AT Tech Not Enough

[Liam]

Really AT Tech is not the key to Infantry<Army, Corp, Division Strength power> The power of the Infantrymen is in his training, his equipment and his vehicles. In SC, the Game Infantry are designed as AT Weapons for a technology gain. Also the increase in size, which makes no difference...

You can consider ATGs a component but not the key element to develop Armies and Corps. You would need two seperate entities as far as that's concerned...

As well, Tanks carried MG and Support vehicle status designed to help better defend from Infantry sabotage, and ATGs...<Heavier Armor and High Explosive Shells used to wipe out ATG Crews>

Watching a show now on the Luger, interesting that it's reputation is not living up to the reality. Perhaps for WW1, but not WW2... The Brits at the beginning of the War, had a Revolver.. Germans used Paratroopers, and extremely bold tactics of Blitzkrieg. There should be a bonus aside from HQs for the first year of War to do away with Keeping france strategy, yet a set date of Surrender as to not make it too easy

[Friendly Fire]

The way AT works in the game, I always considered it as really addressing infanty weapons and tactics overall, not just strictly Anti Tank....

[Liam]

I disagree... For instance Heavy Tank Technology doesn't compensate for the gains of AT Technology. It's a whole different field. The Tech Tree for SC2 could be much improved... It would allow for some versatility with ones spending and not just that but improves the many unique strategies.

As it stands, you could definitely reduce the effectiveness of Jets, Rockets, AT Technology <as it's too uber> and increase Industrial and Heavy Tank technology to make them more worth while. Plus do something with heavy bombers, perhaps allow a further reduction in Entrenchment and more elusive to Fighter interception considering the high flowing heavy armed, armored Strato-fortresses