Panzershrek underpowered now?

[Valagrimm]

Ever since the update any time I've used the panzershrek, flank an enemy tank (shermans and russians) I've shot both rockets into the same spot with resounding "thunks" in the weakspot in the back.... but the tankd are still rolling with two burning holes in them. With the American bazooka i can take out tigers and panthers pretty easily?

[Dar]

引用自 deserted_goat：

引用自 Dar：

...

AT launchers aren't designed to be long range engagements lmao, they would hide and pop out technically killing tanks by knocking out the crew, tracking and then taking out the engine with another rocket or AT nades/mollies or getting a lucky shot on the ammo. Is there technical kills on tanks? no ... than your entire point is irrelevant.

Not once have I mentioned long range engagements. I said longer engagements, as in the tanks get damaged, but not destroyed, AT guys need to land shots, then find ammo - giving crews the chance to retreat and live longer. Of course in reality a Panzerschreck would completely knock out a tank easily, but that's not very balanced now is it.

[causality]

引用自 Dar：

Of course in reality a Panzerschreck would completely knock out a tank easily, but that's not very balanced now is it.

Too many streamers would complain about being knocked out by a single Panzerschreck even though it would be realistic and align with what actually happened during the war. A single shot could penetrate up to 200mm of armor depending on angle and distance, which would then ignite the ammo or fuel inside resulting in a huge explosion or just simply kill the crew. Honestly, I think the devs went with the correct choice favoring balance over realism but I also think they are being too generous with the arcadey Battlefield tanks. just to appease a small part of the community.

[[OTS]EchoZenLogos]

引用自 insurgent leader：

引用自 Dar：

Of course in reality a Panzerschreck would completely knock out a tank easily, but that's not very balanced now is it.

Too many streamers would complain about being knocked out by a single Panzerschreck even though it would be realistic and align with what actually happened during the war. A single shot could penetrate up to 200mm of armor depending on angle and distance, which would then ignite the ammo or fuel inside resulting in a huge explosion or just simply kill the crew. Honestly, I think the devs went with the correct choice favoring balance over realism but I also think they are being too generous with the arcadey Battlefield tanks. just to appease a small part of the community.

In real battles, you would have highly coordinated fronts as well. Tanks in urban or forested environments or such would have coordinated squads of infantry meant to cover their advance from any ambushing squads, and it would be difficult for infantry to ever get close enough to actually use anti-tank weaponry. Tanks would fight at long range, or only when heavily supported, to avoid that danger.

So the whole "it would be realistic" angle just seems odd. Sure, it would be realistic - but considering there's no way to make a game a semi-realistic simulation of WW2 combat without making maps ten times bigger than this game has, with 1000 players instead of 100, and giving combined arms and fully coordinated chains of command or something - it seems like making some sacrifices for more fun and balanced gameplay is fair.

As far as I can tell they do a pretty good job with their balancing, since tanks are expensive and yet it only take a couple of AT troops flanking a tank to wipe it off the face of the earth. Since a tank is a three man squad, it being beat out by a couple of troops that get into good position is fair.

Plus you don't need to destroy a tank as infantry to render it useless. You can use smoke on it so that your team can move around it unhindered. You can call it out for friendly tanks so that they can do their main job - taking out other tanks. You can aim for its tracks or engine to slow it down or stop it, requiring it to retreat and repair (leaving it vulnerable to infantry attack) and buying your team time.

[Cruddy]

引用自 Anime Suppressor：

引用自 BDSQ Steel：

AT was overpowered and has had a much needed nerf. 8 out of 10 deaths in tanks were from AT there is a reason....

Could that be because people playing in a World War II-set game tried to tank through an area full of enemy infantry without their own infantry support?

The amount of times I snuck up on Tanks without Infantry anywhere near is very nearly 100% and the amount of times I've had it as a tank is nearly 0% so this is very true.

[Cipher Esteria]

Just give them more Rockets.
I actually like the Ambusher Set more now, since Demo Charges seem to reliably blow up Tanks in one charge now.

Alternative they could make it so that the Panzershreck will reliably penetrate side armor and kill a Tank in a maximum of 2 rockets. The weapon is just to unforgiving as it is right now and feels really weak.

Either that or they want to make the americans easymode on purpose.... what they already are to an extend, for the casual crowd.
Since more than "ahahahaha Dakka Dakka Dakka!" is to much for them.

[Cruddy]

引用自 Mr.Cipher：

Just give them more Rockets.
I actually like the Ambusher Set more now, since Demo Charges seem to reliably blow up Tanks in one charge now.

Alternative they could make it so that the Panzershreck will reliably penetrate side armor and kill a Tank in a maximum of 2 rockets. The weapon is just to unforgiving as it is right now and feels really weak.

Either that or they want to make the americans easymode on purpose.... what they already are to an extend, for the casual crowd.
Since more than "ahahahaha Dakka Dakka Dakka!" is to much for them.

The Sacthel charge can't destroy a Tiger from full health though, even if it's placed underneath at the back, you still have mines but still annoying.

Panzerschreck def needs more ammo though, I've been saying this since I started playing last year, even just 1 more would change it entirely.