PaK43 needs more Range.

Sooo... I made a new thread so we can discuss if the Pak43 needs more range, because in the "old" thread it seemed to me that too many people reacted harshly when presented with the possibility for the Elephant to appear in games again. Because of that, this thread is only about the Pak 43, so that no nightmares are triggered. If you feel the PaK43 is in a fine state, then please express that feeling with more than one word. Thanks



For the Pak43 the range means something diffrent then for the TDs, because its the area of its effect. It's the ground it covers.
For every other calculation, the range of the Pak43 doesn't really factor in as much. For example, It's direct counters are not affected by more range (arty/offmaps/mortars/infantry).
If you attack it with tanks and flank it / hide them a bit in the fog of war it also doesn't matter.
The only time it really matters is if you attack it directly from the front, and I think we are all ok if that doesn't work.


I would suggest atleast 90-95 range.
On the other hand I would also be OK with other buffs.

Agreed.

+1 The Pak43 is an IMMOBILE Atgun and it costs upwards of 500 manpower and is doctrinal. It already has so many counters. 50kg bombs, inf rushes, priest and other offmaps and mortars and what not. The elefant nerf was well justified but pak43 range should remain 100.

+1

+1 currently the Pak43 is useless, it's range and dmg is everything it got.

Yeah 100 range was fine for this unit. Short range on top of its many other weaknesses is silly.

No it doesn't

One problem I have with any AT guns getting that sort of range is that way that the area they cover at the far end undergoes exponential growth.

Their arc may start small- but even 30 degrees at 100 range gets very large indeed. One spotting unit can allow a single building-piercing AT gun to have permenant vehicle denial not only at 100 range but also over a substantial width of the map.

Consider that 100 range is enough to park a PaK behind the tree line in crossing in the woods and all but hit the enemy base, too. 100 range may seem great for 4v4, but maps are a lot smaller for 1v1 and 2v2.

Well eh I dunno. This thing have great stuff what to offer but again. Once enemy artillery it or barage with zis or even mortar... Your strat and you get humilated. Instead of range discuss I think all of us should discuss should it be able to survive some of the artillery abilities

As long as maps like Crossing in the Woods are in 2v2 rotation I really don't want this thing to have more range. Or take the ridicilous "shoot through anything" passive away, and then we can talk about increasing range.

Until maps like Crossing in the Woods are taken out of the 2v2 rotation I really don't want this thing to have more range.

That's the last thing I want. Small maps are great. They offer consistent action and interesting dynamics that larger maps can't offer. Removing an entire type of map just so things can have 100 range on vast rolling fields would be a crying shame.

One problem I have with any AT guns getting that sort of range is that way that the area they cover at the far end undergoes exponential growth.

Their arc may start small- but even 30 degrees at 100 range gets very large indeed. One spotting unit can allow a single building-piercing AT gun to have permenant vehicle denial not only at 100 range but also over a substantial width of the map.

Consider that 100 range is enough to park a PaK behind the tree line in crossing in the woods and all but hit the enemy base, too. 100 range may seem great for 4v4, but maps are a lot smaller for 1v1 and 2v2.

Is it? I rarely play those modes unless I have been drinking.

Molotovs kill this thing, Off maps kill this thing, Any type of Arty kills this thing. The cherry on top? No Tiger with this thing.

If they want to keep it short range then make it 360MP.

Is it? I rarely play those modes unless I have been drinking.

Molotovs kill this thing, Off maps kill this thing, Any type of Arty kills this thing. The cherry on top? No Tiger with this thing.

If they want to keep it short range then make it 360MP.

You want a 80* range double damage AT gun with usual crew, universal green cover and a boat load of health for 40MP more than a ZiS.

Right.

Sure.

That's the last thing I want. Small maps are great. They offer consistent action and interesting dynamics that larger maps can't offer. Removing an entire type of map just so things can have 100 range on vast rolling fields would be a crying shame.

Where's the interesting dynamic in MORTAR MORTAR MORTAR MORTAR MORTAR? Cause that's what small maps are all about, indirect fire. Also, maps like Crossing are so small that in 2v2 it's pretty much impossible to flank, because every cm² of dirt is covered by infantry in the first 5 minutes. No flanking = much boring. Tbh I like maps like Rails and Metal, and basically every other CoH1 2v2 map far more than maps like Semois, Crossing, etc in 2v2.

I do agree though, removing a map only to justify increased range on a AT gun would be ridicilous. So no, I don't want the PaK to get more range.

+1

+1

It wasnt too strong before the TD-Nerf-Patch. Some people complained that it was too weak, but I think it was in a good spot. Its strong but stationary (and therefore easily countered)

By nerfing the high-range units two "counters" to the pak43 were nerfed: The KV2 and ISU...units that were rarely used to counter it anyway (since they are also countered by it) and are definitely not necessary to counter it.

Now the 43 isnt strong enough to justify the investment. High Risk but low reward.

You want a 80* range double damage AT gun with usual crew, universal green cover and a boat load of health for 40MP more than a ZiS.

Right.

Sure.

No I DONT because I dont really play Ostheer. I think a Short Range immobile and very squishy unit that occupys a large pop cap and has oppurtinuty costs (no Tiger) to be more rewarding for Ost Players.

No I DONT because I dont really play Ostheer. I think a Short Range immobile and very squishy unit that occupys a large pop cap and has oppurtinuty costs (no Tiger) to be more rewarding for Ost Players.

I think a Short Range immobile and very squishy unit

Short Range

Longest range direct fire gun in game is short range.

Okay.

If you say so.

I'll admit I know not much about 2v2 dynamics. I mostly play 1v1.
But my thinking was that in Teamgames the Pak43 is even more useless than 1v1 because atleast one of your enemys will have tons of arty.

Agree, Pak43 could need a buff.