[Cw] 17 Pdr vs Other ATG's

[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

[Tymathee]

Will be what will be discussed.

Damage, Penetration (LMS), Accuracy (LMS), Fire Arc, Turn Speed, Moving Speed, Special
17 LB -  150, (.85, .9, 1.25), (.85, .9, 1.0), 60, 60, 2.5 (AT rds give 1.25 dmg 5x pen - 187.5 dmg)
6 Pdr - 150, (.85, .9, 1.25), (.65, .9, 1.0), 80, 75, 3.5 (cloaks in cover)
57mm - 150, (.85, .9, 1.25), (.65, .9, 1.0), 80, 75, 3.5 (AT rds give 1.25 dmg 5x pen - 187.5 dmg)
pak38 - 115, (.85, .9, 1.25), (.65, .9, 1.0), 80, 75, 3.5 (cloaks and fire strike ability 10x pen, 1.25 dmg 1.5 acc - 143.75 dmg)
pak40 - 187, (1.5, 1.75, 2.0), (.85, .9, 1.0), 80, 75, 3.0 (nothing special)

and yes i know that the 17 pdr gets massive pen buffs within its target_table but tht's too much to go into, never the less the only thing it doesn't penetrate 100% are jagdpanthers (.883), hetzers (.918) and pershings (.965)

Seeing as the 17 just the same as the pak40 has 4 men, 2.5 seems a bit slow, 2.7. 2.8 maybe since it's a bigger gun and change the turns-peed to 65.

[NightRain]

The old Arc and range made this thing different from other guns. Now with a tiny arc this thing makes 6Pdrs look 2x more appealing. 200 munition cost (APDS included) makes you want to reconsider the possibilities you can do with that much munitions.


If it had its large Arc of Fire it'd be good. With its previous range it was a angle from the heavens and well worth 200 munition investment to get APDS rounds. Now, its...fat, worse 57mm. 6Pdrs while they don't have the massive penetration they still do the fear factor and nice ammount of deflection damage. The 6Pdr hereby outperforms 17pdrs making the big fat ass anti tank gun that costs more pop and munition and a T1 point.

[Tymathee]

lol agreed. the thing is, theres no compensation for the horrible arc, yes theres higher penetration but isn't that what the extra munitions are for? its already slower, slow to turn, why the arc?

[RikiRude]

Honestly that table is hard to read easily!

[RikiRude]

how much does the pak 40 cost? also, pak 40 is t3 unlock if i remember right?

[8thRifleRegiment]

Hey retards,the fucking pak 40 is a TIER THREE no shit its going to be better then a tier ONE, if they were the same it would be retarded balance. you cannot justify making a tier one as powerfull as a tier 3, if you were to make the 17pdr a tier three i could understand, but it is TWO FULL TIERS below the pak40 and yet you compare the two units? man this commuity has gotten retarded, no wonder devs leave

They put aloit of work into fixing our first fucking problem when the 17 pdr was too OP, now people QQ about it being underpowerd when its finally balanced as is.

[DarkSoldierX]

Only thing is just because its a T3 doesn't mean prices should be unbalanced.

17 P needs to go down 15 mun in price and 15 mun off AP rounds as the penetration buff is not as useful on the 17 as it already have high penetration compared to the 57, and its harder to get those shots off.

[Jstek]

Hey retards ALL ABOVE ME the fucking pak 40 is a TIER THREE no shit its going to be better then a tier ONE, if they were the same it would be retarded balance.

So where the allies T3 Anti-Tank gun?  Yeah thought so so shut-up.

The 17 pdr did not need to be nerfed..  Damn thing is slow like crap and expensive...  Made up for it with some good anti-tank capability.  Oh yeah, whats the HP on the damn thing?  I have seen it get one-shotted so it cant be too much.

[8thRifleRegiment]

dark, hey, its a tier 3, so therefore you pay for it being a tier three, its still an atgs that can be killed like anything else, price is fine, price is also fine for 17 pdr. why poeple QQ? Yes jesterk, by your retard logic, we should do mirror balance? great idea lets give the allies a tier 3 atgs, if you want a tier 3 atg, just make 17pdr tier three then you can justify making it better? kk dont be a fucking retard. pak40 can get one shotted too, 17pdr is fine as is, a small price decrease would seem allright and justified but since its better then a 57mml we dont need it being as cheap as one so then someone can have 7 of them in thier coy. Your brand new to the mod, you cannt put input on anything since you dont know shit lmao, the 17pdr right now has 400 health while other atgs have 300, stop QQ

dumb people these days

Tym stop thinking soo narrow minded, you cannot compare a tier one to a tier three.

[Spartan_Marine88]

dark, hey, its a tier 3, so therefore you pay for it being a tier three, its still an atgs that can be killed like anything else, price is fine, price is also fine for 17 pdr. why poeple QQ? Yes jesterk, by your retard logic, we should do mirror balance? great idea lets give the allies a tier 3 atgs, if you want a tier 3 atg, just make 17pdr tier three then you can justify making it better? kk dont be a fucking retard. pak40 can get one shotted too, 17pdr is fine as is, a small price decrease would seem allright and justified but since its better then a 57mml we dont need it being as cheap as one so then someone can have 7 of them in thier coy. Your brand new to the mod, you cannt put input on anything since you dont know shit lmao, the 17pdr right now has 400 health while other atgs have 300, stop QQ

dumb people these days

Tym stop thinking soo narrow minded, you cannot compare a tier one to a tier three.

The extra 100 hp is meaningless when its the easiest atg to circle strafe out there. So, it can win a atg snipe contest? who cares. You can kill the gun just as easily after you have run off the crew and recrewing mid battle is just a quick way to throw away an infantry crew.

Also it only takes about 3-4 shrek hits to kill the gun which isnt that hard to do. And its easier to run the 17pdr down with infantry then any other gun out there.

[8thRifleRegiment]

hey uhh spartan do you ever leave a atg un supported? i dont think so, espeically something like a 17 pounder so all that shit you just descirbed wouldnt happen if you had support for it.

[RikiRude]

8th take the dick out of your ass before posting. there's nothing here directly comparing the pak40 to the 17 pounder, it's comparing all the ATGs in general. The whole reason I mentioned that the pak 40 was T3, was so that people would take that into consideration. Have you used the 17 pounder?

Your entire first post is bitching and ranting about things that were never said. So far we have only compared the 17 to the 6 pounder, so it appears that YOU are the one that has gotten retarded. Please change your tone or GTFO of this thread.

[8thRifleRegiment]

riki, im fine with you, im talking to mister tymathee who at the top is clearly comparing the two units. Yes ive sued the 17 pounder, its fine damage wise as a tier one, a munitions price reduction is probobly a good idea but it doesnt need to get any stronger.

[Groundfire]

I think you guys are all retards.


It will be addressed after proper play time. I can see the 17pnder getting a fire cone increase from 60 to 70 (it was 100) but other than that, it's pretty much fine and has it's role.

[DarkSoldierX]

8th Rifle price is not determined or influenced in any way by what teir it is. Storms can be a T3 and still cost exactly the same.

Ask any dev.

There is no grounds for a unit to be overall worse and cost same as the enemy.

And BTW I am being perfactly balanced. I play my axis more than I play my allies. I know what im talking about.

(and to Tym its the Pak 38 your talking about, the pak 36 is the TH T2 unlock and does like 30-40 dmg per shot and moves way faster than any other atg)

Thanks groundfire but you know we love to talk about these things.

[Demon767]

Wow rifle where did that come from..

!7pdr needs cone increase. thats it.

[8thRifleRegiment]

+1 ^

[Tymathee]

i'm trying to figure out where i'm comparing two units, i put up a table of 5. and when i mentioned the pak40.

i did it in reference to its cone and speed and said it should be a little worse than it still. I said "same size gun" not "same type of gun" geez, i think 8th has gotten raped by a few 17's and is raging in my thread about it.

It'd still be slower, have its slow 60 turn rate but i said the arc should be higher than what it is but still worse than all the other atgs. the pak40 is an improvement on the pak38 that can totally replace it while the 17 pdr you can choose between it and the 6pdr in its current state and go wrong with neither.

[RikiRude]

I think you guys are all retards.


It will be addressed after proper play time. I can see the 17pnder getting a fire cone increase from 60 to 70 (it was 100) but other than that, it's pretty much fine and has it's role.

fire cone increase would help tremendously. would it be possible to get some background on how you guys decided to balance it?

Right now you have a gun that moves slow and turns slow, and with it's tiny firing arc that all hurts it. You have 3 very big things working against this gun and the only thing you have working FOR it is high penetration and more HP, which as far as ATGs go does not really matter, if it's going to get over run, it's done. If it got a firing arc of 85 it would alleviate these problems, I even think it would be fair to fire slightly slower if the firing arc was increased.

[Spartan_Marine88]

TBH after my first few encounters with the 17 pdr and the shock has worn off, its become apparent that the 6 pdr out preforms it in every way. Now i do disagree (this coming from fighting them) the 17pdrs do not do fine in thier intended role, even suported there generally easy to kill with infantry, usually cant avoid an incendiary grenade and easier to circle then any other gun out there.

And unlike what people think, extra hp on a gun is a bad thing. It just means that after decrewing with an ist, it has more health left for me to use it. If i decide to kill it, a hundred extra health isn't going to make a difference.