T17 vs Single shrek grenadier squad and a Pak

[Guest]

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever

Login with username, password and session length

[puddin]

T17 is the topic of this thread, not the staghound

But many people clump the two of them together wrongfully, and the staghound ihas a greater potentional of being much more deadly....

[LCII^Bun-Bun]

Ugh, I haven't encountered any staghounds luckely, but I do agree with the point that the armor type of the T17 should be changed, today I had two T17's against me, had a P4 and a Pak38

One of them died a while ago (with much efford and 2 grenadier squads lost) and the other had a damaged engine, destroyed barrel and a sliver of health...

The enemy wants it dead, so he "rushes" it into my P4 and pak, it's distance is like, 10 meters... the P4 misses the first 2 shots and the pak the first 3...

If it would have been able to fight it could have probably killed my AT and damaged my P4 by circling around it

[VERTIGGO]

The real problem with both of these vehicles is they don't seem to fit into any of vCoH or OF's categories. We had heavies, mediums, and lights, and then all of a sudden two new toys were introduced with advantages of lights and mediums combined. I.E. T17 has dodge bonus, speed, and infantry slaying power of light vehicles, combined with nearly the same HP as a medium tank (with .7 schreck damage, the effective health of a T17 is 500HP) and the ability to kill tanks (stun, rear penetration + 25dps which is higher damage per second than a panther BTW) while the brit stag has the same speed and infantry slaying power combined with 100 more actual HP, and much better AT table. This is specifically why Armor companies can rape most light vehicle heavy PE companies; they just have too many advantages and can take on too many of their own "counters" by themselves.

Bottom line? Relic wanted to sell an expansion with a very short campaign with little replayability and no new factions, so the best way to sell it was to make the new units badass. That's also why the hellcat model is so ridiculously huge compared to every other unit in CoH.

[wildsolus]

500hp for the t17? vanilla t17's were like 175hp i thought.

[Smokaz]

Lets not become a mob with torches here, even if the t17 puts out more "damage" than the panther over time it hasnt the same ability to penetrate armor thus it cant compete as a AT weapon.

And yes, the skirts and the modifiers put the t17 at an absurd amount of health for its price and unit class.

[VERTIGGO]

Lets not become a mob with torches here, even if the t17 puts out more "damage" than the panther over time it hasnt the same ability to penetrate armor thus it cant compete as a AT weapon.

And yes, the skirts and the modifiers put the t17 at an absurd amount of health for its price and unit class.

I absolutely don't mean to claim a T17 is overall better than a panther, I just stumbled on that while running numbers. I was surprised one time to lose a panther that I was trying to pull off the map to a T17 who just zipped up behind it and kept eating away at its rear armor. I hadn't really considered T17s as dangerous to panthers until that happened.

The math: T17 health = 175*2 = 350 for paltry mun cost, divided by .7 schreck modifier = 500 effective vs. schrecks (not to mention the near impossibility of getting a high rate of hits)

Panther dmg 137/7 second reload = 19.5dps, T17 dmg 50*.5 = 25dps (20dps with skirts)

I know that it rarely penetrates panthers in particular, but armor buffs change even that.

[CrazyWR]

They removed the vet modifiers in the last patch I believe for t17s(or are going to, they are removed in the new vet tables, whenever they are implemented...)

[VERTIGGO]

I was unaware of vet specifics. All of my calculations figure on vanilla (and skirted) panthers and T17s with only the sandbag purchase.

[CrazyWR]

Well I wouldn't have noticed if o4b didn't point it out to me.  Apparently before this last patch(7.0d) or new vet tables anyways, t17's got a health bonus at both vet1 and vet2, in addition to the sandbag purchase.  That has been or will be removed, so after a 3rd(4th?) nerf, can we please stop whining about them?

[bbsmith]

The extra hp at vet was removed when sandbag upgrades were put in. The vet that shows in the launcher is from a very old list.

[puddin]

Light armor never needed a nerf in the first place, For the first time in EIR history it was a viable, and surviveable alternative to Medium and heavy tanks for more then just a select few. 

Now, All the nerfs just make ppl use mainline tanks more.  Befpore the last patches, How many people did t-17 spam or Staghound spam?  I never saw many, Also with Ostwinds effected by heat rounds they become an Anti light armor and infantyry vehicle which helps alot more, making them multi purpose so if you have 1 pak and an ostwind you can hold out, or 1 postwind and a shrek there is some good fun in there. 

My shrecks never missed them much anyhow, Now it seems nothing misses.  GEts hit everytime, making light armor just shit yet again. 

Light armor is "Spammed" because for the price of a p4 you can afford 4-5 pumas in terms of fuel cost but its at the heavy expense of manpower... 

There is a downside to lgiht armor in that your manpower is severly screwed.  It shoudl be a good supporting unit.

And the reason that PPumas, T-17s. and stags own anykind of at gun....  Speed.  Runs past.  Thats the padvantage to being heavily under armored.  A double shreck, or 2nd at gun makes them shiity. 

Do a simple test, 1 pack backed up by another.  BEcause you have to find the pak, usually by having it shoot at you or hit you, then guess where it came from, by then there is support headed that way.

[Smokaz]

1 wehr doctrine and 1 T4 enabling ostwinds to fight off t17s hardly make up for the t17 performance against the other doctrines and the other choices within blitz.

I dont think anyone doubts that a single light vehicle cant be dispatched by two paks overseeing each other.. but as other threads have discussed, this is not a very mobile counter.

Its also far more costly than the unit it counters.

[CrazyWR]

its the same in terms of Pop...come on smokaz, this like saying its costly to have to use more than 1 pak to beat a Sherman...you have to use multiple forms of AT to kill every single type of vehicle/tank except MAYBE an unskirted M8 if you get lucky and alphastrike it with a pak.

[Smokaz]

Do you think a sherman will beat a shrek + pak?

[puddin]

Does sherm have 50 cal?  Double shrecks?  Is there onboard mechanics involved?  Do the people have a recone run to see if its storm shreks or grens?  Do they have a recon to see best possible angle of atk?

IN a game, Honestly, IF you want to base units soly on Shreck and Pak guns, then against a pershing, you would need 5 paks or 2 packs and 2 double shreck storms....  Oh wait... Thats more pop cap.,... Hwo do i do this EIR math again? 

How can you say that a terror guy with 1 shrek won;t be around?  OR a getsutz wagon, OR even a P4 tthat shoots off the supporting rangers first then the t-17 next?

You made it such a narrow focus it was a bullshit test but bogus and tipped rusiults catered to the desired answer, That t-17s are "OP" 

The onlyt reason t-17s were op was not because they were used 1 at a time, But in pairs....  And withonboard mainly.  Every armor company had them with onboard....  So you saw them over and over and over...


Its so funny how these "Tests" Only proved one side, yet in most anyone real game type game, if there is a single tank between 2 players and the normal amount of at which is at least 1 pak and at least 1 shrek, 3 t-17s would not make it out if they atked, Maybe 2 would live, all have dmg, and you can recrew the pak with base infantry, not wasting the 110 MU u put into it....

[Smokaz]

Certainly the test wasn't perfect, but have you seen it yourself? Dont you think a single shrek and a pak should be able to take out a t17 more than half of the time? And why would three t17s attack a pak and a tank? This theory crafting to defend the t17 is getting laughable. The test was a shrek and a pak because its the most common combination of AT to fend off allied tanks and vehicles, and also the normal non-doctrinal option as well as being very similar in pop. The recrewing pak argument is funny as well,  seeing as a vehicle surviving a engagement can repair.

I run a armor company as well, and I find the t17 over the top, thats my take on it. I have no desired outcome, other than all units being equally viable for cost and the game being balanced.. but you are welcome to make a clown of yourself be trying to play some bias card against me.

[wittman47]

holy crap this disscusion has been goin on for a while

[puddin]

No i don;t think it should,m a well microed light armor peice should negate any at gun down a road and flank it.  A heavy tank is ment to take on an at gun head fiurst and soak up dmg while the other support it. 

So no, A pak and Gren shreck should never meat light armor, if done properl because the pak shpould be a non factor.

[Killer344]

It's going to be likely *looked* at for the next patch.