Pak 43 vs 17 Pounder Population costs.

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

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.

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCKlnjwzT1IruAZFb0EA-5pQ

The Pak43 is fine as it is. The 17 pounder should go down to 10pop as well. 20pop is indeed a bit harsh and restricting. But the 17 pounder (or every emplacement respectively) should also be limited to one on the field at a time then. Sim cities were annoying enough in Coh1. With brace and an adequate popcap this would get even worse.

Both the same pop. Which?... it's difficult to say.

The Pak43 is fine as it is. The 17 pounder should go down to 10pop as well. 20pop is indeed a bit harsh and restricting. But the 17 pounder (or every emplacement respectively) should also be limited to one on the field at a time then. Sim cities were annoying enough in Coh1. With brace and an adequate popcap this would get even worse.

The 17pounder is already limited in placement by its size. On some maps you'll struggle to find a space to build one in a decent firing position at all. I don't think a limit is necessary although I wouldn't care because I wouldn't build more than one ever for two reasons:

1) Brit tanks are the best thing about brits: Centaur, Firefly, Comet. Avre etc. You don't want to invest to much fuel in static emplacements when you have such decent tanks around.

2) 17pounder is easily countered. Of cpurse brace is strong versus one fire abilities and offmap attacks but it quickly goes down to constant artillery (LeIG) or flame attacks (Mortar HT) once the effect wore off. In lategame the Jagdtiger outranges it and thats a real pitty. Atm its a fuel sink in most games.

I like building Pak43 a lot more, because it costs no fuel, has greater range than any allied tank, can be remanded and can't be destroyed while its manned (only decrewed). On top of it all it costs only 10 population.

The 17pounder is already limited in placement by its size. On some maps you'll struggle to find a space to build one in a decent firing position at all. I don't think a limit is necessary although I wouldn't care because I wouldn't build more than one ever for two reasons:

1) Brit tanks are the best thing about brits: Centaur, Firefly, Comet. Avre etc. You don't want to invest to much fuel in static emplacements when you have such decent tanks around.

2) 17pounder is easily countered. Of cpurse brace is strong versus one fire abilities and offmap attacks but it quickly goes down to constant artillery (LeIG) or flame attacks (Mortar HT) once the effect wore off. In lategame the Jagdtiger outranges it and thats a real pitty. Atm its a fuel sink in most games.

I like building Pak43 a lot more, because it costs no fuel, has greater range than any allied tank, can be remanded and can't be destroyed while its manned (only decrewed). On top of it all it costs only 10 population.

Don't forget Pak43 can shoot through building which automatically put it miles ahead of 17pdr. It can be placed behind shotblocker while 17 pdr have to be put in really open space.

Don't forget Pak43 can shoot through building which automatically put it miles ahead of 17pdr. It can be placed behind shotblocker while 17 pdr have to be put in really open space.

Yeah thanks, forgot about that one which makes the Pak43 especially useful on city maps. Combined with its small building size you'll find some sweet spots.

Btw. three people voted for "It's fine as it is". ??? Can somebody who voted this way explain why 20 population (!) is okay for a static emplacement with restricted range (its no artillery piece) and a lot of available counters?

even 10 pop would be fine with the high fuel price it comes with.

17pdr, their crew can't be killed or snipe, unlike Pak 43,
also 17pdr HP is 800, compared with Pak 43 crew (80)*4 = 240,
so, 10 ~ 12 is fine for Pak 43
while 17pdr should 16 pop cap xD

20 pop cap cripples the 17pdr.

For comparison the Jagdtiger is 21 pop cap.

I've never really understood the purpose of pop cap in CoH2, especially since there's a great mechanic in place already: upkeep. The more units a player fields, the less manpower the receive. I don't see why the game couldn't be balanced around a 100 pop sized army, throttling manpower income exponentially as it grows beyond that size.

I get that there may be technical implications to pop cap for the purpose of preventing too many models on the field at a given time. I'm curious as to if this is the actual purpose of pop cap.

I've never really understood the purpose of pop cap in CoH2, especially since there's a great mechanic in place already: upkeep. The more units a player fields, the less manpower the receive. I don't see why the game couldn't be balanced around a 100 pop sized army, throttling manpower income exponentially as it grows beyond that size.

I get that there may be technical implications to pop cap for the purpose of preventing too many models on the field at a given time. I'm curious as to if this is the actual purpose of pop cap.

I could imagine that pop cap prevents snowballing. So the Player who is ahead will always be ahead because he can pump out even or more number of units without pop cap as is opponent who is behind. But im not sure on it.

I agree with OP, popcap on 17 Pounder really cripples it and its cost really is prohibitive for spamming it so lowering its popcap by a bit won't result in Sim City 2.0. 10 Population does seem a little low for Pak43 given that it can also shoot through buildings I think 12~ is fair enough for it when you take into account how easy it is to decrew.

Pak 43 is easily countered and the low population and cost is to compensate for it's weak crew. The 17 Pounder could go with 15 pop cap considering it can't be de-crewed (which would render it incapable of doing anything), and can be instantly repaired with anvil engineers.

but........

how often does an opponent build a pak43 in a place where the opponent can really make use of it... and it's like the old elephant where i can shoot through everything...

17 pounder takes up a lot of room. If you're going to give it an increase of 50% pop cap, i demand that it also gets to shoot through everything.

but........

how often does an opponent build a pak43 in a place where the opponent can really make use of it... and it's like the old elephant where i can shoot through everything...

17 pounder takes up a lot of room. If you're going to give it an increase of 50% pop cap, i demand that it also gets to shoot through everything.

It takes room, BUT it's safer out in the open than a pak 43 (which almost always requires some sort of cover to protect.) It's the point of British emplacements to be strong even out in the open.

It takes room, BUT it's safer out in the open than a pak 43 (which almost always requires some sort of cover to protect.) It's the point of British emplacements to be strong even out in the open.

And, how many maps actually allow you to build it in key positions that actually have enough open room? Not so many... with 20 pop and no shooting through everything. I'd rather have a pak43 replica that costs 0 fuel (down from 75) that can shoot through everything.

And it's not strong in the open because it becomes an easy target for mortars, arty, AT, JT outranges it?...

And, how many maps actually allow you to build it in key positions that actually have enough open room? Not so many... with 20 pop and no shooting through everything. I'd rather have a pak43 replica that costs 0 fuel (down from 75) that can shoot through everything.

And it's not strong in the open because it becomes an easy target for mortars, arty, AT, JT outranges it?...

Takes a simple barrage to decrew a pak 43 (Assuming there aren't infantry near it, so it's pretty much lost.) Takes lots of barrages to destroy 17 pounder. It shouldn't be a problem considering you'd get anvil engineers to repair it once the barrages stop. And if you're still having problems with artillery, try placing it further back, and (or) pushing to destroy the Artillery instead of turtling.

Takes a simple barrage to decrew a pak 43 (Assuming there aren't infantry near it, so it's pretty much lost.) Takes lots of barrages to destroy 17 pounder. It shouldn't be a problem considering you'd get anvil engineers to repair it once the barrages stop. And if you're still having problems with artillery, try placing it further back, and (or) pushing to destroy the Artillery instead of turtling.

Lol, you obviously don't play with UKF. What is a simple barrage? 150 muni? requires vision? if it's flame, it'll be recrewed. artillery isn't instataneous and there's no guarantee it will hit and destroy. or are you talking about 250 muni abilities? or are you talking about mortars that require more lose range?

the 17 pounder will get barraged non stop. JT can attack ground until it is destroyed. All indirect fire can attack ground until it is destroyed. leig outranges everything but heavy arty and mortar pit. your miracle engineers will die repairing it. put it? put it where? it's so large to begin with. again, i'd trade a 17 pounder for a pak43 anyday. if you're okay with that, i'll know it's balanced. If that ever happened, i'd hear Axis crying for changes.

+1 to Whitesky Doesn't take you long playing as UKF to experience the joy of watching your Engineers slowly die to LeIG fire as they futilely try to repair an Emplacement after Brace wears off.

It's true that Emplacements can take a bit more punishment but they are still fairly easy to counter and it in no way justifies the huge disparity in PopCap upkeep (especially when you take into account the cost difference).

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.