*

Account

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
November 12, 2024, 02:28:51 am

Login with username, password and session length

Resources

Recent posts

[November 01, 2024, 12:46:37 pm]

[October 05, 2024, 07:29:20 am]

[September 05, 2024, 01:54:13 pm]

[July 16, 2024, 11:30:34 pm]

[June 22, 2024, 06:49:40 am]

[March 08, 2024, 12:13:38 am]

[March 08, 2024, 12:12:54 am]

[March 08, 2024, 12:09:37 am]

[December 30, 2023, 08:00:58 pm]

[February 04, 2023, 11:46:41 am]
Pages: [1]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: T17  (Read 4356 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
nikomas Offline
Shameless Perv
*
Posts: 4286



T17
« on: January 02, 2012, 03:32:50 am »

Not so much of a balance point, but given how durable these get under an armor player I want them rebranded as Light Tanks  Wink

Cause hell, 4 shreck hits to kill a T4 one is more than most light tanks take   Roll Eyes

(Somehow, my first vet 3 allied unit to survive beyond 2 games is a T17, and it's survived 88, shrecks and an ostwind so far, bless it)
« Last Edit: January 02, 2012, 03:35:20 am by nikomas » Logged

"You can always count on Americans to do the right thing—after they've tried everything else."

Quote from: PonySlaystation
The officer is considerably better than a riflemen squad at carrying weapons. Officers have good accuracy so they will hit most targets.
aeroblade56 Offline
Development
*
Posts: 3871



« Reply #1 on: January 02, 2012, 05:05:43 am »

i believe the t17 is a medium tank and you almost pay the same for a ostwind. i enjoy the t17 its great for stray infantry. other then that it sucks
Logged

You are welcome to your opinion.

You are also welcome to be wrong.
NightRain Offline
EIR Veteran
Posts: 3908



« Reply #2 on: January 02, 2012, 08:26:34 am »

It is still better than a puma
Logged

Because a forum post should be like a woman's skirt. Long enough to cover the subject material, but short enough to keep things interesting.
nikomas Offline
Shameless Perv
*
Posts: 4286



« Reply #3 on: January 02, 2012, 08:32:28 am »

Hehehe, my 4 of them just racked up half my kills last game, what the heck are you talking about, they be great!
cheap repairs to...
Logged
tank130 Offline
Sugar Daddy
*
Posts: 8889


« Reply #4 on: January 02, 2012, 10:02:32 am »

Excellent idea. Change it to a light tank designation and watch all the QQ because it sucks as a light tank. Then the requests to buff it start rolling in because it is now a light tank.........

/ sarcasm

but seriously, I think it fits perfect right where it is tbh.
Logged

Quote
Geez, while Wind was banned I forgot that he is, in fact, totally insufferable
I'm not going to lie Tig, 9/10 times you open your mouth, I'm overwhelmed with the urge to put my foot in it.
TheArea Offline
EIR Veteran
Posts: 240


« Reply #5 on: January 02, 2012, 10:14:32 am »

Its better than an Inf Doc T4 buffed croc. 
Logged
Poppi Offline
EIR Veteran
Posts: 1080


« Reply #6 on: January 02, 2012, 11:22:30 am »

Hehehe, my 4 of them just racked up half my kills last game, what the heck are you talking about, they be great!
cheap repairs to...

sooo many post how bad they are.

I used to run t17 company. I liked them just enough

Things that make them bad as is and dont need a nerf. Acc is all over the place. Actually i dont think they make good defensive weapons. As in stormies and KCH arent threatened by it just run past it. 120 fu. Horrilbe horrible pen even against HT.
Logged
aeroblade56 Offline
Development
*
Posts: 3871



« Reply #7 on: January 02, 2012, 12:33:25 pm »

Yeah im not to happy about the penetration it does, even with kch it still takes well over 9 shots to kill them just cause the damn thing misses so much. its a beast at killing newbewelfers.
Logged
nikomas Offline
Shameless Perv
*
Posts: 4286



« Reply #8 on: January 05, 2012, 10:27:05 am »

Excellent idea. Change it to a light tank designation and watch all the QQ because it sucks as a light tank. Then the requests to buff it start rolling in because it is now a light tank.........

/ sarcasm

but seriously, I think it fits perfect right where it is tbh.
HOW DID YOU FIGURE IT OUT, MY PLANS ARE RUINED!!!  Cry
Logged
Unkn0wn Offline
No longer retired
*
Posts: 18379


« Reply #9 on: January 05, 2012, 11:18:03 am »

I agree with tank, I think it fills a certain niche quite well. (And in the right hands it's an amazing unit)

What do you mean with rebranding them as a light tank? What difference does that make? Do you mean counting them towards the armour instead of light vehicle pool?
Logged
Tymathee Offline
Donator
*
Posts: 9741



« Reply #10 on: January 05, 2012, 11:28:25 am »

just because someone maximises the effectiveness of a unit doesn't mean it should be changed.
Logged

"I want proof!"
"I have proof!"
"Whatever, I'm still right"

Dafuq man, don't ask for proof if you'll refuse it if it's not in your favor, logic fallacy for the bloody win.
nikomas Offline
Shameless Perv
*
Posts: 4286



« Reply #11 on: January 05, 2012, 11:35:20 am »

I agree with tank, I think it fills a certain niche quite well. (And in the right hands it's an amazing unit)
What do you mean with rebranding them as a light tank? What difference does that make? Do you mean counting them towards the armour instead of light vehicle pool?
There is no real logic behind it to be honest, it's just what I feel the role of the vehicle is...
Rather, it's durability and handling makes it feel more like a light tank to me rather than an armored car to me, still, that was just something lighthearted...

And a reacton to having the thing survive shreck barrages, alternativly several shots more from AT than I figure it should handle, even with the armor coy buffs... Hence me thinking of it like a tank instead of an LV, that's sorta what I meant.

Really thou, it's bullshit and I know it  Wink

Short version... I put them under AT fire and I expect them to survive it. Often they do and I dont expect any other "Vehicle" to survive any AT fire at all.
« Last Edit: January 05, 2012, 11:38:12 am by nikomas » Logged
Tymathee Offline
Donator
*
Posts: 9741



« Reply #12 on: January 05, 2012, 11:39:28 am »

btw all armor has treads and the t-17 doesn't have treads.

the only "tank" that's classified as a vehicle is the Stuart. so theres no justification to move the t-17 to armor.
« Last Edit: January 05, 2012, 12:19:35 pm by Tymathee » Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

TinyPortal v1.0 beta 4 © Bloc
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.9 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.059 seconds with 36 queries.