Currently, like engineer weapons, they are effective for most airplanes, we know it, unfortunately certain airplanes, even receiving hits in vital areas, continue flying because they are designed to resist, I can understand this, but I think we need a version for higher levels of AA and SPAA, perhaps this could be extrapolated to other structures, but this is not the case in this suggestion, currently the SPAA and engineer weapons occupy a good power at low level but from a certain point their capacity declines. and also if you use SPAA you occupy a tank slot, the problem is that we cannot include it within the slots in which the motorcycles or APCs are found, so here goes the idea that will probably bring hatred from many people: an extra exclusive slot for the SPAA that does not occupy the tank slot but is not included in the infantry either, but rather another different slot and if there is already a SPAA, another cannot be brought in until it is destroyed
I think a general “light vehicle” slot would be great, and in it could be housed truly light (zero armor, or shielded-but-open fighting compartments) vehicles with nonetheless good (or even great) armaments for their tier. “Glass cannon” type vehicles - even something like the current event SdKfz 251/9 has more crew protection than the sort of equipment I’m talking about here.
(To go off on a real tangent - but relevant to recent spirited discussions in this forum - I think this could be a potential growth path for the Rider class).
To make it appealing to the developers, the idea could be limited to a single slot, so that one would have to choose vehicles specialized for anti-aircraft, anti-tank, or even anti-personnel use from the tech tree, but vehicles good for two or more purposes could be offered as premium units.
that’s a good concept, indeed
Yeah, we could see something as in the specific squad’s tree for engineers different AA encampment types, from the 2cm KWK einzelflak to the 2cm flakveirling to the 3.7cm flak 43, and possibly the 8.8cm flak 36
(Germany as an example)
As I noted with the other post, I don’t think adding even more SPAAs is a good idea.
I am however all for better AAs. Though I think the engineer class as a WHOLE needs overhauled, in a way that makes an effective difference both to AAs and ACs.
same goes for at cannons, one specially for AT Squads and maybe another version for engies
Personally, I think the AT cannons should be restricted to the AT squad. (Keep in mind I use AT field guns all the time, so when I say restrict them, I’m not saying this out of bias. It would force me to reconsider my lineup, but for the sake of balance I do think it is necessary.)
The higher tier squad that uses them, the larger it will be. I believe there is roughly a BR2 and a BR4 AT squad for each nation. These are the ones that should get them predominately. (That way only 2 models needed per nation. One for low tier, one for high tier.)
For the ENGINEER squad, replace the AT field guns with AUTOCANNONS (which are essentially the current AA, but set on wheels similar to the AT guns, and able to angle all the way down to the ground). This way they have something to use against infantry, light armor, etc.
Then, in the place of the current AA, replace it with ACTUAL AA. Flak cannons for example. Something that can actually counter aircraft decently and at a range that its still useful.
I’m looking especially at the bomber raids.
It takes a single person to call them in, and only takes a second, yet generally takes multiple people bare minimum 30 seconds, once the bombers even get into range, to kill them.
This is a MASSIVE imbalance.
Having access to larger, more effective AA is much needed.
For those who complain about “what it will do to player aircraft”, I remind you that flying low is a great way to avoid AA fire.
So is turning off your engine at about 2km and gliding in. If they can’t hear you coming, its VERY unlikely they will be ready to shoot you down. (I do it ALL the time with the Sb-2m, JU-188, and A-20-G. It makes the distance just fine.)