So i suggested that engineer II or even make engineer squad III who can build heavy anti tank guns to counter heavy armor on BR 5. 
3 Likes
How about make it dependent on br instead of engineer. If you are playing low br Battle your engineer will build a low br anti tank gun and when playing at high br it will be a heavy anti tank gun.
17 Likes
Well this would be good idea also. 
2 Likes
No, engineers are already versatile enough. This structure should belong only to AT squad. Just like HMG is only for MG squad.
10 Likes
This is good idea also. 
1 Like
Same with AA. Example of a triple 20mm Oerlikon for the high tier:
4 Likes
Or the AT Squad can build a heavier AT Gun with their Engie. I like this one the most
Technically they do, the Germans and Soviets can both build the Pak 40.
However I do think that AT guns need a bit more refinement.
I have suggested Flak Cannons that can act as both heavy AT and AA guns. And they could make it so regular Engineers build 57mm AT guns which are good for general purpose while AT squads could build 75mm
1 Like
Perhaps a better suggestion for game balance:
As far as the AT field guns go, I don’t disagree that we need access to them, HOWEVER, they should be specifically added to the AT squad, NOT the Engineer Squad!
Meanwhile, the Engineer Squad should get AutoCannons in their place, which would be allowed to angle downward and deal with certain armored targets, infantry, and aircraft. Meanwhile the current AA guns be replaced by stronger, more dedicated variants. (Bofors, Flakvierling, Etc)
As far as the AT Field Guns go, making it tied to the AT squads should allow you to build different sizes in combat, rather than just one or the other.
I say this because bigger isn’t always better.
- The larger guns may be better for eliminating tanks, but would have a slower reload and take up more space.
- The smaller guns would have a faster reload and take up less space, allowing for more creative placements and useful for shelling infantry.
1 Like
I think it’s difficult to balance.
If heavy AT guns are really added, should they have HE shells? If allowed, they are too strong. These heavy guns have a large caliber and usually have better protection compared to ordinary AT guns. They are great threat to infantry, almost like an immovable heavy tank, we may see a large number of toxic gray zone AT guns. If not allowed, they are too weak because they can only fight against tanks.
I would prefer if heavy AT guns like 17 pounders or 88 flak should be brought in by trucks.
now that we have half tracks and transporters which are BR 2, we could get higher BR versions that also carry heavy AT or AA.
As someone that has spent a lot of time using the field guns within the game so far, I’d like to address this:
It comes down to:
- What is it’s role?
- What counters it and how?
The thing is that a field gun is still a directional weapon, and while the very front of it may have a bit thicker armor, its not protected at all like a tank is. There are several really easy ways to deal with them, even if they are sitting back in the greyzone (which for the time being, until map sizes are opened up, I’m not opposed to for the field guns. The tanks hanging back is really where the problem lies).
-
Snipe the viewport window, you’ll kill the gunner with ease.
-
Aircraft bombs
-
HE shell next to it (tank or Field gun both work for this)
-
Mortars!
Also I would like to point out that as far as balancing wise, a field gun sitting in the greyzone still isn’t as bad as the radio operators being able to call down artillery while sitting in a bunker. At least the field gun in the greyzone CAN be killed and therefore stopped, as it still has to be able to SEE its target.
1 Like
In theory, this thing seems easy to counter.
But a player who pursues efficiency rarely carries snipers and mortars, which lack efficiency,
And airplanes usually have more valuable targets to deal with, and when your team needs airplanes to handle AT, it already indicates that AT is too efficient and difficult to handle.
Moreover, AT is much more difficult to detect than tanks, and usually requires teammates to mark the position of AT in order for the aircraft to launch effective attacks.
So the best way is to use tanks to deal with them, or simply ignore them, because most players won’t build their ATs in truly threatening positions. But once built in a truly suitable location, AT can become very annoying.
But I do reconsidered and changed my opinion. Even if the caliber of the AT is increased, it will not pose a significant threat. Unlike tanks, the AT is very low and too many obstacles will block its shells, which is its fatal flaw. And there are very few excellent players who know how to build ATs in the right location, so even if you buff the ATs, there shouldn’t be too many problems. You can deal with them with tanks.
What you are trying to describe is, in fact, a run-and-gun player. The problem with what you are saying, is that snipers and mortars aren’t efficient. I can tell you first hand that this comes down to the player using them, not the weapons themselves.
The weapons themselves are actually some of the MOST efficient in the game.
- Snipers are generally one, maybe two bullets per kill
- Mortars when used properly can yield at least one kill, or two assists per round of ammunition MINIMUM. (I’m not saying every shot kills, but when you divide the number of kills with a set of ammo by the number of rounds fired, this is generally the math that comes up.
NOTE: If using the Soviets or Germans, using the 80mm mortar is even more effective and can even add tank kills to the mix.
Rarely is aircraft “needed” to deal with AT field guns. However, when they are, it comes down to prioritization. You try to say that there are “more valuable targets to deal with”, but you must just be talking about in terms of points.
The most valuable targets strategically are the ones that have the greatest impact on the field. So if a Field Gun is really giving you this much grief, it should be high on that priority list!
They may be smaller, and built in areas that tanks would not be able to access, but that is the whole point. They get these benefits but at the cost of mobility and protection.
If it requires teamwork to spot it and deal with it, then I suggest you make some friends!
Making this game balanced around solo play is an absolute mistake.
If you want to play a solo friendly mode, Lone Fighter mode exists.
As far a difficulty to spot, the muzzle flash is still pretty large. Especially when its firing as often as the Field Guns generally do. This can be seen from the ground as well as from the sky with ease.
Also, pay attention to where the sound is coming from, you can usually track them down easily this way.
Like I said above, Field guns can be placed in locations where tanks would be unable to go, which makes them quite useful from the right locations. If they opened up the map size a bit more, they would become a pretty decent staple for intelligent support players.
I’d like to finish this post commenting on this.
Once a player takes the time to identify a suitable location, run there, build the Field Gun, manually aim every shot, wait for reloads, and try to avoid getting sniped, THEN it gets annoying.
Yet things like the radio operator exist. Who can literally sit in ANY location, including inside bunkers, press a button, and launch artillery barrages that have absolutely devastating effect, every couple of minutes, and there is NO WAY to break the artillery guns to stop them from firing. So a soldier that literally never has to make line-of-sight to the enemy, even at maximum distance can keep launching attacks that cannot be stopped.
THAT is the huge discrepancy in balance.
If you want balance, remove the ease of function from the run-and-gun favorites like radio operator, then we can really get down into balance.