Camouflage for AT guns

[VoyoMayPL]

So basically option to conceal your AT gun as a bush (only available for AT gun).

Way it may work:
Camo is applied instantly when the gun is built. When you fire 1st round, branches colapse and enemy can see the whole gun just like now (and maybe some leftovers of the camo on the floor).
Camo would prevent penetration marker from showing anything.

So it would give some advantage against tanks, concealment vs maneuverability. Now they are easy to spot, especially with legal cheat called penetration marker.

[Shiivex]

Fully agree.

I would even pay for said bushes like in warthunder.

More costumisation as long as its realist, it’s always a plus for me.

[Overlander57]

Hard no on ptw camouflage

[VoyoMayPL]

No paying for camo, hell no.
If you want nice cosmetics to spend money on, I suggest this:

Decal I would like to see in the game

I know that customisation system is far away form us, but I want to suggest a decal type that I think is really cool and must be in the game. The idea is that this type of decal will display your achivments by usage of historical markings, decorations and medals. I would suggest to give them for the largest killstreak of the particular soldier / vehicle in one match (or maybe in one life but it may be too difficult), examples: infantry (Call me a werhab but I’ll use mainly german army as a…

[ErikaKalkbrenner]

no,

absolutly never.

both for cosmetic like war thunder, and no to this suggestion.

A. it’s not realistic
B. It’s not Needed
C. Shouldn’t not be a thing even if falls after the first shot

if you really want to camoflage them, perhaps they could use an actual Camouflage of PAINT depending on the enivorement.

( instead of white placement for both russians and germans across all campaigns )
but no to anything that makes you harder to see.

[Eloros]

Actually, AT guns (and not only those) were often camouflaged like this IRL to make them harder to spot as far as I know.

As long as camo falls off after first shot, and as long as it won´t be purchasable I´m all for it.

[VoyoMayPL]

@ErikaKalkbrenner

like war thunder

It would not be like in war thunder because:

• it would be pre set, so no cheesy placements (did I mention that camo would be only on the front?)
• it’s only for 1st shot so it’s one time use advantage, as suprise element should be

@ErikaKalkbrenner

it’s not realistic

Yes it is. Main advantages of AT guns in battle were: low profile and easy to hide.
Guess what you can’t do with those guns now: you can’t hide.

@ErikaKalkbrenner

It’s not Needed

Maybe. But that argument can be made under 75% of posts that aren’t about ballance.
Actually, aren’t tanks 2nd most OP thing after planes?

@ErikaKalkbrenner

Shouldn’t not be a thing even if falls after the first shot

Why? Cammo falling under 1st shot is to ballance it out.
And it’s also realistic.

Pak-40 German 75mm AT Gun Firing

I don’t see how any branches placed on top of it, would stay there.

@ErikaKalkbrenner

if you really want to camoflage them, perhaps they could use an actual Camouflage of PAINT depending on the enivorement.

That will change nothing thanks to penetration indicator.

[Conscript_Joe]

I’d like that. Those AT were concealed most of the time, as they were made to ambush. Another alternative mechanic could be:
You build your AT gun normally, it comes without camouflage.
You build OVER it (like a second time) to conceal it. Branches could remain with each shots since you took more time to place them.

There’s nothing wrong with hard to see AT guns. It’s a GOOD thing. Tankers were extra careful back in the days… and even today, because they never knew if there was an At gun or crazy guy with spg around the corner, mines, etc. Tanking should NOR being easy. In Enlisted they take you by the hand so easy it is.

[ErikaKalkbrenner]

@VoyoMayPL

It would not be like in war thunder because:

• it would be pre set, so no cheesy placements
• it’s only for 1st shot so it’s one time use advantage, as suprise element should be

with this, you have double of the element of sourprise.

because, first, tankers are not aware of AT guns if not on sight.

with this, you would benefict them more because even if they don’t know that there is a cannon, and they are somwhat looking at it, it’s even camouflage so chances for you to spot him, it’s quite impossible. and not fair actually.

second, as AT gunner, even if you have the upper hands, chances are, you wont deal too many damage. because the only place where AT guns are effective, are at moscow.

so again, it’s a no for me.

you don’t need advantages especially if tankers do not know where you are.

@VoyoMayPL

Yes it is. Main advantages of AT guns in battle were: low profile and easy to hide.
Guess what you can’t do with those guns now: you can’t hide.

exept in a game, this factor is rather pointless since you can be killed with mg strafes, it’s basically white ( outside the american/british one ).

and you can’t hide them, because it’s cheesy.

you can somewhat do that by placing them inside buildings. that’s why it’s enough. and even camoflage them it’s no better.

@VoyoMayPL

Maybe. But that argument can be made under 75% of posts that aren’t about ballance.
Actually, aren’t tanks 2nd most OP thing after planes?

indeed. sorry to disappoint but in my opinion, this one does not cover the main aspect ( issues ) of the AT gun it self.

@VoyoMayPL

Why? Cammo falling under 1st shot is to ballance it out.
And it’s also realistic.

because gives you double advantage as mentioned in the first part.

@VoyoMayPL

I don’t see how any branches placed on top of it, would stay there.

of course they fall, but this would require something that i’m honestly not sure devs are capable of.

@VoyoMayPL

That will change nothing thanks to penetration indicator.

not talking about those. we already discussed about that in other threads.

[Eloros]

@Conscript_Joe

You build OVER it (like a second time) to conceal it. Branches could remain with each shots since you took more time to place them.

Not unless you “rebuild” them back after each shot, and “building” that needs to take at least some time (lets say equally to sand bag wall). Perhaps AI engineer might be able to do that if you order doing so… even then it is pretty risky to do it, so I believe that risk itself might balance that IF something like this gets implemented.

However, I think initial 1st shot camo is good enough so this option wouldn´t be necessary to have.

[Conscript_Joe]

Yes! That could work well too, and even make more sense.

However the camouflage mechanism gets implemented is subject to debate, but one thing is certain, we need it. It would make AT guns so much more potent

[Eloros]

@Conscript_Joe

we need it. It would make AT guns so much more potent

Well unless we are pointing at powercreeping tanks, AT guns are dangerous on their own, so I wouldn´t say we need it as balancing factor, however, it would be nice somewhat realistic detail to have down the line.

@ErikaKalkbrenner

of course they fall, but this would require something that i’m honestly not sure devs are capable of.

Maybe they can just disappear, or share simple falling animation we already have in game. Of course, it would look a bit weird.

[VoyoMayPL]

@ErikaKalkbrenner

because, first, tankers are not aware of AT guns if not on sight.

I agree, but suprise is the only advantage AT gun has over a tank.
Tank is better armoured, can move and has coax in most cases.

@ErikaKalkbrenner

second, as AT gunner, even if you have the upper hands, chances are, you wont deal too many damage. because the only place where AT guns are effective, are at moscow.

So because AT guns are weak, they don’t need a buff?

@ErikaKalkbrenner

exept in a game, this factor is rather pointless since you can be killed with mg strafes, it’s basically white

Again, AT guns weak so why don’t buff them?

@ErikaKalkbrenner

you can somewhat do that by placing them inside buildings

It’s basically an exploit so I think that it will be fixed one day.

@ErikaKalkbrenner

because gives you double advantage as mentioned in the first part.

As mentioned in the first part, it doubbles the ONLY advantage AT gun has over tank. And only once.

@ErikaKalkbrenner

but this would require something that i’m honestly not sure devs are capable of.

We have soldiers droping guns of their hands but we can’t have branches droping from the gun?
I’m not a game programer, but it doesn’t sound like something extremly hard.

@ErikaKalkbrenner

not talking about those. we already discussed about that in other threads.

True, but my point is still valid as we don’t know what will happen to them.

[VoyoMayPL]

Ideally you would have to have special cammo kit in your inventory to use it. But in current state it’s better if it’s built with camo to not pop out of nowhere and then vanish suddenly.

[ErikaKalkbrenner]

@VoyoMayPL

I agree, but suprise is the only advantage AT gun has over a tank.
Tank is better armoured, can move and has coax in most cases.

but they got planty of advantages?

@VoyoMayPL

So because AT guns are weak, they don’t need a buff?

absolutly not.

instead, they need a proper fix. and perhaps, could also benefict from a few tweaks/buff as well. but not related to camoflage. ( as i said, a paint would fix the issue related to camouflage ).

enlisted is not that type of game for static things. therefore the AT should be able to be moved. and you would actually adress the issue of this main post. having somewhat of a repositioning for ambush and relocate.

simple as that ( i believe ).

@VoyoMayPL

Again, AT guns weak so why don’t buff them?

because they have to be fixed.

they shouldn’t die from coax stafes.

@VoyoMayPL

It’s basically an exploit so I think that it will be fixed one day.

nope? people actually brought them on porpouse for better sourprise.

which in the current state, does make sense since you are somewhat protected from arty.

@VoyoMayPL

We have soldiers droping guns of their hands but we can’t have branches droping from the gun?
I’m not a game programer, but it doesn’t sound like something extremly hard.

n-no.

they disappear. they do not fall from the soldier.
more precisely, they teleport on the back of the soldier for you to pick them up.

@VoyoMayPL

True, but my point is still valid as we don’t know what will happen to them.

well, it does change, giving you a chances to be paranoic and be luckely able to spot them through indicator.

if those disappears, you will start to have PTSD from every bushes.

and once again, in my personal opinion is not needed because in enlisted it’s some sort similar to rainbow six siege.

for the given time, you literally do not have enough time to check every corners considering that you have constant bombs on your head, tanks appearing from no where, infantry left and right, snipers, campers, and even mines.

sorry, but it’s a no from me.

[Conscript_Joe]

Oh no, not for balancing factor, for that campaigns Normandy and Berlin would need BIGGER AT guns entirely.

We need it more because it’s a nice feature, would be more realistic and would enforce the ambush gameplay element. Tank players will survive I’m sure.

[VoyoMayPL]

I agree that movement could solve this but I’ll tell you a secret:
I don’t belive that devs will implement this, I would like to but I don’t. Unless with a “game 2.0” kind of update, that can take place in >1 year probably.

Also, what are those plenty of advantages? I can’t think of any more regarding gun vs tank combat.

And scaning every bush wouldn’t be necesarry as it’s next to imposible to hide the barrel. Unless you are the trusty door knocker.

[PanzerSmurf]

I just had to giggle at some assumptions made here, so here’s a run down of how PAK guns where used with the Germans during WW2 mostly.

Always in groups 2 or 3, concealment was used, however that would be removed before firing, to ensure a clean shot. Although the gun itself would be painted to suite envoirment, any leaves or branches would be removed before firing for sure.

Also, PaK where as much made to ambush, the PaK-41’s at least as I said worked in groups of 2 or 3, 1 PaK would usually frontally engage the Tank if no other units where there to grab it’s attention, usually in a way to draw it to expose it sides to the other PaK which would then actually take it out.

This wild romantic notion of road side ambushes with thousands of PaK’s made with litte historical evidence of such things actually happening is amusing.

In fact those PaK tactics I mentioned is pretty much based upon how German infantry squads worked as well with setting up their MG’s on a squad level.

[PanzerSmurf]

In fact most armies anti tank gun tactics during WW2 pretty much resembled machine gun tactics of setting up kill zones where several angles where covered making it impossible to present the frontal and thus maxium armor towards incoming fire.

[Conscript_Joe]

Sure, nice historical stuff and all, cool…

Except you will never see 3 paks used together at the same time in different positions in enlisted, you have to work with 1. If you don’t ambush with it, wild romantic assumptions be damned, you are toasted, end of story.

So yes… in this game, those AT guns are used to ambush, as amusing as it may sound. Now FOR GAMEPLAY PURPOSE, this camo idea would be nice.