Should ATGM be buffed?

User avatar
kvnrthr
Chief Warrant Officer
Posts: 518
Joined: Mon 10 Sep 2012 13:29
Location: Jakarta, Indonesia
Contact:

Should ATGM be buffed?

Postby kvnrthr » Thu 12 Feb 2015 03:40

I've made similar threads in the past but with RD seeming to near its last few patches I thought I might as well try to bring this up again.

It seems to me that most SACLOS missiles in their current state have very, very limited uses. With the exception of a few excellent systems (e.g. TOW-2 and HJ-9) they don't seem to do any good work.

They rarely hit their targets. Tanks can easily drive towards ATGMs and shoot them before the missile even gets halfway there. Losing LOS for even half a second makes the missile veer off target. And even allowing for an uninterrupted flight, the accuracy itself is abysmal (45% for Metis? 35% for Milan 1?). Just compare the two East German BMP-2 variants before the patch. 25 points with ATGM, and 15 points without. The autocannon only version was superior because in most player's minds, the Konkurs missile was not even worth 10 points! They have had to practically give the Konkurs away for free to even get players to consider it.

In my opinion, ATGMs need significant accuracy buffs to be useful. SACLOS missiles should be getting 50% accuracy at the very least. Ideally, modern missiles should have accuracy in the 60 to 80% range.

Would this make ATGMs overpowered? I doubt it. This is not the ATGM meta from EE anymore, there are tons of counters. ATGM vehicle will not get their full accuracy in real gameplay; LOS interruptions, clever use of terrain and smoke cover can mitigate ATGM risks. Any missile seen will automatically invite retaliation by air or artillery, spelling doom for the lowly armored vehicles or infantry. In addition, the tanks themselves have seen enormous accuracy increases.

Is it too much to ask that when a modern SACLOS ATGM is not interrupted by smoke, has clear line of sight, and is calm, it should be hitting its target more often than not?

Of course, this is all my opinion. Perhaps this kind of buff would be too drastic? Do you think ATGM are fine where they are, and if you do, how do you use them?
Hoping for a better next-gen Wargame and new engine in a few years...
One can dream ;_;

User avatar
Fussel
Chief Warrant Officer
Posts: 510
Joined: Sun 2 Jun 2013 18:57
Contact:

Re: Should ATGM be buffed?

Postby Fussel » Thu 12 Feb 2015 03:44

I kind of like it the way it is. Maybe these 70 point tow2 launchers that nobody uses can get a price buff.

User avatar
BLUE MAN
Sergeant Major of the Army
Posts: 368
Joined: Mon 3 Nov 2014 01:21
Location: Mnhttn

Re: Should ATGM be buffed?

Postby BLUE MAN » Thu 12 Feb 2015 03:47

Image

and especially dedicated ATGM carriers, i mean 50 points for BRDM2 Konkurs-M? cmon.
stupid neckbeards and noobs ruin the WRD

User avatar
another505
More than 10 000 messages. Soldier you are the leader of all armies!
Posts: 13128
Joined: Sun 21 Jul 2013 05:18
Location: Hiatus
Contact:

Re: Should ATGM be buffed?

Postby another505 » Thu 12 Feb 2015 03:49

I agree, most atgm needs an accuracy buff,

konkurs m and milan should get at least 60, there is no reason why tow2 should be in the top and so much higher than other atgm....
Image
Of Salt

jhfts
Command Sergeant Major
Posts: 337
Joined: Tue 21 Jan 2014 04:47
Contact:

Re: Should ATGM be buffed?

Postby jhfts » Thu 12 Feb 2015 04:52

I fundamentally disagree with the OP for three reasons:

1) All weapons, including ATGMs, gain accuracy as distance closes. To install a 50% acc. minimum, as suggested, would mean that even MILAN / FAGOT would approach 100% accuracy at meaningful combat ranges. This would be neither true to reality, or produce well-balanced gameplay.

2) The low accuracy encourages the employment of player skill and attention. For infantry ATGMs, this requires players to hold fire until a target has moved close enough for a hit to be likely, generally taking advantage of concealment in buildings. For vehicle ATGMs, this requires vehicles to be well positioned and concealed. Increasing accuracy as suggested by the OP would convert ATGMs into simple sentinels / sentries, and reduce the importance of player skill.

3) Most ATGMs with poor accuracy are also very inexpensive. It would be highly disruptive to gameplay balance to substantially up the accuracy of a 15-pt MILAN team when a single missile can kill a mid-tier tank at long range. For most low-tier ATGMs, probability to hit can easily be increased by using larger groups of units (i.e double or triple stacking ATGMs garrisoned in buildings); the increased cost associated with this approach yields a way of using such units effectively that does not harm overall gameplay balance.

User avatar
Miskyavine
Chief Warrant Officer
Posts: 689
Joined: Sat 18 Feb 2012 09:03
Contact:

Re: Should ATGM be buffed?

Postby Miskyavine » Thu 12 Feb 2015 05:45

another505 wrote:I agree, most atgm needs an accuracy buff,

konkurs m and milan should get at least 60, there is no reason why tow2 should be in the top and so much higher than other atgm....


There are 2 reasons the TOWs (most notably the TOW-2) are better then the Konkurs and Milan etc

The United States needs better TOWs as there is no dedicated ATGM infantry for the US so it is represnted as US having vehicles to their job even though it was man portable...

Historical accuracy the TOW family are one of the most reliable and accurate ATGMs in reallife also so its not like its unrealisticly better thats why its heavier most of the other ATGMs due to better firing computers/optics.

if we wanted to be realistic the TOWs on the M2A1 and M2A2 are historicaly last gen so M2A1/M3A1 would have TOW-2 were the M2A2 and the M3A2 would have the TOW-2A so it could/should be better then they are now.
How i feel when reading the OFF TOPIC section of the forums http://imgur.com/gallery/t9IXqDs
Image

User avatar
Sunshine
Lieutenant Colonel
Posts: 2428
Joined: Mon 12 Mar 2012 15:51
Contact:

Re: Should ATGM be buffed?

Postby Sunshine » Thu 12 Feb 2015 05:49

Should ATGM be buffed?

No.
Tanks can finally dare to take a peek or even do something crazy like attacking, crossing open field etc.
With stronger ATGMs, we are back to the terribad "tanks are in the game but you're better off without them, they just die expensively." gameplay.

Konkurs-M still give my Leopards nightmares, while I watch my Failan 2 miss so often - but even they can put pressure on the enemy and his decisions.

Want them to kill something?
Bring more.

Also, ATGMs in real life aren't that accurate as well or can be evaded (smoke screens from tanks, terrain, ...)
Image
Sponsored by italic & German superiority.

User avatar
another505
More than 10 000 messages. Soldier you are the leader of all armies!
Posts: 13128
Joined: Sun 21 Jul 2013 05:18
Location: Hiatus
Contact:

Re: Should ATGM be buffed?

Postby another505 » Thu 12 Feb 2015 06:19

jhfts wrote:I fundamentally disagree with the OP for three reasons:

1) All weapons, including ATGMs, gain accuracy as distance closes. To install a 50% acc. minimum, as suggested, would mean that even MILAN / FAGOT would approach 100% accuracy at meaningful combat ranges. This would be neither true to reality, or produce well-balanced gameplay.

2) The low accuracy encourages the employment of player skill and attention. For infantry ATGMs, this requires players to hold fire until a target has moved close enough for a hit to be likely, generally taking advantage of concealment in buildings. For vehicle ATGMs, this requires vehicles to be well positioned and concealed. Increasing accuracy as suggested by the OP would convert ATGMs into simple sentinels / sentries, and reduce the importance of player skill.

3) Most ATGMs with poor accuracy are also very inexpensive. It would be highly disruptive to gameplay balance to substantially up the accuracy of a 15-pt MILAN team when a single missile can kill a mid-tier tank at long range. For most low-tier ATGMs, probability to hit can easily be increased by using larger groups of units (i.e double or triple stacking ATGMs garrisoned in buildings); the increased cost associated with this approach yields a way of using such units effectively that does not harm overall gameplay balance.


1, Duh, all weapons ingame gets almost perfect accuracy irl , why wouldnt it produce well balance gameplay??? ATGM carrier/infantry are weak, they die and panic in a single shot.

2. So what is the point?? that my atgm has to be used so close where enemy tanks can instantly return fire on it and panic it, everyone knows how to position their atgm

3. if they hit... triple stacking and quad stacking means lots of pts used, and easily countered by mortars and mlrs, with the nerf of infantry unable to jump around blocks as fast, tehy are fragile
Miskyavine wrote:
another505 wrote:I agree, most atgm needs an accuracy buff,

konkurs m and milan should get at least 60, there is no reason why tow2 should be in the top and so much higher than other atgm....


There are 2 reasons the TOWs (most notably the TOW-2) are better then the Konkurs and Milan etc

The United States needs better TOWs as there is no dedicated ATGM infantry for the US so it is represnted as US having vehicles to their job even though it was man portable...

Historical accuracy the TOW family are one of the most reliable and accurate ATGMs in reallife also so its not like its unrealisticly better thats why its heavier most of the other ATGMs due to better firing computers/optics.

if we wanted to be realistic the TOWs on the M2A1 and M2A2 are historicaly last gen so M2A1/M3A1 would have TOW-2 were the M2A2 and the M3A2 would have the TOW-2A so it could/should be better then they are now.



a lot of nations has worse anti tank platform and rely on crap atgm
i would love to see itow , tow 2 infantry with super slow speed

source?


Sunshine wrote:
Should ATGM be buffed?

No.
Tanks can finally dare to take a peek or even do something crazy like attacking, crossing open field etc.
With stronger ATGMs, we are back to the terribad "tanks are in the game but you're better off without them, they just die expensively." gameplay.

Konkurs-M still give my Leopards nightmares, while I watch my Failan 2 miss so often - but even they can put pressure on the enemy and his decisions.

Want them to kill something?
Bring more.

Also, ATGMs in real life aren't that accurate as well or can be evaded (smoke screens from tanks, terrain, ...)


No
just recon first with 5pts transport or whatever, or just smoke the location

bring more?? there is like 7 per card for top end atgm infantry only, that is less than SF squads, incredibly fragile, and the price are worth its effectiveness than some psychological fear
Image
Of Salt

User avatar
another505
More than 10 000 messages. Soldier you are the leader of all armies!
Posts: 13128
Joined: Sun 21 Jul 2013 05:18
Location: Hiatus
Contact:

Re: Should ATGM be buffed?

Postby another505 » Thu 12 Feb 2015 06:21

I think people are incredibly fearful of atgm and cant think outside of the box to stop them

all of them are easily counterable ingame already, and now even at the best situation atgm are not efficient for its price, especially losing LOS in a millisecond, the operator just gives up...

i never understand the fear of it, before the nerf, atgm were fine, what made tanks bad was generally all of the tanks are overpriced , everyone just use centurion spam and chally 2

is not because atgm , is because tanks were overpriced
Image
Of Salt

User avatar
Yakhont
Colonel
Posts: 2870
Joined: Sat 31 Mar 2012 04:33
Contact:

Re: Should ATGM be buffed?

Postby Yakhont » Thu 12 Feb 2015 06:58

Lower end ones should be buffed, in terms of accuracy

MCLOS missiles are already slow, have low AP, and more often than not over priced, although the recent patch has alleviated the BMP missile cost effectiveness.

The early Mi-24 has a MCLOS missile at at 10% Stab. That should be removed altogether
Image

Return to “Wargame : Red Dragon”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 41 guests