AT Guns: Problems and How to Solve Them?

[Childress]

AT guns can't be concealed or masked in game, usually they are spotted as easily as if they were just put in the middle of a field (I hope that will change it the future, when it comes to Eastern Front).

That's not correct. AT guns that have not moved benefit from a concealment bonus that is abstracted. A benefit that should be conferred on AFVs that are in cover and haven't moved. Along with the abolition of the preposterous Vehicle Hide command.

[db_zero]

We got some urban love and bones tossed our way for MG, I'd like to see some love thrown to AT guns as I agree they are neglected.

As for having them in buildings-that would be nice, but I also have to wonder just how much it was done and how practical that really was. Some have mentioned Soviet 45mms in buildings. If I'm not mistaken they did not have muzzle brakes and it took quite a bit of time a preparation to set them up in buildings.

I have to wonder about the practicality of setting up any AT gun in a building if it had a muzzle brake or was over a certain caliber. Muzzle brakes vent the blast sideways-not something you want in an enclosed space.

I've been in an enclosure as well as next to someone with a a modified AR shooting 7.62x39 and a custom barrel with a muzzle brake and it was very unpleasant. I had a good set of modern ear muffs on too and it still extremely unpleasant. I can't imagine how it would be with an AT gun firing much larger rounds. You'd be deaf with bleeding eardrums in no time.

That all being said and done I'd like to see AT guns get some more love and I like the idea of the crews being able to unman and re-man their guns.

[Vet 0369]

Defense then relocation to an alternate position, as quoted by Childress, should be a viable tactical option.

It isn't.

I'm afraid I must disagree this assessment. I just finished a PBEM playing as the Axis in "Under the Eyes of the White Manor" where I had AT guns. One came under fire after taking out a Sherman and a number of infantry. I lost the machine gunner of the ammo bearers from suppressing fire, and decided the present location wasn't a healthy environment. I packed up the PAK 40 (4 minutes plus) and commanded it to move behind another hedgerow to its rear. It took about 10 minutes to reach the new location, but deployed and faced in time to destroy an M4 in the last few seconds of the last minute of the game. At the same time, I repositioned another PAK 40 about 100 meters to counter a possible thrust from my opponent. It isn't fast, but it definitely works. You simply need to anticipate what your opponent is likely to do, and adjust your forces before the attack:)

[bisu]

I'm afraid I must disagree this assessment. I just finished a PBEM playing as the Axis in "Under the Eyes of the White Manor" where I had AT guns. One came under fire after taking out a Sherman and a number of infantry. I lost the machine gunner of the ammo bearers from suppressing fire, and decided the present location wasn't a healthy environment. I packed up the PAK 40 (4 minutes plus) and commanded it to move behind another hedgerow to its rear. It took about 10 minutes to reach the new location, but deployed and faced in time to destroy an M4 in the last few seconds of the last minute of the game. At the same time, I repositioned another PAK 40 about 100 meters to counter a possible thrust from my opponent. It isn't fast, but it definitely works.

Your description, while undoubtedly true is just an anecdote. WynnterGreen pointed out two facts about the ATG's in game: they are not a VIABLE tactical option in most battles (thus they are underused) and (because) their behaviour is UNREALISTIC (see original footage).

You simply need to anticipate what your opponent is likely to do, and adjust your forces before the attack:)

Well, this general statement could equally have been used to discredit the need for tweaking MGs and mannedAT assets..

[Aragorn2002]

I don't think anyone advocating for major changes to AT Guns is suggesting that they should be able to be raced all over the map like handbarrows.

Fatigue should take care of how far and fast they're able to move.

Terrain should take it's toll, at present it doesn't.

AT guns absolutely need a major overhaul in flexibility and maneuverability to have any relevance in Combat Mission.

Defense then relocation to an alternate position, as quoted by Childress, should be a viable tactical option.

It isn't.

Not even on a paved road with the lightest assets.

At present, AT Guns are barely more than a fixed emplacement without the benefit of a roof.

I'm going purely on memory here, but I seem to recall that part of the problem with fixing AT Guns was that they have to have the capacity to be mounted onto vehicles.

Which has put them in a grey area as far the functionality that can be applied to them.

If anyone knows more about that, I'd be interested to hear it again.

I fully and completly agree with our point of view. Moving AT guns equals suicide at the moment.

[Vet 0369]

Your description, while undoubtedly true is just an anecdote. WynnterGreen pointed out two facts about the ATG's in game: they are not a VIABLE tactical option in most battles (thus they are underused) and (because) their behaviour is UNREALISTIC (see original footage).

Well, this general statement could equally have been used to discredit the need for tweaking MGs and mannedAT assets..

I'm not advocating retaining the existing behavior. I'm simply stating that moving an AT gun is possible, albeit slowly, and in some cases is a tactically viable option. Yes, they should be modeled to a more realistic behavior, but if you want to try, you can still do it.

Another anecdote, I'm told that when the TOW was first introduced to U.S. forces they were told it couldn't be fired from a moving vehicle, couldn't change targets in mid flight, and two couldn't be crossed. At least until the Marines said "Why not?" and did it.

[womble]

Your description, while undoubtedly true is just an anecdote. WynnterGreen pointed out two facts about the ATG's in game: they are not a VIABLE tactical option in most battles (thus they are underused) and (because) their behaviour is UNREALISTIC (see original footage).

They're never going to be a viable tactical option in "most" battles, because you're talking about QBs and MEs. And they're not going to be a viable tactical option for the vast majority of attackers regardless (and that is realistic). Add that not all defensive locations are suitable, and it's a given that ATGs are going to be absent from most battles. They're "viable" in any bocage battle for the defender, pretty much, and any other battle with long, narrow sight lines from conealment. Which is realistic. What's not "realistic" is that short range battles that most CM games seem to be. ISTR someone producing some numbers for tank kills by towed american ATGs, and there simply weren't any worth reporting.

Use ATGs properly on the defensive and they can be effective. Expect them to dominate a battlefield used in singletons from open fields, and don't be surprised when they fail. Perhaps there should be a way of defenders concealing ATGs (or anything) in otherwise open terrain, but that's a pretty small failing.

[bisu]

They're never going to be a viable tactical option in "most" battles, because you're talking about QBs and MEs. And they're not going to be a viable tactical option for the vast majority of attackers regardless (and that is realistic). Add that not all defensive locations are suitable, and it's a given that ATGs are going to be absent from most battles. They're "viable" in any bocage battle for the defender, pretty much, and any other battle with long, narrow sight lines from conealment. Which is realistic. What's not "realistic" is that short range battles that most CM games seem to be. ISTR someone producing some numbers for tank kills by towed american ATGs, and there simply weren't any worth reporting.

Use ATGs properly on the defensive and they can be effective. Expect them to dominate a battlefield used in singletons from open fields, and don't be surprised when they fail. Perhaps there should be a way of defenders concealing ATGs (or anything) in otherwise open terrain, but that's a pretty small failing.

I don' t understand what you mean with "proper" use of broken ATG's. They currently suffer from unrealistic lack of mobility. Period.

Before MG you could have said: "Use bazookas properly and they can be effective". No need to let them be fired from interiors.

I agree with you that ATG's can not be used in small or medium CM battles effectively. But in large battles, even in ME's the encounter develops into smaller attack/defend fights in separate map sectors, and this is where realistic ATG mobility could be of great value..

[womble]

I don' t understand what you mean with "proper" use of broken ATG's. They currently suffer from unrealistic lack of mobility. Period.

Realistic mobility of ATGs involves prime movers. Not pushing the sucker. While the current system isn't 100% conguent with reality, it is good enough for government work.

I agree with you that ATG's can not be used in small or medium CM battles effectively.

That's not what I said. I said that there are a lot of occasions where you shouldn't expect to use ATGs. The size (in terms of numbers of units) of the battle doesn't much matter if the terrain is right for ATGs (that is, close with lots of good concealment or a large field with some good firing positions).

But in large battles, even in ME's the encounter develops into smaller attack/defend fights in separate map sectors, and this is where realistic ATG mobility could be of great value..

On big maps that mobility is going to be provided by tows, not pushed movement. The only disadvantages that guns currently suffer in this sort of environment is that they can't be pulled out backwards and they can't be pushed "ready deployed" forwards into the firing position. The first can often be sidestepped by having the prime mover come close enough to the gun that you want to shift that it doesn't have to go anywhere once it's "packed up" (if you expect to move the gun, you'd better plan for the covered escape or you're not going to get away even if the gun could reverse while still deployed). The second makes it harder to sneak a gun into a firing position that's under observation, though the reduced spotting of AFVs will mean tanks need infantry eyes to be able to nail the gun while it's deploying.

The occasions where improved mobility is of "great value" are edge conditions. Sure, it'd be nice, often convenient, to be able to manhandle the things the way some were IRL, but it certainly wouldn't mean they'd get picked in every QB, and it shouldn't.

[WynnterGreen]

it is good enough for government work.

If by 'good enough for Government work', you mean, 'good enough to be assigned a task, but not good enough to be useful', then you're correct.

Set aside the assertion that they're not used 'properly'.

You're probably right. That's down to the player.

AT Guns are broken as a viable option because of the completely UNREALISTIC limitations in movement speed, deployment speed, ability to move while deployed, ability to mount & dismount and concealment.

That's what's wrong with them, and that's what needs addressing.

This is about unrealistic functionality, NOT unrealistic expectations of effectiveness, or misguided use.

[easytarget]

Use ATGs properly on the defensive and they can be effective. Expect them to dominate a battlefield used in singletons from open fields, and don't be surprised when they fail.

Ah yes thanks for explaining it, the problem everyone has is as a result of using them improperly and harboring expectations they could dominate open fields with them. Got it. This is just an improper setting of expectations.

Whereas anyone fielding an ATG would expect it to do something, the solution is to re-set those expectations and expect nothing and thereby become happy and completely satisfied when those expectations are repeatedly met.

I feel better now.

[MajorProblem]

I agree WynnterGreen AT guns need some tweaking.

[womble]

If by 'good enough for Government work', you mean, 'good enough to be assigned a task, but not good enough to be useful', then you're correct.

Rubbish. ATGs can be useful. As I've said above, I have stalked a tank (it was a Sherman, and it stayed too long in one place) with an ATG (PaK40, from some heavy woods behind Bocage) and scored a kill. I've also had ATGs at long range, and in good concealment make swiss cheese of a tank assault. It took the opponent three mortar strikes to actually find one of the guns; the other never took an incoming round.

AT Guns are broken as a viable option...

You keep saying this, but you're completely overstating the case. They have some minor disadvantages compared to RL, but it's reality (insufficient concealment, no keyhole FoF, no reverse slope) and aspects other than mobility (the all-knowing enemy commander who can call off board mortars on places that no FO unit has even an inkling represents a threat; even if you could reverse or uncrew a gun, how often would that save you from the incoming?) that breaks them as a viable option in the vast majority of the cases where they aren't usable. Not the fact that they're not as manhandlable in-game as they should perhaps should be.

This is about unrealistic functionality, NOT unrealistic expectations of effectiveness, or misguided use.

No, no it's not. Your expectation that fixing the functionality which is missing will do very much at all to change the usability of ATGs is the biggest reality disconnect.

[womble]

Ah yes thanks for explaining it, the problem everyone has is as a result of using them improperly and harboring expectations they could dominate open fields with them. Got it.

Amazing, really, since your misrepresentation of what I wrote couldn't possibly be wilful, could it?

Whereas anyone fielding an ATG would expect it to do something...

Why would it be a realistic expectation that an ATG would do anything? Their kill per loss ratios over the course of the war were well below unity. A fact represented in their QB point cost.

...the solution is to re-set those expectations and expect nothing...

Well, if you want to plonk the thing on a bare hill top and expect it to do something, you need to also buy a big armoured shell for the gun and the running gear to get it there. The combination is called a tank, and you still might find that's not the best way of using it.

Historically all you can do is hope that your hard work in finding good placements for your ATGs produce some result. Expecting anything is what most people are doing wrong, so yes, expectations need managing. Evidently.

I feel better now.

So happy to have helped.

[lurrp]

There are several things I think could fix this problem, and I see it as a problem. I picked up this Osprey book about Panzerjäger on the Eastern Front, and it inspired me enough to play around with towed AT. I've really come to respect these guns as potent weapons, but I think their practically complete lack of mobility is an issue.

First of all, these things need to be able to turn faster. If nothing else, fix this. Especially with light guns, I think the gun should be able to turn to engage new targets in a matter of seconds.

Second, I think being able to place guns up to a certain size/caliber in buildings/bunkers would vastly increase their staying power. I'm sure everyone here has experienced the frustration of a few luck rounds or a stray mortar bomb knocking out a gun crew. Even just getting the gun into a small building would help them stay alive much longer.

Finally, I believe crews should be able to mount/dismount their guns at will. However, there should also be a "Bail" command, which spikes the gun and renders it inoperable. If a player dismounts an AT gun without spiking it and leaves it this way, unmanned at the end of the game, I believe it should count in the other side's favor.

[WynnterGreen]

No, no it's not. Your expectation that fixing the functionality which is missing will do very much at all to change the usability of ATGs is the biggest reality disconnect.

It's an absolute given that if you change functionality you'll effect usability.

How much isn't known until changes are made, and is contingent on its purpose, application and extent.

So how is it that you know that fixing AT Gun functionality wont do very much at all?

And, given that you have no idea what my expectations are, I'm puzzled as to how it is that you feel qualified to make statements about them?

I've provided EVIDENCE that in game AT Guns are severely limited in several aspects as measured against their real world counterparts.

You haven't refuted any of the evidence, you've merely made pronouncements regarding my expectations and how I've overstated the case.

Try playing the ball, not the man.

The current situation, in game, where it currently takes 4 minutes to perform a task undertaken in thirty seconds in real life, isn't a 'minor disadvantage'.

It's significant, and it compounds with all the other unrealistic and significant limitations currently reducing the functionality of AT Guns.

I'm not sure why you're being so hopelessly apologetic for something that's demonstrably dysfunctional compared to its real world equivalent.

Followed by blithely skipping to the conclusion that making changes wont achieve anything substantial, all without providing a skerrick of evidence.

And I'm the one talking 'rubbish'? Bravo.

[simmox]

It's an absolute given that if you change functionality you'll effect usability.

How much isn't known until changes are made, and is contingent on its purpose, application and extent.

So how is it that you know that fixing AT Gun functionality wont do very much at all?

And, given that you have no idea what my expectations are, I'm puzzled as to how it is that you feel qualified to make statements about them?

I've provided EVIDENCE that in game AT Guns are severely limited in several aspects as measured against their real world counterparts.

You haven't refuted any of the evidence, you've merely made pronouncements regarding my expectations and how I've overstated the case.

Try playing the ball, not the man.

The current situation, in game, where it currently takes 4 minutes to perform a task undertaken in thirty seconds in real life, isn't a 'minor disadvantage'.

It's significant, and it compounds with all the other unrealistic and significant limitations currently reducing the functionality of AT Guns.

I'm not sure why you're being so hopelessly apologetic for something that's demonstrably dysfunctional compared to its real world equivalent.

Followed by blithely skipping to the conclusion that making changes wont achieve anything substantial, all without providing a skerrick of evidence.

And I'm the one talking 'rubbish'? Bravo.

keep up the good fight mate

i'm certainly with you,i think a lot of players spend more time on the forum than actually playing the game,if their of the opinion its all apples?

and speaking of game,in my opinion AT guns just aren't worth the risk in any competetive game i play.

i dont play the AI only humans.

ive tried to give the AT guns a good shake,in all forms the game allows.

i love AT guns,but,i cant stand the way they are represented at the moment,

had a beautiful defense QB with baneman awhile back,a defenders dream

his advancing troops were able to spot my concealed AT gun emplacements too easily.

i selected an airborne force and wanted to use their available assets and not cherry pick a more suitable force.

in short they didnt fire a shot the entire game.they are clumsy,slow,too hard to position with any reliability,take to long to move and setup,and get spotted far to easy at range.

why anyone would take an AT gun over an SP/TD is beyond me

i dont care if BFC fix them or not.i just refuse to waste valuable points on them.

they are crap,sorry.

and just to make sure,i tried it again with the latest patch against another BoBer,sadly

same result,total disapointment.

apart from that,im sweet:)

edit,just to specify an issue ive got.

57mm AT gun at around 800m from the enemy approach,in a reasonably thick forest,set one action square back in,behind a sandbag wall,right?

around turn 3 or 4 a HMG42,opens up on the hidden gun and suppresses it until its blown to kingdom come by a tank of some discription a few turns later.

i couldnt even tell where the MG fire was coming from either,even though i had the AT HQ team on overwatch in the same area,approx.

bloody maddening.

apples? i think not.

[womble]

It's an absolute given that if you change functionality you'll effect usability.

True, but then it's down to degree. You think it will change ATG from useless to useful. I think you're crazy.

So how is it that you know that fixing AT Gun functionality wont do very much at all?

I look at the times I've used or considered using ATGs and the methods by which I would have employed them, and make a judgement that the manhandling changes you're so convinced would make a difference would never have changed things. Then I make allowances for the fact that there might well be situations I've not seen, so there might be some occasions where a difference would have been made. On the evidence I have, though, those occasions must be infrequent.

And, given that you have no idea what my expectations are, I'm puzzled as to how it is that you feel qualified to make statements about them?

Your stated position is: ATGs are useless because of their mobility limitations. Your apparent assumption/expectation is that upgrading their mobility options to the level you feel would be realistic would change that so they would be useful. Otherwise what would be the point of making the changes? Or arguing for those changes on the basis of functionality of the asset? Either your expectations at a general level are apparent, or you're trying to play some mind game, or you're just not very consistent. Or are you only seeking greater fidelity, whether it actually has any effect on the game at all?

I've provided EVIDENCE that in game AT Guns are severely limited in several aspects as measured against their real world counterparts.

And I'm not disputing that. What I'm disputing, as you apparently actually managed to understand in the early part of your post, is how that would be worth spending the coding time on in the game.

You haven't refuted any of the evidence...

No, because it's not in question.

...you've merely made pronouncements regarding my expectations and how I've overstated the case...

When you make statements like "ATGs are broken because", you're overstating the case, because they're not, IME, broken. They are capable of getting tank kills. In good conditions, multiple kills. Can they do everything an ATG can do in real life? No. Can any of the units in the game? No.

Try playing the ball, not the man.

The "ball" is your assertion that ATGs are "broken" (not that they aren't as mobile as IRL) and that fixing that would somehow "unbreak" them.

I'm not sure why you're being so hopelessly apologetic for something that's demonstrably dysfunctional compared to its real world equivalent.

Because coding resources are finite, and they would be better spent on making changes that will actually change the general game play. Cutting deployment times for some ATGs might not take very long, but adding in a reverse movement mode for crew served weapons, the ability to move more than a jiggle while deployed, or the ability to recrew them would be serious adjustments to the architecture of the game.

Followed by blithely skipping to the conclusion that making changes wont achieve anything substantial, all without providing a skerrick of evidence.

I can show you end-of-battle screens where ATGs have scored tank kills. I didn't think they'd be necessary, because it's hardly incredible. Or maybe you haven't had a single ATG succeed.

And I'm the one talking 'rubbish'? Bravo.

Yep. Every time you say "Broken" wrt ATGs.

[womble]

i dont play the AI only humans.

[snip]

his advancing troops were able to spot my concealed AT gun emplacements too easily.

in short they didnt fire a shot the entire game.they are clumsy,slow,too hard to position with any reliability,take to long to move and setup,and get spotted far to easy at range.

why anyone would take an AT gun over an SP/TD is beyond me

Because, historically, it's what they had. They're cheaper.

57mm AT gun at around 800m from the enemy approach,in a reasonably thick forest,set one action square back in,behind a sandbag wall...

Try it without the sandbag wall. They don't get the concealment bonus the gun does and will attract all manner of fire from a human player when they are inevitably spotted. That's assuming you've actually got some concealment for your gun, and aren't just putting it under some trees and assuming it's "in forest".

[WynnterGreen]

......

Keen to reply.

Headed away for a long weekend.

[poesel]

It's quite clear that an argument that something is 'not useful' or 'not worth the points' will not move BFC to do anything.

Prove it that CM does it wrong and BFC will fix it (after enough complaining ).

[easytarget]

Always amazes me how often this forum forgets this is a game.

[A Canadian Cat]

Second, I think being able to place guns up to a certain size/caliber in buildings/bunkers would vastly increase their staying power. I'm sure everyone here has experienced the frustration of a few luck rounds or a stray mortar bomb knocking out a gun crew. Even just getting the gun into a small building would help them stay alive much longer.

Just as a note about something you can do today - sandbag walls. My AT guns are lasting a lot longer behind them then without them. That includes fox holes.

[womble]

Just as a note about something you can do today - sandbag walls. My AT guns are lasting a lot longer behind them then without them. That includes fox holes.

That's interesting. And contrary to my experience. Sandbags just seem to get spotted and attract attention, when an unsandbagged gun remains unseen. Obversely, sandbag walls don't seem to give any noticeable protection against mortars, or no more than the gun shield does: direct hits and hits behind the gun still mangle the crew. Mortars (or other arty) are the primary ATG killers, IME.

[Doug Williams]

My experience with AT/infantry guns is that they are not quite as useless as some of the posters in this thread have stated. I have both used them effectively and had them used effectively against me in PBEM games.

Note that I am only talking about the defender using them in an attack scenario/QB. I would probably never bother buying them as the attacker or in a meeting engagement, unless the map allowed me to place them in a useful position on initial setup.

Could they use some tweaking? Sure, I think so. I like the idea of a camouflage option to make them harder to detect. Should they be easier to move? I'll let you guys hash that out. I tend to never move them except for facing changes.