As event vehice
The R.Pz.B.54 rocket-propelled grenade launcher had an 88 mm caliber and a 1,400 mm barrel. It used R.Pz.B.GR.4322 grenades. These grenades had a built-in rocket engine that allowed them to reach speeds of up to 110 m/s and effectively engage targets at ranges of up to 150 m. When fired, the grenade could penetrate up to 230 mm of homogeneous armor
I mean in effect its an Ontos but using panzershreks, its a funny little vehicle, I would certainly have no issue with it.
However I would like to see it as a rider 2 squad item, assuming we do one day get armoured cars and etc. Purely because it would be a bit too weak for a tank, with no real armour and no anti infantry ability.
I think it could work in BR2.
The idea of Rider 2 is interesting, but as long as each team is only 10 people, we can’t give people more vehicle slots.
I mean I think 1 more vehicle slot for an armoured car could absolutely work, especially if they allow it to move a bit wider across the flanks vs everyone else, to encourage it in a recon role. Could be a nice change for normal Rider 1 squads too.
But yes, its been a long time, we do both need and deserve bigger matches, at least 16 vs 16, ideally even a big action type mode with say 32 v 32 squads, imagine the chaos!
The Sd Kfz 234 and Panzerwerfer are both “tanks”
Rider 2 should be regular cars like jeeps and kubelwagens
The mistakes of the past have no place dictating the future. Not to mention a bit different than this.
I think you can split heavy armoured cars like the Puma or Ba-10, vs the lighter ones like the Sdkfz 221/222 as well.
But imo, Rider 1 should get jeeps as well as bikes, let it be an option, maybe make it so bikes can carry medkits while jeeps get ammo? You could further diversify it as well as we see more unique bikes like a mortar bike, ATR’s, even light AT guns in some cases.
Sure as long as they have horrible splash damage against infantry closer to the current infantry anti tank rockets. We don’t need more vehicles that can slaughter infantry with huge splash areas. I have enough of getting killed by rockets out of nowhere that I can predict avoid or dodge
In my opinion Rider is more closer to infantry than vehicle.
Motorcycles that “had” mortars only carried them on board for them to be deployed on the ground. The advantage was just that you could get them into battle faster than on foot
This is a stark difference than a Motorcycle that happens to have a MG or something mounted specifically as a combat arm
Sure we can just say it’s a game lmao and have you firing the mortar while speeding around, but I don’t think Mortar-cycles work
I say any kind of vehicle that’s job isn’t to transport infantry or act like dismounted cavalry (Motorcycle and jeep), is the tank slot. Your job is to attack the enemy with anything you got.
I mean not entirely right, there were absolutely variants with the mortar built into the frame, some more than others, however just make it so you have to stop to fire, its a very very easy mechanic to add.
Again,
Very different vehicles, with different roles, yet both equally important throughout, why should we exclude an entirely separate class of vehicles based on your whims? Not to mention, very very different scales of power vs a tank. It would allow the lighter MG equipped vehicles to shine even at higher BR’s, while not simultaneously detracting from the team effort, not to mention being generally more fun.
why BR 2? if that thing is shooting with Panzershreck it can easily take out all tanks in this game.
Yes many different vehicles but at the end it’s just 10 players and 2 ground vehicles per team. I think there’s no point in dividing vehicle types.
I think it’s better to keep it simple. Rider and Transport are, at best, infantry leaning classes. The tank slot covers actual tanks, tank destroyers, self propelled artillery, flamethrowers, AA. A vehicle whose’s primary job is to fight and nothing else. Sure you can stick an MG on a truck but it’s primary role is to just park and everyone dismounts to fight
Should the Panzer 3 J not count as a tank when you’re at BR 5 with King Tigers or Stuarts vs Pershings
Anyone can play as any vehicle. I’m the kind of player who plays as whatever vehicle I want. If I chose a light tank for my current set then you bet I’m going to use it even at BR 5
For better or for worse you do what job you can with the units you brought
Plus it’s basically no different than a low vs high BR vehicle. Is a vehicle designed for low BR, yes, is there anything stopping you from using it in BR 5, no.
See point already made about not letting the mistakes of the past dictate the future.
Your comparing apples and oranges my friend, still very different vehicles despite how you try to make out otherwise.
And thats fine, but by doing so you actively hurt your team. So going back to the point of not letting past mistakes dictate the future, how about making it so you can use lighter vehicles at higher BRs, all the while not hurting your team and in fact being able to properly support it, via an increased ability to scout, and access to wider flanking route.
In general, allowing far more vehicles to be added to the game allowing for far more variety and fun over time. Not to mention increasing the target pool that ATRs can be effective against is always a good idea.
Idk if you have misunderstood, but these are vehicles which would at max have a 20/25mm gun, these arent going to be HE spammers, they are more useful at suppressing enemy positions, something tanks often cant focus on since they have other roles on the battlefield.
Not to mention you could add the dedicated AA slot that many many people have asked for into this instead, killing two birds with one stone.
It has nothing to counter infantry, and it has no armor.
I disagree. The point is that (obviously) there are variable power levels of vehicles and there is no point in trying to split up their types, like the example of a Stuart and a Pershing.
Any vehicle that isn’t a motorcycle or an infantry transport is fine in the home of the tank because they’re basically like a light tank.
I do think it is interesting to have vehicles with different roles, but I feel ultimately the Rider and Transport are basically Infantry squads that there is no point in giving them more “specialized vehicles”.
And they are basically no different than a light tank so I don’t think there’s a point in separating them. The Stug, Sd Kfz 234/4, and a 251 variant are all armed with the same gun. So to me it boils down back to Stuart vs Pershing.
Why would a Sd Kfz 234 armed with a Pak 40 be a scout vehicle slot while the Stuart is a tank slot.
People only say that now because the only AA we have are peashooters. When we get the Flakpanther and all the various flak 88 platforms then they won’t be asking for a separate slot
Or how about flamethrowers. Right now we have weak little rats. I’ve seen people asking to make flamethrowers their own slots too. But there are flamethrower KVs, Jumbos, there was an experimental Tiger. They certainly wouldn’t want a heavy flamethrower around in addition to whatever normal tanks are out. So why separate a weak little flamethrower and a heavy flamethrower, they’re both flamethrowers, the only difference is their strength……just like a light and heavy tank
That’s why I think it’s fine to have the tank slot cover pretty much everything. You bring whatever vehicle in your deck to battle and do your job. Whether you spawn as a Panzer II, Stug, Jagdtiger, or Panzer IV
Now we’re back to Stuart vs Pershing. Any vehicle that isn’t a bike or transport is basically just a low BR vehicle.
I’d love to see more “light” vehicles get added, but I think they should just be regular vehicles.
Right Im going to preface this by saying Im not sober, so Im likely going to call you a retard or something, sorry in advance. Also double sorry because this wont be coherent at all.
“I disagree, Its obvious that there is very different vehicles”
Like ffs, I feel like Im speaking to a brick wall. You seem obsessed with the Stuart vs Pershing equation for some fucking reason, completely ignoring the fact an ARMOURED CAR is different to a FUCKING TANK… We arent comparing a fucking stuart to a fucking pershing, there is no fucking infighting, this is talking about working in fucking cooperation with one a-fucking-other, something that might be foreign but hear me out, working together good, grug together strong Grug master race fuck if I know.
Right sorry rant aside, no, we arent talking about a stuart, we arent even talking about a Pz2, both of which are vastly different to what is actually being compared here, armoured car, such as the 221/222, Ill save my later rant about the larger gun armed models which I did in fact already cover and you just straight up ignored.
Take the 221/222 (I keep going to these as an example since its the quintessial armoured car example of WW2), Its has even less armour than any (still armoured vehicle) in the game, to the point a strong enough rifle or even LMG could penetrate it from close range to the side/rear, This isnt enough ofc to not do the dumb thing of tacking even more vehicles onto the very limited number of squads that we have now.
“I think its interesting but I dont want interesting because I just want basic bitch infantry squads, especially the particularly unpopular and weak rider squad”
I lack words at this point, I dont want to be completely unhinged, but this is just dumb. I mean for a start, the APC Squads are in fact given “specialized vehicles” so I dont even know why your going with that angle???
And maybe, just maybe its a good idea to give the otherwise massively underpowered squad type a much needed boost, or at bare least, a reason to place them.
Right this part, for the 3rd FUCKING TIME,
Perhaps I should give you the benefit of doubt and jsut say you critically misunderstood, but the likes of the 221/222 would be entirely separate to the likes of the Puma. Where are Armoured cars like the Puma or AEC would remain with tank squads, lighter vehicles like even the AB 41 which currently have no place in the game, could move to a Rider 2 squad instead along other vehicles like the M20, Ba-64, etc, etc, from there would could allow them to move further along the flanks vs other squads to encourage them in a recon role, perhaps increasing their viability further by allowing them to call in artillery, (though at a reduced rate vs normal radio squads ofc, and without their ancillary abilities.).
Okay a few things, the wooden mock up flak panther has no place in the game, and even if it did, it would be BR5 and hence, jets would still be an issue.
The Wirbel or the Skink would be the peak of these SPAA platforms, the skink in particular due to it being fully enclosed. But even still, just move these to BR 5 and its perfectly fine still, cope over a literal nothingburger.
Ive not seen those people at all, are they in the room with us now? And should heavy flamethrower tanks prove too much, just move them up no? Balancing go brrrr. (Not to mention why would any of those tanks not be tanks, its in the name, like come on really, this level of argument is pathetic and time wasting, not that I can complain about that, this even thread is a time waste, certainly my posts are a time waste.)
Thanks for listing only tanks and not a single armoured car, really drove home the point there, you know what, maybe this was a big misunderstand and Im just dumb for thinking your as dumb as I think you are.
Oh yeah, and how would vehicles like say a WASP equipped UC fit into that mix? Or hell even the Dingo, how would that fit into a tank squad? Or any number of countless vehicles that dont fit into the role of tank nor APC.
