disadvantage - in fact, their lower silhouette and heavier frontal armour should be a huge benefit. So, for a conventional tank force to defeat assault guns in a defensive engagement, they have to flank them or get in among them, to maximise the disadvantage of having a limited firing arc.

Steak--

a good point here as it stands to reason that they are prepared, therefore a rugged defense or a quicker entrenching value would be excellent


yeah rugged defense for towed anti tank units against all vehicles sounds good!

[Steakenglisch]

I am curious what the Devs think about this ideas

I like the idea of a quicker entrenchment!

[IainMcNeil]

We've discussed internally and think you cant judge it yet as the prestige is not balanced. We feel that once prestige is limited and you have to make decisions about what to buy much more carefully and teh cost difference will start to kick in. If its still an issue we can look at teh stats btu we think its hard to judge at this point.

[Steakenglisch]

We've discussed internally and think you cant judge it yet as the prestige is not balanced. We feel that once prestige is limited and you have to make decisions about what to buy much more carefully and teh cost difference will start to kick in. If its still an issue we can look at teh stats btu we think its hard to judge at this point.

ahhh okay good to know that the prestige isnt balanced yet, at the middle of the campaign game (normal level) i had constantly between 2000 to nearly 6000 Credits at the begin of a map and so all my units are at maximum strength, overstrength and at newest tech.

In the final of the game, will there the tank destroyers be significant cheaper than tanks, like in real life?

P.S. thx for the feedback!!! It's important and a valuation for us beta testers