Jump to content


AMX CDC - Is it worth it? / Should it get buffed?


  • Please log in to reply
66 replies to this topic

ScottishJunky #1 Posted 19 August 2016 - 11:33 PM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 4154 battles
  • 361
  • [D_G_M] D_G_M
  • Member since:
    07-21-2016

AMX CDC Is it worth it?

 

In my opinion, Yes it is 100% worth it, Well of course depending on the player, If you like tanks with paper armor and punchy guns (Luchs, T-34, ELC, any light tank) and if you are genuinely quite good in the tanks then I think the AMX CDC may be for you.

 

Its more of a support/sniper tank, it has an outstanding gun, good mobility and good gun depression, It plays a sniping / mounation goat / ridge line brawler. Use its amazing gun and depression to pop ridges, What I like to do is stay back a little and let the other tanks take the damage while you damage the enemy's from the back. 

 

I recommend:

- Rammer 

- Optics/GLD

- Vents/VSMk1 

 

(It really all depends)

 

Should it be buffed?

 

Well, sorta... If you own one of these sexy beasts then you may be thinking something like: wow, this tank is great but it would be really nice if I didn't get BLOODY module damage every second and have to waste a repair kit.

 

So, (IHMO) this is what should be buffed

 

- Ground resistance, it was nerfed to much

- uncap the speed, this tank could go much faster, but sadly its capped at 60

- Make it more mobile (turning)

- Make it so you don't get your ammo rack destroyed so damn much

- Slightly better gun handling

- Make it smaller dammit! It's bigger than a is-4

 

Come on WG! It's got no armor ffs, this tank is amazing but you COULD buff it a bit,

 

Thanks for reading my guide, Hopefully this will help you in the fanatic, sexy beast that is the AMX CDC!  Until next time chaps.

 

 

*I have around 4k battles in total, Hopefuly that's reassuring, I am genuinely quite skilled*


Edited by ScottishJunky, 29 September 2016 - 04:57 PM.


Kupsztas #2 Posted 19 August 2016 - 11:38 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 21148 battles
  • 1,563
  • [PUNKS] PUNKS
  • Member since:
    02-02-2014

View PostScottishJunky, on 19 August 2016 - 11:33 PM, said:

 paper armor and punchy guns (Luchs, T-34, ELC, any light tank) 

this one actually bounces a bit ;) it has enough side armor to sidescrap and has large gun mantlet.

 

but back to the topic, I'd love to see the ammorack being a bit stronger. there was a day I've played 3 battles in my CDC, all of them were great (and prem accc+50% credits reserve made me earn 400k in total), but my ammo rack was damaged 5 times... fortunately I didn't blow up :)

 



ScottishJunky #3 Posted 19 August 2016 - 11:57 PM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 4154 battles
  • 361
  • [D_G_M] D_G_M
  • Member since:
    07-21-2016

View PostKupsztas, on 19 August 2016 - 11:38 PM, said:

this one actually bounces a bit ;) it has enough side armor to sidescrap and has large gun mantlet.

 

but back to the topic, I'd love to see the ammorack being a bit stronger. there was a day I've played 3 battles in my CDC, all of them were great (and prem accc+50% credits reserve made me earn 400k in total), but my ammo rack was damaged 5 times... fortunately I didn't blow up :)

 

Yup, Pretty much sums the CDC up, but I'm willing to live with that.



pudelikael #4 Posted 21 August 2016 - 08:12 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 22309 battles
  • 738
  • Member since:
    05-15-2015
Trash tank. pen is 175, no camo, no armor, s h i t mobility, can't spot anybody. worst tank ever. just wasted euros, i hope serb get bad *****

ScottishJunky #5 Posted 22 August 2016 - 08:10 AM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 4154 battles
  • 361
  • [D_G_M] D_G_M
  • Member since:
    07-21-2016

View Postp6kk, on 21 August 2016 - 08:12 PM, said:

Trash tank. pen is 175, no camo, no armor, s h i t mobility, can't spot anybody. worst tank ever. just wasted euros, i hope serb get bad *****

Then you are obviously playing the tank wrong, it IS a good tank.



_Crusad3r_ #6 Posted 22 August 2016 - 08:25 AM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 31242 battles
  • 1,620
  • [MEME] MEME
  • Member since:
    11-22-2012

View Postp6kk, on 21 August 2016 - 07:12 PM, said:

Trash tank. pen is 175, no camo, no armor, s h i t mobility, can't spot anybody. worst tank ever. just wasted euros, i hope serb get bad *****

 

Looks like you are looking at a different tank.

Pen is 212 which is amazing

View range is 390m base so add on optics or binos with a decent crew and you have max view range.

Mobility is bad? It has one of the highest hp/t ratio's for a tier 8 premium.

If you think you wasted that's your own problem - you payed for it, noone made you buy it ;)



pudelikael #7 Posted 25 August 2016 - 11:04 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 22309 battles
  • 738
  • Member since:
    05-15-2015

View Post_Crusad3r_, on 22 August 2016 - 08:25 AM, said:

 

Looks like you are looking at a different tank.

Pen is 212 which is amazing

View range is 390m base so add on optics or binos with a decent crew and you have max view range.

Mobility is bad? It has one of the highest hp/t ratio's for a tier 8 premium.

If you think you wasted that's your own problem - you payed for it, noone made you buy it ;)

 

You avg damage this tank is only 1300. Why so few when the tank is so good? Amazing 212 pen and 1300 avg damage? Why are you lying? This tank are junk

If 212 pen is real you avg damage is 2000 not 1300. Avg 1300 damage is normal tier 6 or tier 7 tanks


Edited by p6kk, 25 August 2016 - 11:05 AM.


Cobra6 #8 Posted 28 August 2016 - 06:51 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Beta Tester
  • 16458 battles
  • 16,569
  • [RGT] RGT
  • Member since:
    09-17-2010

Well, it needs its dispersion values fixed but even more importantly, they need to remove the Titanic-like ground resistance values that greatly impede the movement of this tank, it should have light tank mobility and steering.

 

Cobra 6



Akathis #9 Posted 28 August 2016 - 11:55 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 80101 battles
  • 1,480
  • Member since:
    12-02-2012

View PostCobra6, on 28 August 2016 - 06:51 PM, said:

Well, it needs its dispersion values fixed but even more importantly, they need to remove the Titanic-like ground resistance values that greatly impede the movement of this tank, it should have light tank mobility and steering.

 

Cobra 6

 

Nope.

 

If you want light tank mobility, then nerf dpm and gun dispersion to t49 values.



Cobra6 #10 Posted 29 August 2016 - 10:23 AM

    Field Marshal

  • Beta Tester
  • 16458 battles
  • 16,569
  • [RGT] RGT
  • Member since:
    09-17-2010

View PostAkathis, on 28 August 2016 - 10:55 PM, said:

 

Nope.

 

If you want light tank mobility, then nerf dpm and gun dispersion to t49 values.

 

This is a light tank in *every* way a part from maneuverability, heck it has less armour than pretty much all light tanks.

The gun handling is already "meh" for it's speed.

 

Cobra 6



Akathis #11 Posted 29 August 2016 - 02:22 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 80101 battles
  • 1,480
  • Member since:
    12-02-2012

View PostCobra6, on 29 August 2016 - 10:23 AM, said:

 

This is a light tank in *every* way a part from maneuverability, heck it has less armour than pretty much all light tanks.

The gun handling is already "meh" for it's speed.

 

Cobra 6

 

In that case, tier 8 scout mm: you know tier 10... more or less 90% of your matches.

 

Only if you want better terrain resistances.



5_InchFl0ppy #12 Posted 29 August 2016 - 02:31 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 40720 battles
  • 1,645
  • [-MM] -MM
  • Member since:
    06-22-2012

View PostCobra6, on 28 August 2016 - 06:51 PM, said:

Well, it needs its dispersion values fixed but even more importantly, they need to remove the Titanic-like ground resistance values that greatly impede the movement of this tank, it should have light tank mobility and steering.

 

Cobra 6

 

IIRC the tank originally had this during testing. Then it was nerfed to oblivion because it was destined to be cheaper than the FCM and couldn't be better.

Edited by Tac_p0liticallyCorrect, 29 August 2016 - 02:32 PM.


Cobra6 #13 Posted 29 August 2016 - 05:11 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Beta Tester
  • 16458 battles
  • 16,569
  • [RGT] RGT
  • Member since:
    09-17-2010

View PostTac_p0liticallyCorrect, on 29 August 2016 - 01:31 PM, said:

 

IIRC the tank originally had this during testing. Then it was nerfed to oblivion because it was destined to be cheaper than the FCM and couldn't be better.

 

Funny enough the CDC is actually a Tank Destoryer, not a medium tank, but it has the camo of the Titanic at the moment :D

 

Cobra 6



Eokokok #14 Posted 30 August 2016 - 11:41 AM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 18612 battles
  • 6,161
  • Member since:
    04-20-2012

View Postp6kk, on 25 August 2016 - 10:04 AM, said:

 

You avg damage this tank is only 1300. Why so few when the tank is so good? Amazing 212 pen and 1300 avg damage? Why are you lying? This tank are junk

If 212 pen is real you avg damage is 2000 not 1300. Avg 1300 damage is normal tier 6 or tier 7 tanks

 

For a failed reroll nap maybe :teethhappy:

anonym_MSqPBzxRtsaO #15 Posted 29 September 2016 - 04:27 PM

    Sergeant

  • Player
  • 0 battles
  • 209
  • Member since:
    08-17-2018

+1 to OP, while small your review is both clear and to the point, and I like that you considered GLD among your equipment choices.

I don't own the tank right now, but looking at the stats and replays I'd ask for a higher top speed limit (60/65 km/h) and better ground resistance, it looks like this thing turns like a freight train.

 

And no, giving it light tank mobility would make it OP, we don't need another Cromwell for statwhores to wank with. Besides, this is a tank destroyer that got in the wrong class, in a way its stats ARE fairly accurate.



Littlefat46 #16 Posted 01 October 2016 - 03:47 PM

    Lance-corporal

  • Player
  • 19328 battles
  • 69
  • Member since:
    06-09-2011

I jus play 1 round  looks good 

want to train crew  what fit best bij this tank



HugsAndKisses #17 Posted 25 October 2016 - 07:19 AM

    Lieutenant Сolonel

  • Player
  • 24537 battles
  • 3,103
  • Member since:
    12-23-2013

What I love about the CDC: When the other team has one.

What I hate about it: That I spent money on it.

 

It's about the size of a Maus with 20-30 mm of armor, the DCA 90mm gun is temperamental at best, but the most annoying thing is that while it has amazing horsepower, it is rendered almost useless by capped top speed coupled with horrible ground resists.

The only worse T8 prem med is the Chinese burner.



Eila_Juutilainen #18 Posted 25 October 2016 - 07:31 AM

    Colonel

  • Player
  • 21258 battles
  • 3,883
  • [102ND] 102ND
  • Member since:
    11-04-2012

View PostHugsAndKisses, on 25 October 2016 - 07:19 AM, said:

 

The only worse T8 prem med is the Chinese burner.

 

Do you mean T-34-3 or 59-Patton? Not that it matters, because from what I can see on WoT-News either of those two is actually performing better than AMX CDC. Contrary to 'popular opinions', the Chinese tanks are actually quite decent. I didn't check any others, but CDC might actually be the worst of the bunch currently.

 

 


Edited by Eila_Juutilainen, 25 October 2016 - 07:53 AM.


HugsAndKisses #19 Posted 25 October 2016 - 07:58 AM

    Lieutenant Сolonel

  • Player
  • 24537 battles
  • 3,103
  • Member since:
    12-23-2013

View PostEila_Juutilainen, on 25 October 2016 - 07:31 AM, said:

 

Do you mean T-34-3 or 59-Patton? Not that it matters, because from what I can see on WoT-News either of those two is actually performing better than AMX CDC. Contrary to 'popular opinions', the Chinese tanks are actually quite decent. I didn't check any others, but CDC might actually be the worst of the bunch currently.

 

 

I meant the T-34-3. 

I guess we have different standards for "decent". Both are fatally flawed in different ways from my point of view, so the CDC might win the race to the bottom, but that only makes the T-34-3 next worst.

Of course, playing mostly Soviet tanks for obvious reasons, I'm used to being spoiled.



Eila_Juutilainen #20 Posted 25 October 2016 - 08:15 AM

    Colonel

  • Player
  • 21258 battles
  • 3,883
  • [102ND] 102ND
  • Member since:
    11-04-2012

View PostHugsAndKisses, on 25 October 2016 - 07:58 AM, said:

I meant the T-34-3. 

I guess we have different standards for "decent". Both are fatally flawed in different ways from my point of view, so the CDC might win the race to the bottom, but that only makes the T-34-3 next worst.

Of course, playing mostly Soviet tanks for obvious reasons, I'm used to being spoiled.

 

Statistically speaking, it seems to score a WR pretty much the same as the average of the player except for sub-50% players with slightly pulling into a positive at higher WRs. That's decent. If a tank's WR is higher than the players, the tank is overperforming, if it's lower the tank is bad. This is of course the playerbase, not single players.

T-34-3 is better than M4 Rev and Panther88 as well, though worse than Patton KR or T-54 Mod.1 which are both overperforming to the point of potentially being OP. It's actually not doing much worse than the Mutz.

 

Feel free to look for yourself: http://wot-news.com/...hina/Ch14_T34_3

CDC's graph is pretty sad, it actually does badly for good players: http://wot-news.com/...seur_de_char_46


Edited by Eila_Juutilainen, 25 October 2016 - 08:17 AM.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users