What is even the point of it, i have used it against a lot of tanks and it seems it only kills them on average, never. It doesn’t matter where you hit the tank it does literally nothing. I mean it’s better at killing 2-3 people who are close together than tanks. Why don’t you replace it with the Panzerfaust or the Panzerschreck or at least make it half decent.
4 Likes
I shot the jumbo in the sides and in the rear with my entire load out of sturm pistole rounds and it did fuck all to that broken piece of shit. Sturmpistole sucks dude.
Game’s currently VERY broken.
1 Like
Panzerfausts are even shorter range, and it seems to be an issue with the modeling of the Sturmpistole moreso than anything else.
With that said, a closer equivalent in performance to the PIAT would be the SS developed AT rifle grenades, the Gross Panzergranate 46, with an effective firing range about the same as the PIAT, at around 100m, and 90mm of penetration. (vs 100mm for the PIAT) Which would be an upgrade over the Sturmpistole’s 80mm of pen and 50m effective range. Darkflow could also be nice and let you use the AT grenade firing Kar98k as… well a Kar98k when you’re not shooting rifle grenades with it, lol.
1 Like
It works but it’s VERY unreliable. Sometimes you can take out stuart from front, other times it’s liike in your case.
Although it may be because HEAT weapons are meant to be shot precisely (good luck with that at ranges >20m) and have post-pen damage concentrated on a small area.
If you aim well you can one shot jumbo from the side.
2 Likes
This has been my experience. There’s absolutely no logic to the damage model and it’s an absolute dice roll.
Snap shot a sturmpistole at a sherman, end up clipping his commander’s hatch and he exploded into a fireball.
Pinpoint shoot the weakest armor where vulnerable components are and they shrug it off.
it’s legimately random asf and it can be frustrating.
It doesn’t help that there are often random server errors in general for tank models. Like sometimes when I’m shooting at tanks, shots will randomly fly below or above the tank despite aiming center mass. Be it with tank cannons or a PIAT or a Sturmpistole.
Yeah there’s general prblems, much to the chagrin of soviet/US/GER mains.
I was driving a tank tonight and ran into a stonewall and the stonewall perpetually exploded and rebuilt itself. A lot of weird server errors that match
Panzerfaust as an early level AT and panzerschreck as a high level AT would be nice to have.
1 Like
Panzershreck would invalidate all allied tanks, with 300mm of armor pen and being able to snipe tanks 150-180m away.
Panzerfausts punch through everything but an angled jumbo, but at least they’re close range weapons.
So I disagree, Panzershrecks would not be nice to have at high level, they’d be a bit too powerful, IMO.
Following your logic, why not remove planes? They can take out tanks without the possibility to defend yourself at all. We need proper AT weapons so the tnt spamming can get nerfed (they throw way too far).
There could be serious downsides to using the panzerschreck as well, you wouldn’t be running and gunning with a secondary while carrying one of those, you would be highly specialized for one purpose. Personally I would probably prefer using the panzerfaust.
You know they’re not going to balance around infantry weapons by making them have any actual downside if they were implemented, right? Planes, meanwhile, are a persistent issue, but at least they have trouble with the skill floor and other limitations, and have their own batch of things that need to be done to deal with their present state.
Furthermore, there are multiple models of the Panzerfaust you can use instead of introducing the Panzershreck. Also, as there is no allied equivalent to the Panzershreck, the only way it could be fairly implemented is by giving both factions a panzershreck at high tier. Which would cause even more of an uproar than the panzerfausts on both sides in berlin caused, given the Allies on the western front didn’t use many captured AT weapons, unlike the Soviets.
But yeah, while I do agree that we need better AT implements, I don’t think we should include the Panzerfaust.
As to what I would recommend implementing and how, I would direct you to my thread on re-balancing Normandy on the whole; Suggestion for equipment for the Tunesia campaign - my recommendations
Why wouldn’t there be downsides to using something that cumbersome and heavy?
I can see why it shouldn’t be included if they wouldn’t give carrying it any downsides, the panzerschreck that is. The panzerfaust however is a must have, as a higher level weapon at least if not just simply replacing the sturmpistole.
1 Like
adding weight and collision models, adjusting ADS speed is all ways to balance weaponry like that.
Sturmpistole should be practically a starter weapon with how dog shit it is.
1 Like
In real life they had to put on a gas mask and gloves to stop it from burning you to a crisp, and the shield was only added later on in the war. So an idea is that it could take a while to set it up but once its set up the tank is basically dead unless you miss.
Actually we have “weight”. The more kg you carry, the faster stamina drain. I would prefer lower movement speed, but it’s better than nothing.
really? I barely notice unless it’s an assaulter with the innate movement buff.
Collision models would really help discourage people from using MGs like CQB weapons
1 Like
Because it’s a game, so I don’t think the Panzershreck would have any more of an issue for weight than any other weapon in the game with similar weight. In fact, there are several guns already in the game that are heavier than the Panzershreck, as it is.
As for the suggestion of adding collision models to weapons, I’m going to have to say I’d personally be opposed to such, as no FPS with collision models for the weapons that I am aware of has managed to reach mainstream popularity, and would undeniably frustrate casuals, thus harming the potential of building the playerbase. (and by extension, harming the financial viability of the game, and by extension, the long term persistence prospects)
As for taking a while to set up, I doubt we’d see that either, beyond potentially requiring you to mount it to use it, but that doesn’t do much for the main reasons against it.
Tarkov and Arma 3 disagrees with you but okay.
1 Like
I’ve not played either, only heard passing comments about Tarkov online, and Arma 3 isn’t really mainstream to the best of my understanding, most of the time when I’ve heard about Arma it has been in conjunction talking about DayZ, only occasionally being about the Arma series itself, and in general, I’ve only heard about Arma 3 in passing, similar to Tarkov, not something anyone I know or is interested in actually playing.
That may be simply the internet bubble I find myself in, but it’s the state of things to me. Also, I think that would be something pulling away from this game’s identity as a partially-realistic shooter, and draw it closer to the fully hardcore realistic games like Post Scriptum, and thus further away from the current niche that Enlisted offers.
On another note, by the data I’ve found google searching, Enlisted at present already has player counts on par with or higher than ARMA 3 despite being early access and relatively new without wide advertisements, with a higher concurrent player record than ARMA 3, so… I don’t think that’s saying much to say it disagrees with me.
I discovered it when I wanted to make a post complaining that weight doesn’t restrict movement 
. So yeah, it’s hard to notice if you don’t know what to look for.
I bet that 90% if not 99% of the players don’t notice it exist at all.
Yup, 100% agree on that.