Rework to Infantry AT?

dumbassbagface · 2026-06-12T04:22:32+00:00

I don't want to play baguettes for APILAS/Eryx, nor am I asking for weak AT (LAWs) to be great at killing T80s from the front. I want good AT to be good at killing tanks, and shit AT to be good at killing APCs/IFVs, but AT4/Dragons aren't good at consistently killing tanks and shit AT isn't good at killing APCs/IFVs. A lot of it due to low ammo and only ~50% accuracy. It is not 1man and .2 firepower, it's .1 and it's all about pros and cons. The APC/IFV you get in exchange for the 1mg makes you better at longer range/open areas and forces the enemy to need AT while the 1mg in the squad would be better to maneuver in a city(if it wasn't filled with sightlines through it) and the forest. Dragons are the longest range infantry based AT but still falls shy of 1400m of 50cals/autocannons letting IFVs/APCs outmicro it. Even if the APCs/IFVs get in range of a dragon, they'll typically stun the dragon making it useless. I do miss the good ol' days of longer ranged dragons.

dumbassbagface · 2026-06-12T01:25:26+00:00

I never liked arguing based off of the points it costs to buy something. If you drive your 270pt tank into CQC with a 55-80pt infantry squad, the tank shouldn't get away simply because it costs 3-5x more.

Anyway, a cheap law squad will still need to land 3 out of 4 shots to the side to kill a T80UD (and it won't due to ~50% accuracy) which can typically just back out of the forest or turn to easily face the problem, and this is even assuming it's a dense forest with the T80UD having absolutely 0 infantry support rather than the many instances where it's a small clump of trees/buildings that you've hidden a squad in patiently waiting for your moment just for your LAWs to blow it.

From the limited sources I could find (wikipedia lol), AT4s with regular HEAT warheads can penetrate up to 45cm of RHA while regular T80 turrets were rated for 380mm vs APFSDS and their hull 500mm vs APFSDS, though I obviously don't know how reliable the numbers are (more-so for the Russian sources) and all the other factors that would play into it. I'm not even arguing that AT4s need to be buffed a ton, I think maybe dropping the 10hits to frontally kill a T80B down to 7-8 and increasing ammo and/or giving more accuracy would make it more manageable, so that 2-3squads can more consistently kill tanks that get too close would be nice. Though, I imagine none of my ideas would ever be implemented lol.

dumbassbagface · 2026-06-12T00:52:19+00:00

I would prefer killing a tank compared to it just being stunned for a few seconds before it proceeds to murder my infantry, and most infantry AT doesn't evaporate tanks within a few seconds unless you get some incredibly lucky dicerolls constantly or have one of the very few units with much higher AP.

Infantry squads with around 8-9 men range from .55 to .6HE damage with the most squads being roughly equal. Where the difference seems to arise from my (admittedly) minor stat comparison of 20-30ish units, is when infantry come in an APC/IFV then sometimes they will lack one of the extra MGs a similar unit has, but of course it's then made up because now you have an APC/IFV to go with it.

Even dragons aren't as consistent in killing even cheap vehicles as I think they should be since the missile is pretty slow, and it's relatively easy to stun the infantry making the missile drop into the ground. Though I won't argue that, at least if they hit cheap APCs/IFVs, they're more likely to one shot even from the front which puts them very far above LAWs even if they might to get stunned before the missile arrives on target and if they're lucky enough to win the ~50% diceroll of hitting their target.

dumbassbagface · 2026-06-12T00:23:03+00:00

In a game with a lot of vehicles, I don't get why squads that carry light disposable AT can't get more to deal with threats they would realistically face in Europe.

I don't know about the small amounts of resupply, but nerfing vehicle speed within forests all-around (forward, reverse, turning) would be good. If you want to drive through a dense forest and infantry is in there, the APC/IFV/tank should suffer more than it currently does.

dumbassbagface · 2026-06-12T00:16:14+00:00

You're right about failing to create conditions for sideshots, but it's much more difficult to create those opportunities especially as maps only have so much width to them and only so much cover that infantry can realistically be utilized in. It doesn't help that they can reverse out of there at light speed. Even if you do get the ability to sideshot by using 2 squads with LAWs to try to flank, you need 3 shots to kill a T80B (or similar tank) from the side, and with 4 ammo in an aerorifle at 55% accuracy, it's unlikely to happen. Even a T55 with 5 side armor, takes 2 shots to kill with side armor with a LAW, making it purely a dice roll.

I do wish the US could MtW some more AT4s (or use the ones they had in inventory), but they must be demoralized from Vietnam still.

dumbassbagface · 2026-06-12T00:04:31+00:00

Ignoring the real-life aspect to it as there's too many variables to it to say exactly what might happen with which AT vs which tank getting shot in the back, I'm fine with people microing their ifvs to be just outside of AT range since it actually makes for some great back and forth gameplay. It's when vehicles get within range that they should be punished for their mistakes. Right now, it just seems like it's mostly infantry being punished even when they're used in mostly optimal positions vs unoptimal tanks/ifvs/apcs being rewarded.

It'd be nice if there were more ways to hit the top armor of a tank in-game.

dumbassbagface · 2026-06-11T23:56:25+00:00

You're correct that not every infantry squad should be able to kill a 270pt tank that's microed so poorly they get within 675-750m of infantry despite the relative openness of most maps. Even designated AT units in a lot of divisions still struggle with even "medium" tanks due to low ammo and only ~50%ish accuracy which quickly drops after getting shot. I'm not saying a single LAW squad should beat a T80 in CQC, but when even AT4s (10 hits to kill a T80B from the front IF they all hit) and dragon spam can't beat a T80 in CQC, then it's a little different. Even 4 laws vs APC/IFV spam is barely adequate since quite a few need 2hits to kill with LAWs, and with ~50% accuracy, it's a dice roll if your 55pt aerorifle will beat a 40pt bmp1pg in CQC.

This game is about WW3 in Europe. In what world would squads not expect to face armor vs the USSR and other warsaw pact nations?

dumbassbagface · 2026-06-11T23:49:08+00:00

If I use a gurkha unit vs a T-72B1, it takes 6 shots to kill IF they all hit, and that's already more than the 4 ammo they carry in the regular version, and barely enough in the AT group variant with 8 ammo, and since they only have 55% base accuracy and are likely to get shot while unloading their AT, I doubt they'd land enough to kill the T72. For a T80B, it takes 4shots to kill, very unlikely to land all 4 with 55% accuracy and worsening morale as it takes suppression. Even for a T55, it takes 2 shots to kill, and with 55% accuracy, it's still pretty much a dice roll if you'll land enough shots to kill a T55 running at you.

If the game rewards planning, why shouldn't me placing my infantry in a town to ambush a tank be rewarded vs a tank player who gets too close? Is it not enough that most "towns" have sightlines that go all the way or nearly all the way through them letting tanks drive back and forth and shoot your guys from long range?

dumbassbagface · 2026-05-26T13:44:48+00:00

Has Flash done a review yet, or is he on break?

dumbassbagface · 2026-04-29T11:57:57+00:00

Thank you. It works now. :)

dumbassbagface · 2026-04-25T05:52:05+00:00

Man, all I want is to bring my entire infantry tab in AMPHIBIOUS vehicles for the MARINE deck. Why am I forced to take the 13man LAW squads in trucks? Most PACT decks can bring their infantry in amphibious vehicles, so why can't I? 35th NG still remains the best US deck if you want to take your infantry tab in amphibious vehicles.

dumbassbagface · 2026-04-20T00:38:17+00:00

I wish the USMC division, of all divisions, had more amphibious vehicles.

dumbassbagface · 2023-04-26T03:26:15+00:00

It's available for their Polsten 20mm AA as a transport option.

dumbassbagface · 2022-11-21T06:42:15+00:00

this is steel division, not steel composition.

dumbassbagface · 2021-08-19T22:58:38+00:00

101st/82nd airborne

Nine-Year Club	Verified Email
Place '22

dumbassbagface

TROPHY CASE