Will there be AT Guns? (Merged a gazillion times)

[Nimrod1971]

i should have said anti tank RIFLE not gun

 

[Feuerstrahl]

Fixed PAKs would not be useless on any map and here is why: There are only so many ways to approach an objective. If the PAKs are placed in a way they can overlap an area with defensive fire. In Arad for example, to get to the south village one can really on go through one of three routes: around the forest by the north field, across the bridge from north village, and around to the south village. If there are PAKs covering the bridge and pointed at the the edge of the forest touching the south field, the only "clear" place to attack would be the south field. Hopefully intelligent players would then defend and attack the south field with tanks of their own.

I think the addition of the AT guns would make the prospect of trying to assault any capture point more difficult, and not the "going around them" affair that some people think would happen.

 

[Zerknautscher]

I like the way this is done in Forgotten Hope or Battlefield 1918, which are both BF42 Mods. In Forgotten Hope There are Pak 40s on some maps. you cant move them around but you can change their direction 360

 

[Harry S. Truman]

Hmmm...Tanks are hardly "realistic" in the game. I figure if one man can operate a tank, he should be able to operate an AT gun. It should be destructable though and have limited rounds. The main problem is if they are not mobile, players will quickly recognize where the AT guns are and either avoid them or call in artillery.

 

[McNab]

OK keep it simple!

- One man operation. Some of you say this is unrealistic but the gunners on the tanks are shot by only one man. The is alot of things are not so realistic in ro but that dosen't stop the fun and imersion. Mg's don't have a loader, snipers don't have a spotter. With out these things makes the classes more fun for EVERYONE to play.

- Limit the amunition

- Even though everyone will know where they are it will still slow the enemy down because they won't know if they're maned or not.

- If you not going to add them take them out of map and stop teasing me!

 

[Rameusb5]

It should be destructable though and have limited rounds. The main problem is if they are not mobile, players will quickly recognize where the AT guns are and either avoid them or call in artillery.

The solution to this is to make the gun (but not the crewman) indestructable to everything but a satchel charge. This will eliminate the problem of "hey, I know there's a gun over there, so I just shoot it at the beginning of the round and it's worthless."

Of course you could avoid them, but then again, when you're supposed to be taking an objective, that's not always easy to do.

The truth of the matter is that you should be trying to kill the crew of the gun, not the gun itself anyway. To take out the guns, you'd need to send a group of engineers up to blow up the gun, which would prevent the enemy from reusing it.

I think ATG's would be a fantastic addition to the game. They would probably only be useful on the "combined arms" maps. They should really only be available on "assault" maps, and then only to the defender. For example, Konigsplatz would benefit from a couple of Pak40's with AP40 ammunition. (Maybe one at the center cap zone, and another 2 at the last cap zone)

 

[Zerknautscher]

Yeah one thing I forgot is that in RO therer these stupid arty strikes, so static guns would be probably a bad Idea. But maybe you could make them carryable by SdKfz 251 and the russians may just pull their guns. It should be a team weapon I think.

 

[malice]

my latest idea

One man controls the shooting, he uses the WASD keys to move the barrel (which I had suggested but before release but they had already included in the game so thats cool) however he can only move in 1 direction at once, so side to side or up and down not on angles. The gun would basically work just like a tank, several positions to view from, one in the sight, one looking above the gun and one with binocs. The differences comes in with the second person, two people are required to move the gun, not just the person switching to a difference position but two people are needed for the gun to move and the second person controls the direction. The guns would spawn in preplaced places on the battlefield next to an ammo dump but not in good firing positions, for that they would need to be moved, maybe only spawn new AT guns if the other has been destroyed and only when the base changes hands.

 

[Rameusb5]

Mobile guns make no sense.

AT guns were ALWAYS set up in defensive positions BEFORE the battle. Only the smallest of them (37mm) were mobile enough to move around while the battle was raging.

The way you get around the artillery stricke issue is to make the guns indestructable to arty strikes (which I said above). That way, you can use artillery to SUPRESS the gun. But you CANNOT destroy it without sending a team of engineers up to the defensive position to blow it up with satchel charges.

 

[malice]

Mobile guns make no sense.

AT guns were ALWAYS set up in defensive positions BEFORE the battle. Only the smallest of them (37mm) were mobile enough to move around while the battle was raging.

The way you get around the artillery stricke issue is to make the guns indestructable to arty strikes (which I said above). That way, you can use artillery to SUPRESS the gun. But you CANNOT destroy it without sending a team of engineers up to the defensive position to blow it up with satchel charges.

they wouldnt have been moved long distances but I was more refering to turning it around and slowly moving it. Like the gun would only have a turret pan of (this is a guess) 20 degrees so they may at some point need to spin the thing around. Anyway AT guns worked so well because they were small and you never knew where they were hidden, in ROOST if you couldnt move them you would always know where they were, moving them would allow people the ability to relocate them.

 

[McNab]

I think the AT guns that are in RO already are well enough dug in that it would be hard for a tank to destroy them, even though they know where they were positioned. The AT gun in the RO maps would only serve to delay an advance until reinforcements arrived. They should not be mobile just one man operated, again keeping it simple. We also don't have to fill the maps with them. We only need a couple in some of the larger maps, placed in key areas. ie close to an objective. If the devs do decide to put them in they should try to stay away from large caliber guns as well.

Remember people, RO is not after every little realistic effect, ie crewed guns, sniper and spotter, mg and loader. Its after a whole realistic feel all around. If everyone was tied up in little roles there would be no riflemen left. Remember there is only 32 players. That doesn't mean they can't make AT guns work. They will just have to stay away from making them too dominant in any of the maps. The key is small numbers and limited ammunition.

 

[Rameusb5]

they wouldnt have been moved long distances but I was more refering to turning it around and slowly moving it. Like the gun would only have a turret pan of (this is a guess) 20 degrees so they may at some point need to spin the thing around. Anyway AT guns worked so well because they were small and you never knew where they were hidden, in ROOST if you couldnt move them you would always know where they were, moving them would allow people the ability to relocate them.

As for being moved rotationally, I agree with that, but only to 180 degrees (which shouldn't matter because they should be set up in defensive positions anyway).

I just don't think they should be able to be moved out of their original position. There's a lot of equipment that goes along with an AT gun, and it would be extremely difficult to move them around in the midst of a battle.

Knowing where the AT gun is isn't ALL that ridiculous. You still would have to shoot at it and kill the crew. Not only that, you'd have to KEEP firing at it to keep it surpressed so more crewmembers don't run up and man it.


They would also be pretty immune to MG fire because of the gun shield.

 

[malice]

As for being moved rotationally, I agree with that, but only to 180 degrees (which shouldn't matter because they should be set up in defensive positions anyway).

I just don't think they should be able to be moved out of their original position. There's a lot of equipment that goes along with an AT gun, and it would be extremely difficult to move them around in the midst of a battle.

Knowing where the AT gun is isn't ALL that ridiculous. You still would have to shoot at it and kill the crew. Not only that, you'd have to KEEP firing at it to keep it surpressed so more crewmembers don't run up and man it.


They would also be pretty immune to MG fire because of the gun shield.

true but I think the tank aiming is almost too accurate (thats only based on accounts I have read about tanks having to use HE shells and have trouble hitting the At guns because it was so small) by to accurate it seems like some shots can be pin point which would make it semi easy to take out the AT gun on its with an AP shell where its more common to use HE shells (at least from what i read) and kill the crew but leave the gun alone. Also i think the idea of being able to move the gun would work because they would travel and a slow speed and have very limited ammo compared to the original spawn/

 

[ROMMEL34]

Well I am not sure how you guys would make it realistic but antitank guns are needed. They were a big part of the Eastern front on most epic battles such as the Battle of Kursk and the battles of Kharkov. The Soviets dug in and fired at German armor and the exact opposite was true once the Soviets pushed the Germans back. (In fact the flak 88 was the German's "trump card") So my point being that either these guns should be implemented into the game or the good people of RO should release the code to make them work for modifications and such
Plus if there were at guns there could be levels with infantry vs tanks like many ost front battles of ww2. This could be called "new game play"

 

[Rameusb5]

true but I think the tank aiming is almost too accurate (thats only based on accounts I have read about tanks having to use HE shells and have trouble hitting the At guns because it was so small) by to accurate it seems like some shots can be pin point which would make it semi easy to take out the AT gun on its with an AP shell where its more common to use HE shells (at least from what i read) and kill the crew but leave the gun alone. Also i think the idea of being able to move the gun would work because they would travel and a slow speed and have very limited ammo compared to the original spawn/

I don't think that tank's are too accurate in RO. Most of our engagement ranges are WELL inside what they were historically. This makes hitting the enemy a heck of a lot easier.

I completely agree that HE shells should be what tankers use to take out the AT gun crews.


As for mobility, I see that simply as a complexity that adds more dev time to get them out, for not a lot of improvement in gameplay. Even if you COULD move them about, you'd simply find that people move them into stupid positions that they get killed trying to use.


AT guns should be placed by mappers into defensive positions which would make it difficult for tanks to kill them. If done properly, there would be no need to move them around.

 

[Harry S. Truman]

Taking into account their current locations, most of the guns would be overrun before you could man them. LOL

 

[Rameusb5]

Obviously, they would need to be positioned differently once they are working...

 

[Willy68]

AT's...

AT's...

Surprised nobody mentioned Battlegroup 42 - the better mod for BF42 in my eyes.Think the AT's should be involved - on the right size maps offcourse (larger). They were included in Battlegroup42 and were TOWED on the H/tracks and deployed anywhere you wanted. I reckon this would be great including a couple on the large maps in RO. If i can remember it only took one man to operate but took time to unhitch from the H/T and then line them up - adding to the dangers of using them!

 

[Harry S. Truman]

For realism sake... Katusha was not used for close support because of it's inaccuracy. It was used to soften up the shite before an attack. The area of devastation was just too big to be reliable.

Yeah..even the Russians didn't want to be in the vacinity of a Katusha strike...

 

[Slow Larry]

AT-guns would make a great addition. Every rifle division had them as part of their regular TOE. The only problem I see(beside the question how to get them into the game in the first place) is that the best counter to AT-guns were mortars. So they would be needed aswell.