It is currently Fri 24 May 2013 16:44

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 82 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 9  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: The ATGM dilemma
PostPosted: Fri 6 Jul 2012 04:01 
Online
Major
User avatar

Joined: Mon 30 Apr 2012 09:18
Posts: 1804
Location: Nevada
Thanks. Yeah you'll probably have to resort to those tactics. Granted I've only played one game today, but I was seriously caught off guard by the number of ATGMs I faced. I expected to see noticeably more but nothing to that extent. My solid pre-patch mix of units was wiped out within a minute.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The ATGM dilemma
PostPosted: Fri 6 Jul 2012 04:13 
Offline
Sergeant Major of the Army

Joined: Wed 3 Aug 2011 12:20
Posts: 390
Yeah it could just be because everyone's still taking the sorts of armies that worked with the old metagame. Prepatch small forces of expensive heavies worked well, but now they'll be far too vulnerable to ATGM spam without some cheap stuff to bulk them out. But hopefully ATGM spam will be vulnerable to arty and 10-20 point unit spam that can just overwhelm it, while cheap unit spam alone will still be weak to heavies and the newly buffed mediums. That way your force will eventually have to be a good mix of ATGMs, cheap spammy stuff and a few medium tanks and/ or heavies to boot.

Unless of course 10-20 point units and arty can't beat ATGM spam, in which case we'll have a bit of a problem :shock:


EDIT: The most spammable ATGMs (infantry and jeeps) are extremely vulnerable to arty and can be killed by small arms fire and one-shotted by T55s, BMP1s and other such fodder units, so they're not without their downsides. You can get around that (as PACT anyway) by taking tanks with ATGMs, but then you're paying significantly more per missile, which means that you're still going to be at risk of being overwhelmed by cheap unit spam since you'll be firing less ATGMs per volley than you would be if you'd went for jeeps or infantry.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The ATGM dilemma
PostPosted: Fri 6 Jul 2012 06:54 
Offline
Corporal
User avatar

Joined: Sat 30 Jun 2012 14:54
Posts: 21
I had an interesting encounter which taught me someting about the mechanics regarding Missle tanks. I had 2 T-62M-V's in the forest edge and 2 T-64B's in the bushes about 60m to the right encounter 4 Leopard 2A4s that just came over a ridge, the battle was close range at probably 200-300m. The leopards concentrated on the 64B's and took them out however lost 2 as well and took some damage on the other two, then the T-62's finished off the last 2 leopards with one 62 taking heavy damage but both T-62's survived. I'm guess the accuracy of these Pact medium tanks, range and spacing helped pull this off, at a longer range I doubt the outcome would have been the same.

The strange thing is the T-62M-V's in the forest edge with thier 10acc and 12dmg ATGM never fired a single missle, yet they had line of site and just used guns. it appears that if your in range of guns then they'll use guns, and only if your out of range of guns would they automatically use ATGM. Next time if I'm likely to encounter a short range battle I'm guessing what you'll need to do is turn off the gun. If you don't want to micro manage then you'll need to watch placement and ensure you have visability out to 2600m+ to be able to use those missles, otherwise they just make interesting Tank decoration as was the case in the scenario above.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The ATGM dilemma
PostPosted: Fri 6 Jul 2012 07:02 
Offline
General
User avatar

Joined: Mon 27 Feb 2012 22:17
Posts: 5120
Location: Universe, Galaxy, Solar System, Earth, Ground, Eurasian Continent, Main Landmass.
WarCrime wrote:
-snip-



If you absolutely want to use the ATGMs, you can switch off th main gun. Just remember though that non HEAT shots (basically LAW/RPG and ATGMs) deal more damage the closer they are to the target. A gun will have an overall rate of fire that's superior to ATGM fire for similar damage on hit at close range.

_________________
"Rocks are OP. Paper is fine" signed: Scissors
Image
My Youtube Channel


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The ATGM dilemma
PostPosted: Fri 6 Jul 2012 10:21 
Offline
Corporal

Joined: Thu 26 Apr 2012 07:32
Posts: 26
What ive noticed is that its forcing people to use less expensive units, and focus more on using Air, and Artillery assets more. I used to see 2-4 Leo2a4's coming at me while my T80U's and 64BV's would brawl with them.

Now im using The cheaper 64's and T80BV's. Ive started to buy Chieftains as NATO and Super M60s to compliment my Challengers. I feel this patch has made the lesser used units a bigger part of the game because now, investing tons of points into these Heavy tanks has become pointless.

They used to be the Jack of All trades, now they arent. They have a counter now which i find great. If i see a Leo2a4 coming at me, i dont need to worry about pulling my T80U's over to counter, i can just fight back with ATGM's and flank with the up ranged mediums.

I think its become a lot better, seeing as how now artillery is not so much a pound them for points, and actually used strategically. Ive played maybe 15 games since the patch and DLC and ive been seeing artillery used against my troops more then ive seen people fishing for CV's or trying to shoot at my base. I think its a lot better this way then it used to be.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The ATGM dilemma
PostPosted: Fri 6 Jul 2012 11:05 
Online
General

Joined: Sun 6 Nov 2011 00:00
Posts: 6558
Still, 6 point front armor would not save from high end ATGM hit.

_________________
Image
We need more missilez code for the missilez god.
Praslovan:
"Tactical Ikalugin inbound on this position in 10... 9..."


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The ATGM dilemma
PostPosted: Fri 6 Jul 2012 11:15 
Offline
Chief Warrant Officer
User avatar

Joined: Wed 28 Mar 2012 14:48
Posts: 572
Location: Earth.
My reply is the game has more tactics now. Micro and Macro. Wasting all your supplies on ATGMS is a solid NO
I had a game when this NATO guy didn't micro the ATGMs spending the supplies of 4 HEMMETS in a quick mater of time (I perfer ATGM units with 2-1 vet since the ATGMs still dont hit alot) He took out my T-80As and some T-64Bs but when I counter fired with cannons and ATGMs he lost the whole match. Microing to much will leave you out the Macro game. You will get flanked and no matter what you do are how good you micro expect some counter ATGM fire. I group units into "Teams" 1 Heavy Tank, 1 ATGM carrier, 1 Medium tank and perhaps some other Heavy tank, Med or ATGM carrier. ATGM will provide counter fire. If he fails to attack your ATGM carrier the new buffed range of some meds would reach you and would provide moral lose and destroy your ATGM units. The heavy tank will decimate you if left unchecked so you need to micro well. But since thats only one group the other 6 groups would crush the ATGM spam.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The ATGM dilemma
PostPosted: Fri 6 Jul 2012 11:18 
Offline
Chief Warrant Officer
User avatar

Joined: Wed 28 Mar 2012 14:48
Posts: 572
Location: Earth.
ikalugin wrote:
Still, 6 point front armor would not save from high end ATGM hit.


Yeah but it has too hit. The ATGM accuracy was left unchanged so the Kobras, Konkurs or Milans, Tows would hit 2/10 or at most 4/10. I only try fielding few ATGM units scattered in groups with 1-2 vet. But BMP-1s is a different story :lol:


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The ATGM dilemma
PostPosted: Fri 6 Jul 2012 12:02 
Online
General

Joined: Sun 6 Nov 2011 00:00
Posts: 6558
wekwek_noob wrote:
ikalugin wrote:
Still, 6 point front armor would not save from high end ATGM hit.


Yeah but it has too hit. The ATGM accuracy was left unchanged so the Kobras, Konkurs or Milans, Tows would hit 2/10 or at most 4/10. I only try fielding few ATGM units scattered in groups with 1-2 vet. But BMP-1s is a different story :lol:

Well T64B is cheap enough to get several of them in a squad, not to mention BMP 1P.

_________________
Image
We need more missilez code for the missilez god.
Praslovan:
"Tactical Ikalugin inbound on this position in 10... 9..."


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The ATGM dilemma
PostPosted: Fri 6 Jul 2012 12:52 
Online
Chief Warrant Officer

Joined: Wed 22 Feb 2012 15:14
Posts: 732
Helicopters became more important. Pact has ATGM on tank but NATO has cheaper choppers with useful ATGM (The acc 3 ones on pact side doe snot really count). That balance things.


Think things will develop quite nicely. Now a proper force will be forced to have hevy, medium tanks, infantary and helicopters as well as AA.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 82 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 9  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group