Engineers type II/III should get heavier anti tank guns

Suggestions
1

Main Suggestion:

well, in order to salvage the critical situation of powercreeps tanks, i suggest that the engineer type III gets the ability to replace the previous anti tank gun, and upgrade it with one much bigger and effective.
( kinda wished for the type II to get a better AT gun as usually, the engy type II is located between or next to the heavier and troubling tanks for certain campaigns. and the type III i wished that would get machineguns emplacements. but not everyone might agree, and i hardly think devs would pull that off given the past )

so, without wasting any time, here are my “candidates” for what engineers should be able to construct:

Germans:

Flak 88:

image
image1920Ă—1080 826 KB

Pros:

  • higer penetration
  • anti air & anti tank capabilities ( so it requires it’s own shell, but this would integrate the anti air targeting system. an unique feature for this gun to make it different from the others )
  • Available to all campaigns ( only germany intended )
  • good depression & elevation
  • Relatively faster to build / have more ammunition
    ( one of the two as a side bonus to compensate due to the fact that cannot be moved around. )

Cons:

  • Cannot Move
  • Low Protection against small arms fire for the crew
  • Slow rate of fire

Italian:

Pros:

  • fast rate of fire
  • can be moved
  • great elevation & depression

Cons:

  • exposed crew
  • less ammonutions
  • mediocre penning against heavier targets
    ( although, in tunisia shouldn’t be an issue )

British:

17 pounder:

image
image1920Ă—1080 792 KB

Pros:

  • Can be moved
  • Higer Penetration
  • Frontal protection
  • have more ammunition ( due to the compartment ammo on the chassy )

Cons:

  • Much slower than the previous cannon and harder to hide.
  • Requires at least 3/4 soldiers to be moved around
  • lack gun depression & elevation
  • Slow rate of fire

Americans:

either:

  • 75 mm Field Gun M1897 on M2 Carriage
    image

or:

  • 3-inch gun M5
    image

( which it’s… “”“similar”"" ( in terms of proes and cons ) to the british one )

and last but not least:

Russians:

  • 57 mm anti-tank gun M1943 (ZiS-2) / 76 mm divisional gun M1942 (ZiS-3) ( the 76 proposed by @134996221 )
    image

Pros:

  • Can be moved
  • Can be used as Artillery ( due to it’s great elevation, therefore can access and switch firing mode similar to a mortar where you have to use the map and range meter )
  • Frontal protection against small arms fire

Cons:

  • Much slower than the previous cannon and harder to hide.
  • Requires at least 3/4 soldiers to be moved around
  • slow rate of fire ( due to the fact that can also be used as mortar )
  • mediocre penning against heavier targets
    ( shouldn’t be an issue in moscow & stalingrad, but might underperform a bit in berlin )

Precisations and features:

first and fore most:

  1. NONE OF THOSE CAN NOR SHOULD BE ABLE TO BE BUILT INSIDE BUILDINGS.
    as, it would be quite a headache with HE spam for example in krolla house and become quite powerful. even though can be easily flanked. the point of those is to be used against tanks. not infantry. those can also be used for the second purpouse, but again. not the primary one.

  2. requires it’s full crew for it’s optimal performance. ( similar to tanks how those works )
    for example, the russian anti tank gun, requires at least 4 alive soldiers near ( or inside. that’s on developers to figure that out how it will work ) to be a bit faster when moving it around, or be able to work around the rate of fire. just like currently tank works. less crew you have, the less efficent the overhall process will be. ( as after all, you can’t expect 2 soldiers to work fast as 4/6 soldiers. that’s kinda the point ).

  3. Either more resources are needed in order to build it, or have a longer time to built it
    as those are more powerfull, in order to also balance them a bit, they either requires more enginners point to construct them, so it’s not like you can spam them left and right ( same goes for refilling ammo. this is more for the russian anti tank gun as it can be quite powerfull because of it’s feature ) or as a compromise for their power, they require extra seconds of hammering in order to complete the construction compared to the level type 1 cannon.

  4. for those smart ass that will outright it deny it’s usefulness, just because YOU do not find it " usefull " or " efficent ", doesn’t make it any less of a valid option for the others and overhall for the game. after all, it’s meant to be used for those who actually use it or needs it. an additional tool to get the job done against specific targets. ( i made this suggestion for other purpose that i will reveal in the future. but, to also have somewhat of a valid counters against heavier tanks like it happens in moscow. or later on be a thing for tunisia when tigers will be a thing. and yada yada yada )

and that’s about it.

in conclusion:

so yeah, that’s it for my suggestion. but if you feel like can be improved/tweaked a bit more, don’t hesitate.
i just wanted to make this post out sooner, ( even though dunno how much will be taken in consideration since feedbacks now days are more of a hit or miss ) and hopefully, we’ll get them.

18 Likes
2

Imo Pak 43 would be better as it’s movable and easier to hide.

2 Likes
3

thought the same.

but in opted for a different and unique gun that comes with a different function.

the 88 would be different from it’s counter parts as you cannot move it, but can deal both with anti tank and air targets. instead of looking like the other generic counter parts.

same for the russian one. can be used as arty, but to not abuse it, it has a slower rate of fire.

or so i thought.

1 Like
4
  1. give mg nest to Enginer 1
  2. upgrade Enginer 1 AT gun to a pak40 level for all faction in all campaigns
  3. go ahead with your idea and give to Enginer 2 heavy AA wo can kill both tanks or plne
  4. Enginer 3 dont have reason to exist
3 Likes
5

Replace that with a 76mm Zis-3

6

you know what’s ““funny””?

those are a thing:
T5
image
T4
image
T3
image
T2
image
T1
image

so… as we can’t change that, had to give sense to the T3 engy cuz god’s only knoes what will be.

1 Like
7

I would love the Flak, especially if they are thinking of adding the bombers from stalingrad to the rest of campaigns

2 Likes
9

AR15 maybe?

10

they have surprises for everyone, don’t be so sure of it.

1 Like
11

I think youre idea should be expanded to a new class somewhat. Ill make a post someday but in a nutshell:

Remove artillery strike feature, (some map exceptions) from radio operators. Replace them with passive and some offensive calls in like: ammo, medical supplies, buildable, recon plane

Add in an Artillery man role:

Would basically spawn with a really heavy gun, work like the mortar in a way. But would be a lot better and less annoying because:

It would be huge. A 120mm + Artillery gun and the massive amount of smoke and muzzle flash the firing produces isnt easy to hide. Very vulnerable to smart snipers and pilots.

It would actually take skill rather than just press in 2 inputs (7 and choose spot). You would have to aim the thing, coordinate with youre team where to fire.

Early level heavy guns would be quite immobile. Except we could use youre idea of Halftracks to tow them around to different positions and fire. Thats where an ammo halftrack would be amazing. Of course there would be SPGs in later levels.

You would fire it mortar style.

2 Likes
12

Shhh we have the moon weapon

1 Like
14

for how much i like or dislike the idea for some parts. reworks ain’t the gaijin/df way.

if it’s small, then they will do it. if not, i’m not so sure of.

tbh, i hardly think they will even implemented what i have suggested above cuz reasons.

so idk.

but i guess i can dream for a bit.

15

Would be nice. Sadly maps are tiny as fuck so a 100mm+ howitzer is kind of overkill imo.

2 Likes
16

Thats the point :wink:

I mean this should all go together with a GRAND rework of sorts:

So basically:

Reworking infantry VS tanks

Reworking progression and tech trees

Reworking some classes

Rebalancing weapons

Expanding map sizes

Fixing exploits like suicide bombing

Introducing motorized units

2 Likes
17

eh… asking enlisted to not be enlisted it’s kinda… a fairy tale.

( which, i’d like to see some of those implemented and reworked, don’t get me wrong, but )

2 Likes
18

Yeah i know

Enlisted being brokenly exploitable is just usual now

2 Likes
19

Pak 38 is better than this gun in most aspects.

Do you notice this gun is the gun which is mounted on m14/41? It struggles to pen tank like Grant.

20

Interestingly enough I’ve been pushing for this for quite sometime.
We have had power level creep in tanks since I started playing but no increase to what Engineers can actually deploy.

My personal feelings though would be having the Pak43 for Berlin as Engineer II and the 37mm single mount for their AA.
I know the old 88 FlaK is Iconic but its too high profile IMO to be serviceable on most maps, and the speed at which planes fly it is not practical to use it in its AA role. If we get bomber runs in all campaigns, then I would be amenable to changing that stance.

And for other campaigns that have the 50mm long AT, they would get the PaK40s and the Allies their equivalents naturally.

1 Like
21

lol noting TNT and a tank mine cant handle hahaha other wise JU188 does realy good. Stop using the 109 6 FW 190 and BF110 lol Normandy defenly needs more AA for axis team to deal with the alies all out carpet bombing