Login

russian armor

ATs Price inconsistencies

4 Jul 2014, 15:17 PM
#1
avatar of capiqua
Senior Mapmaker Badge

Posts: 985 | Subs: 2

According to statistics there is a difference of penetraccion, pop and prices that do not reflect reality:


AT 53k 45mm-----100.0/80.0/60.0---------200MP 5pop

M1 57 mm---------140.0/125.0/115.0-------270MP 7pop

Rakete43----------200.0/190.0/180.0-------270MP 7pop

ZIS 3---------------200.0/190.0/180.0-------320MP 9pop

Pak 43-------------210.0/200.0/190.0-------320MP 9pop


4 Jul 2014, 15:33 PM
#2
avatar of pigsoup
Patrion 14

Posts: 4301 | Subs: 2

57mm has great ap round ability from the get go, shoots really fast and vet 1 ability increases its range to 70.
4 Jul 2014, 15:44 PM
#3
avatar of Cyridius

Posts: 627

These guns are all different from one another in more than just penetration values and pricing. They're asymmetrically designed.

A Raketenwefer for example can retreat and garrison buildings.

The 57mm has more penetration, but I believe does less damage. Don't quote me on the second part. It's also a unit that scales with veterancy and has good abilities off the bat.

The ZiS is also an artillery gun.

And so on.
4 Jul 2014, 15:49 PM
#4
avatar of Aerohank

Posts: 2693 | Subs: 1

And... Is there a problem?

All AT weapons have several pros and cons that are not listed. Damage, penetration, cost and upkeep are not the only factors to take into account. There is also rate of fire, special abilities, place in tech tree, types of armor that it is going to be shooting at etc.
4 Jul 2014, 16:06 PM
#5
avatar of Napalm

Posts: 1595 | Subs: 2

Just an observation; it's amazing how much better the Pak43 feels with only an extra 10 penetration. Goes to show you how important those bulletins are.
4 Jul 2014, 16:17 PM
#6
avatar of Aerohank

Posts: 2693 | Subs: 1

The Pak40 feels better because it has a much higher rate of fire than the ZIS-3 gun. The difference in penetration isn't that big of a deal in terms of overall effectiveness.
4 Jul 2014, 16:29 PM
#7
avatar of IpKaiFung
Benefactor 115

Posts: 1708 | Subs: 2



The 57mm has more penetration, but I believe does less damage. Don't quote me on the second part.



Your wrong on both parts. The op even posts the penetration values and you still go ahead and post that it has more penetration. The default 57mm has less penetration than the R43, Pak40 and ZiS3 but does 160 dmg per shot, the same as all the other AT guns except the M1937 45mm.

Do people just pull unit stats out of their asses or something?
4 Jul 2014, 18:00 PM
#8
avatar of capiqua
Senior Mapmaker Badge

Posts: 985 | Subs: 2

I think the M1 should be the one with more penetration, because it has no heavy tanks and an affordable price
4 Jul 2014, 18:03 PM
#9
avatar of Katitof

Posts: 17914 | Subs: 8

If anything, 45mm doesn't deserve the price higher then 160 with these stats and it definitely doesn't deserve that popcap.

You're paying over 50% of resources for a 30% performance, static PTRS rifle.
4 Jul 2014, 19:35 PM
#10
avatar of Cyridius

Posts: 627



Your wrong on both parts. The op even posts the penetration values and you still go ahead and post that it has more penetration. The default 57mm has less penetration than the R43, Pak40 and ZiS3 but does 160 dmg per shot, the same as all the other AT guns except the M1937 45mm.

Do people just pull unit stats out of their asses or something?


I'd just woken up :oops:
4 Jul 2014, 19:40 PM
#11
avatar of Mr. Someguy

Posts: 4928

If anything, 45mm doesn't deserve the price higher then 160 with these stats and it definitely doesn't deserve that popcap.


Agreed. Also switch out "Tracking" for "Sprint". Tracking doesn't help this gun, but sprint could allow you to flank or just get into position quicker with it.
4 Jul 2014, 20:33 PM
#12
avatar of MilkaCow

Posts: 577

Rate of fire, arc, range, squad size, abilities...

There are a lot more things besides penetration that are important.
4 Jul 2014, 20:35 PM
#13
avatar of Mr. Someguy

Posts: 4928

And survivability. Nobody mentioned that the Raketenwerfer is the only heavy AT Gun with no gun shield.
4 Jul 2014, 20:43 PM
#14
avatar of Katitof

Posts: 17914 | Subs: 8

And survivability. Nobody mentioned that the Raketenwerfer is the only heavy AT Gun with no gun shield.


Speaking of survivability, its also the only one which can garrison buildings and actually retreat making its survival chance grow well beyond normal AT guns.
4 Jul 2014, 20:47 PM
#15
avatar of TheMachine
Senior Caster Badge

Posts: 875 | Subs: 6

The only thing this shallow comparison highlights is that 45mm really is rather trash. I'd like to have it get some kind of love, especially because all the Commanders that it's with are also pretty bad.

Perhaps a rate of fire increase, that would make sense and differ it from the other AT guns.
1 user is browsing this thread: 1 guest

Ladders Top 10

  • #
    Steam Alias
    W
    L
    %
    Streak
Data provided by Relic Relic Entertainment

Replay highlight

VS
  • U.S. Forces flag cblanco ★
  • The British Forces flag 보드카 중대
  • Oberkommando West flag VonManteuffel
  • Ostheer flag Heartless Jäger
uploaded by XXxxHeartlessxxXX

Board Info

401 users are online: 401 guests
0 post in the last 24h
12 posts in the last week
24 posts in the last month
Registered members: 49888
Welcome our newest member, Saltmars
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM