Looking at the AT tree I see 18 units – that’s quite a lot. But how many are really useful (or used)? Would like to hear what other people think about these units and which (and whether) you find use for them.
I have use of only one - the Elefant. There is not much point of using anything before that (or after for that matter). Now, my feeling is that the Elefant is overstrength - it just melts every Russian unit it encounters. In reality at Kursk it suffered terrible loses at the hand of the Russian infantry – it had no close support weapons! I know it has only 2 strength as close defense but even that is much. Should the AI infantry be modified to find Elefants as their primary target? Plus since we already have all these AT units shouldn’t there be place of another - the Ferdinand? Elefants that survived Kursk were reconstructed had supplied with close support weapons for the Italy campaign (and renamed Ferdinand’s).
Anyway I feel a lot of work has been done in vain because there is just no incentive (or need) to use the AT units.
In PG2 the most awaited unit was StuG III/F8 - the first to fire over two hexes, In PG 3d there were limited number of units per type so you had to buy AT in order to fill your core army.
Some rethinking might bring back the AT on the battlefield. Maybe loading/unloading the towed AT in the same turn so they become more offensive rather than completely defensive units?
Also making them available for purchase as auxiliary units during campaign. If AI is programmed to be more aggressive then once you win a city you simply have to buy auxiliary AT unit to place in that city for protection… That would also make the overall game more dynamic and fun… ?
AT units – what’s the point?
Moderators: Slitherine Core, Panzer Corps Moderators, Panzer Corps Design
Well the Elephant and the jagdtiger can barge through just about any tracked unit so there quite useful and I love the heavy Russian vehicles but overall i find them to be one of the weaker classes in Panzer Corps. Obviously if your playing the campaign, which is offensive in nature, towed AT is not very useful. They are really just a measure to hold ground against armour when you have none of your own. The problem to me is there not that cost effective in the defence either. I prefer to play the historical scenarios online but have noticed that for some of the allies (France & Russia etc), even the low calibre AT guns cost nearly twice as much as infantry (which is far more versatile and might get away). Unless I'm swimming in money like in some of the 8 MP scenarios, I'd rarely consider buying them and if I had the cash I'd probably get something mobile anyway. I see lots of SPAT guns being purchased but almost never the towed variety.
-
PinkPanzer
- Administrative Corporal - SdKfz 251/1
- Posts: 129
- Joined: Sat Feb 06, 2010 9:40 pm
In the campaign they're useless.
In PG you could buy the 88 towed in the LC or France scenario? in 1940.
That was useful against forts, AA and towed AT's.
The 88 AA that can be used in AT mode in PC has such a low defence that it's not as usefull in that role unless the defending unit is totally suppressed.
What is the initiative penalty AT have when attacking tanks?
In PG you could buy the 88 towed in the LC or France scenario? in 1940.
That was useful against forts, AA and towed AT's.
The 88 AA that can be used in AT mode in PC has such a low defence that it's not as usefull in that role unless the defending unit is totally suppressed.
What is the initiative penalty AT have when attacking tanks?
Indirect tactics, efficiently applied, are as inexhaustible as Heaven and Earth, unending as the flow of rivers and streams; like the sun and moon, they end but to begin anew; like the four seasons, they pass away but to return once more. Sun Tzu
They are already cheaper and in case of Jagdtiger vs Tiger II they only cost HALF but you people might have a point that the early STUG III series is a bit underwhelming in Panzer Corps.
The main difference is that Tank Destroyers are not Infantry destroyers as they were in Panzer General.
But that makes sense, they are TANK destroyers after all.
The Elefant however is much better than in Panzer General where it was very slow and in general not as good.
I wonder a bit about the close defense and relatively good anti-infantry capabilities as the Elefant didn't have a machine gun initially and all that.
Regarding AT guns... we are not that often on the defense in campaigns. The problem is they are most effective when tanks attack them. Which they often just don't.
Hm... no real idea how to make them more attractive or if they need that much fixing at all.
The main difference is that Tank Destroyers are not Infantry destroyers as they were in Panzer General.
But that makes sense, they are TANK destroyers after all.
The Elefant however is much better than in Panzer General where it was very slow and in general not as good.
I wonder a bit about the close defense and relatively good anti-infantry capabilities as the Elefant didn't have a machine gun initially and all that.
Regarding AT guns... we are not that often on the defense in campaigns. The problem is they are most effective when tanks attack them. Which they often just don't.
Hm... no real idea how to make them more attractive or if they need that much fixing at all.
We had too many complaints from players that said AA and AT were tough to kill. They were crying because they had to fight these units inorder to control cities so these units were toned down. I wish it would go back beck to the way it was as I never had a problem with it.
Perhaps somewhere in between these two ares is the sweet spot.
Perhaps somewhere in between these two ares is the sweet spot.