Feedback - Bazooka and Panzerschreck

[elegance]

Shreck can kill every allied tank frontally but is harder to aim at longer distance but rocket can go further.

Bazooka can kill every tank frontally expect tiger and stug G , it can kill every tank on sides thought. Easier to aim and calculate trajectory but rocket sinks faster.

In the end both of those weapons lose effectiveness at 150m considerable and in the end are more balanced that I initial thought.

There is still much room to avoid them for tankers, now we just need to test the PIAT

Oh no. It goes through front of Stug G like knife through butter.

[fxmmauser]

Oh no. It goes through front of Stug G like knife through butter.

That wasn't what I experience I think driver can be killed frontally with some luck but not gunner or commander.

A Lmg on the stug would be welcome now or a real deadlier HE since enemy anti tank infantry can advance towards a stug G without fearing death.

[DOC]

I hear "wow straight through no problem!" comments all the time, and find out afterwards they used the weapon only a couple of times and always from the most favourable approaches.

When you have 100 tests, all controlled and not from the perfect angle or range, then I might put more stock in the comment because it will probably lack the sensationalism that accompanies many "reports".

These weapons have hellacious penetration numbers, in effective angle impacts the equal or better of all armour in the game except the very thickest, it's just a fact. Hyperbole isn't going to change that.

If all you have is 30mm, 50mm even 80mm of armour on your tank, you are going to be in trouble there is no getting around that and it isn't incorrect that this be the case. Only the Tiger frontally, and the Churchill VII on it's 152mm facings, can afford to feel secure and even those have thinner armour facings elsewhere meaning they aren't all that secure, even if they think they should be.

[elegance]

I hear "wow straight through no problem!" comments all the time, and find out afterwards they used the weapon only a couple of times and always from the most favourable approaches.

When you have 100 tests, all controlled and not from the perfect angle or range, then I might put more stock in the comment because it will probably lack the sensationalism that accompanies many "reports".

These weapons have hellacious penetration numbers, in effective angle impacts the equal or better of all armour in the game except the very thickest, it's just a fact. Hyperbole isn't going to change that.

If all you have is 30mm, 50mm even 80mm of armour on your tank, you are going to be in trouble there is no getting around that and it isn't incorrect that this be the case. Only the Tiger frontally, and the Churchill VII on it's 152mm facings, can afford to feel secure and even those have thinner armour facings elsewhere meaning they aren't all that secure, even if they think they should be.

Sorry DOC. Tested it this way: What would a expert sapper do? Expert sapper not retard who thinks: Oh tiger! Lets shoot him from 45 degree angle frontal! And lots of people here became expert sappers as it was the only way to kill later tier tanks.

I wouldn't be happy if you had to tweak with the penetration numbers too much towards unhistorical, just beware that there will be a LOT of whining from tankers.

[DOC]

Comparing these weapons to the sapper is a natural way most will follow the thinking of, but it is not the correct way to view the issue. These are ranged RPAT ballistic weapons not zero range placed satchels, and they have nothing whatsover to do with the penetration ability of the satchel either.

How good or bad they are versus tanks cannot be treated/managed/created by comparing them to satchel charges previously used by the sappers in game. We don't want them to be overpowering and we are considering them solely on their own performance, the "sapper from before" is just a red herring if that's your yardstick.

It's not our yardstick however. We aren't trying or hoping to make these new weapons "equavilent" or equal or anything to the sappers with satchel charges. We will manage them as completely new and totally different weapons systems.

Getting all worked up over how you think they will or won't be is useless. All you do is upset yourself. Nothing is finished until we say it is finished, and we know where things need to be, so you have little to worry about unless worry is something you just enjoy. While many will scream we made these unfair or something along those lines, I have great faith we will at the same time manage something the more objective person will understand is reasonable and well balanced.

Can't please everyone and we'd be fools to try. All we can do is a good job. You mention "whining from tankers" is there a chance you feel we never anticipated this ? Really ?

[Sparre]

Please correct me if I am wrong here, but I am of the impression that the RPAT will be Tier3 or Tier4 weapons. Then do we have the heavier tanks introduced as well.

The RPAT weapons was made to penetrate anything, which demanded thicker armour for the contemporary tanks. So to take out a heavy tank with a RPAT do you need to get it from the side or even the rear. Don't expect to take it out from the front, not even with a RPAT.

But the early war tanks (Tier0–Tier2) will have a slim chance. That is as it should be.

Edited October 15, 2011 by Sparre

[Smgman]

Will there be a Piat in the game ?

If so No need to worry about back blast from the Piat it's not really in the same class of weapon as the Bazooka or panzerfaust as its not Rocket Propelled and has less range and accuracy.

The Piat has no rocket it's spring launched with a small charge that is intended to re **** the spring .

This is a historical opinion and I understand there is a balance between history and game play . Not trying to be down on CRS just offering the info .

If there is a plan for the Piat you Could save a lot of time & work by giving all the Allies a Bazooka and cut the Piat out .

One question Will the RPAT weapons do damage to buildings and will they have a blast radius (not back blast) for killing Enmy Inf. ?

It may be a bit late but if you guys need any help with the Piat model please contact me I have a real WW2 Piat (less live rounds) in the states and it is not considered to be a weapon by the ATF so I can loan it to you or send any pictures or other info you may need .

SMG

Edited October 19, 2011 by Smgman

[DOC]

There will be a PIAT (under development) and it was explosive charge and spigot powered. We know a lot about it actually, we research everything we model.

[GOPHUR]

One question Will the RPAT weapons do damage to buildings and will they have a blast radius (not back blast) for killing Enmy Inf. ?

It may be a bit late but if you guys need any help with the Piat model please contact me I have a real WW2 Piat (less live rounds) in the states and it is not considered to be a weapon by the ATF so I can loan it to you or send any pictures or other info you may need .

I haven't really done any testing against buildings. The fuel tanks are the easiest building to destroy with the lowest damage threshold. Let's take a look. BRB...

It might eventually. HEAT weapons as modelled really aren't good for this. The shrapnel generated didn't have enough kinetic energy to overcome the building threshold, much like rifles don't. And the shaped charge jets didn't either. No real surprise there. The concussion did impart 500Kj. It'll take 12Mj to take it down so you'd be there a while.

For reference an 88 AP round fired from a Tiger point blank will do 2.8Mj from the main hit, most of the shrapnel will not pass the threshold but some will. Call it one in 10. Then the concussion will do 779Kj.

Seems about right.