I miss range 2 for AT Guns

[konzev]

I loved playing with R2 Anti Tank Guns in PG2 and PGX.
Because higher velocity and larger caliber guns could outrange the less modern ones.
And because of that could not be damged by these "inferior" units.
I always loved to shoot at a T34 or KV Tank, with a german 7.5 cm Pak, without those tTanks being able to shoot back at me.
Specially with the 8.8cm. In this game, those guns perform to common, to be the outstanding weapons they where in WW2.

[TheGrayMouser]

I loved playing with R2 Anti Tank Guns in PG2 and PGX.
Because higher velocity and larger caliber guns could outrange the less modern ones.
And because of that could not be damged by these "inferior" units.
I always loved to shoot at a T34 or KV Tank, with a german 7.5 cm Pak, without those tTanks being able to shoot back at me.
Specially with the 8.8cm. In this game, those guns perform to common, to be the outstanding weapons they where in WW2.

Except the hex size in PC is like 10 kilometers vs 1 k in PG 2. The range of weapons is indirectly factored into the units Initiative stat. Large caliber/late war tanks have a very high initiative.

[konzev]

I'm not a purist, I want fun.
The statistic's do not do justice to those guns.

[HBalck]

More ranges will be with my BIG MAP MOD for all my new battle maps.

H.Balck

[TheGrayMouser]

I'm not a purist, I want fun.
The statistic's do not do justice to those guns.

Well , you dont have to be a purist to recognize even 88's couldnt reach out to 20 k
The great news about PC is you can mod the stats as much as you desire! ( or wait for HBalcks mod which looks very cool indeed)

[Rudankort]

To quote my comment from a different forum:

Range advantage of heavy guns is simulated by initiative. Having range 2+ direct fire is unrealistic on game scale (hexes ~15 km is size), and it is bad for gameplay either. People already complain that arty might be too powerful, and I don't think that we really need more "arty" units, especially considering that tanks, unlike arty, cause direct damage, not suppression.

Another reason why this is bad for gameplay is, ranged fire bypasses all sorts of important game mechanics.
Example 1. Ranged tank can shoot infantry in a city, and can no longer fear close terrain, rugged defense etc. Effectively this means that you can take cities like Stalingrad by shooting defenders with tanks from safe distance. This is not my idea of a good class balance.
Example 2. Holding defense behind a river in scenarios like Bagration becomes trivial. Defending units no longer take casualties. Placement of units is no longer a problem because ranged units easily shoot over the heads of other units. Crippled enemies never retreat, so no need to cross the river and expose yourself to finish them off.

For this reason I think that ranged direct fire does not enrich the tactics, it dumbs it down.

[El_Condoro]

More ranges will be with my BIG MAP MOD for all my new battle maps.

H.Balck

I am interested to know how increased range will be dealt with in this mod given, if you give a range of 2 (or more), direct fire can fire *through* forests, mountains and cities.

[VPaulus]

I am interested to know how increased range will be dealt with in this mod given, if you give a range of 2 (or more), direct fire can fire *through* forests, mountains and cities.

Unfortunately, I think there's no way to tweak this.

[Razz1]

No, I think there is a negative number for AT units correct?

It is behind the scenes. Try adjusting that by one point, reduce cost of towed AT units test and see if it is better than we have now.

This is all I can think of.

[johndoe2]

Range is gone – fine. But don’t take away all offensive usage of AT towed guns. If I remember in PG2 once the unit had enough experience it could load, move and unload in the same turn. If that could be implemented you could actually have some use for the AT towed guns (and the feared AA 88) - it is really shame that the most feared AT/AA gun in WW2 is practically useless here.

[El_Condoro]

If I remember in PG2 once the unit had enough experience it could load, move and unload in the same turn

The only way that could happen in PG2 is if the unit got a recon movement leader. In original SSI equipment AT guns could not move and fire but in some custom efiles the smaller calibre ATs could move 1 hex and still fire. Of course SPAT could always move and fire. AT always suffered a penalty for moving and firing, unless they had a leader. In PzC AT, even 88s, can move 1 hex and fire - I'm not sure what the panalty is for doing so. In PG2 and in PzC the ATs can be pretty good in defensive positions against tanks, especially when entrenched. Against infantry, of course, they are going to be toast in most cases. The game library says ATs suffer an initiative penalty against fixed turret tanks when used offensively - I assume not when being attacked themselves. The problem may be that the campaign is offensive and ATs are not suitable but, even then, I can imagine them being useful to defend flanks, choke points etc. In historical scenarios they are useful when defending, for sure.

[dclements9]

I find the 88 AA to be a very useful and versitile unit. It helps defend ground units in the early game while I have my fighters ganging up on allied airpower elsewhere. Then once I control the skies and a press of a button, I have a very powerful AT unit. Only have had time to get through Sea Lion '40 but I've used my 88 as both AA and AT in both french scenarios (lost it in the channel crossing though).