Login

russian armor

Pak 43 vs 17 Pounder Population costs.

23 Dec 2015, 02:29 AM
#21
avatar of Madness

Posts: 33

I do not understand that even though something is blatantly obvious there are always people that blindly only think about their favourite faction and vote/behave like that. I personally want a balanced very close game. There is so much wrong with this game and so much is really disputable, but this one, really, are you serious?

1/5 of your whole population for a big sitting weapon that is not a howitzer, so with a very limited map control factor is so clearly too much... You giving up so much map control for building this. 20 population less that can move and fight elsewhere. Imagine you build a second one, you kicked yourself with this act. And on top of it its clearly counterable if you really need to kill it. But if you don't have to just let if live and attack elsewhere with superior numbers. Its a big mistake to build this in its current state.


Yeah. It baffles me aswell
23 Dec 2015, 04:09 AM
#22
avatar of Jaedrik

Posts: 446 | Subs: 2

No option to make the 17 Pounder also 10 pop.

Bad poll imo tbh
23 Dec 2015, 04:51 AM
#23
avatar of CadianGuardsman

Posts: 348

jump backJump back to quoted post23 Dec 2015, 04:09 AMJaedrik
No option to make the 17 Pounder also 10 pop.

Bad poll imo tbh


There is.....
23 Dec 2015, 13:26 PM
#24
avatar of capiqua
Senior Mapmaker Badge

Posts: 985 | Subs: 2

23 Dec 2015, 21:27 PM
#25
avatar of Nabarxos

Posts: 392

i find it ridiculous to consider the 17 pounder "better" then the Pak 43 and for that stupid reason somehow give 20 population cap on the 17 pounder.


Last time i checked the Pak43 didnt cost fuel,could not be destroyed(only decrewed) by small arms fire,cant be destroyed by AT guns(unless decrewed) and its smaller then the 17 pounder,it also happens to to ignore terrain when firing AND fire faster then a 17 pounder.........

But NO the 17 pounder is clearly better then the PAK 43 for some unknown reason to humanity :facepalm:
24 Dec 2015, 00:36 AM
#26
avatar of jugglerman

Posts: 92

is the terrain hitting tendencies of the 17lber due to it's 'dug in' construction?
24 Dec 2015, 00:55 AM
#27
avatar of ThoseDeafMutes

Posts: 1026

Both at 12 or 14, so I voted for 14.

IIRC the 17 pounder doesn't even go through shot blockers, is that correct?
24 Dec 2015, 01:27 AM
#28
avatar of IGOR

Posts: 228

i wonder why the 17 pounder dont have an hability to shoot through walls too, it costs alot.
24 Dec 2015, 02:55 AM
#29
avatar of Nuclear Arbitor
Patrion 28

Posts: 2470

jump backJump back to quoted post23 Dec 2015, 13:26 PMcapiqua


Double of 10pop is muuuuuuch.


the armour on the 17lbser is way to low. i would also be interested in the cooldown and other values if you have them as i don't think there's that much of a discrepancy in the fire rate.
24 Dec 2015, 08:44 AM
#30
avatar of Australian Magic

Posts: 4630 | Subs: 2

I'd choose Pak43 over 17 Pounder any day.

Cheaper, better.

Sure, it can be decrewed but on the other hand it's not that easy to kill it by mortars (not to metion small arms fire or AT Guns) and I can simply hide it behind shotblockers to surprise my enemy.

Pak43>17 Pounder all day long.
24 Dec 2015, 08:53 AM
#31
avatar of Iron Emperor

Posts: 1653

Pak43 fine, 17 Pounder to 14 pop cap, fixed. Perhaps fuel down to 50
24 Dec 2015, 11:25 AM
#32
avatar of LuGer33

Posts: 174

I'd choose Pak43 over 17 Pounder any day.

Cheaper, better.

Sure, it can be decrewed but on the other hand it's not that easy to kill it by mortars (not to metion small arms fire or AT Guns) and I can simply hide it behind shotblockers to surprise my enemy.

Pak43>17 Pounder all day long.

The shot blocker thing is the biggest difference IMO, and that alone makes the Pak-43 a superior static AT emplacement, not to mention no fuel cost and the fact that Allied armor is that much more vulnerable to the Pak-43 than the more heavily armored / higher HP Axis armor.
24 Dec 2015, 13:06 PM
#33
avatar of ATCF
Donator 33

Posts: 587

Voted PAK 43 to be fine as it is (the thing has had its shiny 100 range nerfed, so 10 pop for it is fine)

Voted 17pdr to be 14 popcap, i mean 20 for it is insane and as with every immobile tank or a emplacement, in time they will get shelled by offmap strikes or by the enemy howitzers so you dont see them that often




(As for the people who were wondering about the huge popcaps that units have, well in 2013 when units had very low population gap, you had situations where your mp income would be around 80mp income per minute, so building a huge army had its penalties, unless you spammed tanks and never lost them, since you dont need to reinforce them)
24 Dec 2015, 13:13 PM
#34
avatar of Tatatala

Posts: 589

jump backJump back to quoted post24 Dec 2015, 13:06 PMATCF
Voted PAK 43 to be fine as it is (the thing has had its shiny 100 range nerfed, so 10 pop for it is fine)

Voted 17pdr to be 14 popcap, i mean 20 for it is insane and as with every immobile tank or a emplacement, in time they will get shelled by offmap strikes or by the enemy howitzers so you dont see them that often




(As for the people who were wondering about the huge popcaps that units have, well in 2013 when units had very low population gap, you had situations where your mp income would be around 80mp income per minute, so building a huge army had its penalties, unless you spammed tanks and never lost them, since you dont need to reinforce them)


I don't get it... why is the 43 fine at 10 pop, and the 17pdr fine at 14? What are you basing the 4 pop discrepancy on, given the reasons you've put forth for reducing it to 14?
24 Dec 2015, 13:28 PM
#35
avatar of ATCF
Donator 33

Posts: 587



I don't get it... why is the 43 fine at 10 pop, and the 17pdr fine at 14? What are you basing the 4 pop discrepancy on, given the reasons you've put forth for reducing it to 14?



Well it has Brace, and cant get stolen or decrewed, just like the British trenches are immune to enemy occupation, but i mean even the ML-20 or the leFH 18 cost 15 pop cap, and those things are rare to be seen in 1vs1 situation, so 14 pop cap for 17pdr is fine for me, but maybe the fuel cost could be reduced to 50 (fuel cost for 17pdr was 75 in COH 1), since bofors is 30fuel
24 Dec 2015, 13:30 PM
#36
avatar of Tatatala

Posts: 589

jump backJump back to quoted post24 Dec 2015, 13:28 PMATCF



Well it has Brace, and cant get stolen or decrewed, just like the British trenches are immune to enemy occupation, but i mean even the ML-20 or the leFH 18 cost 15 pop cap, and those things are rare to be seen in 1vs1 situation, so 14 pop cap for 17pdr is fine for me, but maybe the fuel cost could be reduced to 50 (fuel cost for 17pdr was 75 in COH 1), since bofors is 30fuel


You know, I'd actually prefer it if it could be decrewed and not burnt to a crisp by 1 flame nade... That's the great thing about the '43, it can't be destroyed if it has a crew...
24 Dec 2015, 13:34 PM
#37
avatar of Australian Magic

Posts: 4630 | Subs: 2

jump backJump back to quoted post24 Dec 2015, 13:28 PMATCF



Well it has Brace, and cant get stolen or decrewed, just like the British trenches are immune to enemy occupation, but i mean even the ML-20 or the leFH 18 cost 15 pop cap, and those things are rare to be seen in 1vs1 situation, so 14 pop cap for 17pdr is fine for me, but maybe the fuel cost could be reduced to 50 (fuel cost for 17pdr was 75 in COH 1), since bofors is 30fuel


And Pak43 can't be destroyed by mortars so easily, can't be destroyed by at guns (when crew is on), can't be destroyed by small arms fire, can shoot through obstacles, it's cheaper.

You use brace agasint flames, small arms fire, mortars etc.
Pak43 dont need brace casue, except for being decrewed, small arms of flames won't kill it.
24 Dec 2015, 13:42 PM
#38
avatar of ATCF
Donator 33

Posts: 587



And Pak43 can't be destroyed by mortars so easily, can't be destroyed by at guns (when crew is on), can't be destroyed by small arms fire, can shoot through obstacles, it's cheaper.

You use brace agasint flames, small arms fire, mortars etc.
Pak43 dont need brace casue, except for being decrewed, small arms of flames won't kill it.



I think that is has something to do with they way the crew is protected, since Artillery crews and PAK 43 crews have always been very hard to kill, they seem to have huge damage reduction on them, since enemy fired his panzerwerfer at my ML-20 and the crew took a direct hit, but all 4 crew members were still alive with very low hp, so maybe Relic should nerf their protection bonus, so they could be killed easier?


( Nerfing Arty crews would make getting veterancy on them almost impossible :P )
24 Dec 2015, 14:18 PM
#39
avatar of Bulgakov

Posts: 987

I casted a game recently a very interesting 3v3 game that was pretty entertaining and for the first 25 minutes of the game I was suggesting that one of the players built a 17 pounder on the left flank of the German line - The Germans had over extended in centre and it was prime real estate to punish them with a heavy AT gun. I was especially interested with how one of the players of the OKW was spamming out Pak 43's like there was no tomorrow - though in this case I disagreed with the placement.

So how does this relate to balance you ask? Well I looked to see how much the OKW Pak 43 costs 500 manpower all right that's ok, 10 Population.... wait what?

For those of you who don't know the 17 pounder cost 400 manpower and 75 fuel - reasonable if potentially over costed since it has brace, the ability to self spot and better Rate of Fire if garrisoned. however what got me very upset is it's population cost. A whopping 20 manpower. That is ludicrous.

Niether the Pak 43 nor the 17 Pounder justify 20 pop cap. I honestly think it's totally bonkers to allow a static gun that can be flanked and shelled without repositioning to be that much of a drain on population.
They both should be sitting around the 14-16 pop cap range the same as a Firefly/Panther - they should be alternatives to a highly mobile play style. Their cost as it stands is too much of a pop cap investment.

Do I think the Pak 43 is OP? No


Good point but remember the pak43 is doctrinal. That instantly limits it. non-doctrinal super-gun with low pop is a horribld proespect.

Also, with BRACE making emplacements hard to kill, I can understand the 20-pop to restrict their use. Sim city is no fun, especially not when they can put up SHIELD OF INVULNERABILITY whenever threatened.

I'd vote for the pak43 going up a couple of pop and the 17pdr going down 2 maximum.


Either that or nerf brace to dissaude sim city and reduce popcap to 12

Do I think the 17 Pounder is UP? No

Do I think that the 17 pounder needs a decrease to 14-16 pop Yes

Do I think the Pak 43 needs a slight adjustment to 12-14 pop Yes

What do you guys think. I have to say a pop discrepancy of 10 for similar units is just plain wrong. It'd be like if a IS-2 was 12 pop while a Tiger was 24. Am I wrong here? I'd like to get some opinions.
24 Dec 2015, 14:25 PM
#40
avatar of Tatatala

Posts: 589






Either that or nerf brace to dissaude sim city and reduce popcap to 12



lol
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

538 users are online: 2 members and 536 guests
Esxile, Valeran
17 posts in the last 24h
43 posts in the last week
97 posts in the last month
Registered members: 44644
Welcome our newest member, felayo364
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM