Login

russian armor

Pak 43 vs 17 Pounder Population costs.

26 Dec 2015, 00:36 AM
#61
avatar of Cafo

Posts: 245

I think 20 is way much especially considering the emplacements alone require other units to support it.

26 Dec 2015, 01:17 AM
#62
avatar of general_gawain

Posts: 919

jump backJump back to quoted post26 Dec 2015, 00:13 AMGrim


wut? People are making good (and bad) points on this thread. Most people believe the 17pdr is in need of a buff.

Your post contributes to neither side. Just passive-aggressive chaff.


+1

Until his post this was a reasonable debate without bad manners. But you can't keep away the trolls forever for sure. So we have to live with it.
26 Dec 2015, 04:33 AM
#63
avatar of elchino7
Senior Moderator Badge

Posts: 8154 | Subs: 2



Does it? :brad:


Working as intended :snfPeter:

26 Dec 2015, 10:03 AM
#64
avatar of cr4wler

Posts: 1164

jump backJump back to quoted post26 Dec 2015, 00:13 AMGrim


wut? People are making good (and bad) points on this thread. Most people believe the 17pdr is in need of a buff.

Your post contributes to neither side. Just passive-aggressive chaff.


The point is that trying to compare 17pdr and pak43 is like comparing the ost sniper to soviet shocktroops. Both are anti infantry, both are infantry. One is stock, one is doctrinal. And that already is where the similarities end. 17pdr (like shocks, but unlike pak43) is a frontline unit. It can tank single units for literally minutes, even without brace. Pak43 is more of a long range, sniper like unit, which is why it has higher range and ignores terrain. Both units have entirely different uses (apart from both being AT), just like sniper/shock. If i were to argue that the sniper needs a buff because it has less hp, less dps, cannot self spot, is more expensive, costs more popcap (?) etc. people would call me crazy, and rightfully so.

Considerably lowering popcap and/or cost of 17pdr will absolutely DESTROY teamgames. Emplacements already are cancer enough.
26 Dec 2015, 10:32 AM
#65
avatar of Nabarxos

Posts: 392

jump backJump back to quoted post26 Dec 2015, 10:03 AMcr4wler


The point is that trying to compare 17pdr and pak43 is like comparing the ost sniper to soviet shocktroops. Both are anti infantry, both are infantry. One is stock, one is doctrinal. And that already is where the similarities end. 17pdr (like shocks, but unlike pak43) is a frontline unit. It can tank single units for literally minutes, even without brace. Pak43 is more of a long range, sniper like unit, which is why it has higher range and ignores terrain. Both units have entirely different uses (apart from both being AT), just like sniper/shock. If i were to argue that the sniper needs a buff because it has less hp, less dps, cannot self spot, is more expensive, costs more popcap (?) etc. people would call me crazy, and rightfully so.

Considerably lowering popcap and/or cost of 17pdr will absolutely DESTROY teamgames. Emplacements already are cancer enough.


you dont get it,BOTH units are not frontline units.

the 17 pounder is not a front line emplacement wanna know why?

cause then even enemy AT guns can hit it so good luck trying to repair it when 2 at guns fire at it WHILE you get barraged to death.

Don believe me? play any game mode,try to build it on the front lines then report your results.

the best comparison to them would be the Werhmacht sniper compared to the Soviet sniper,one happens to be more deadly(werhmcaht sniper/pak 43) the other happens to be a little more durable (soviet sniper/17 pounder) one thing is certain THEY ATTACK AT MAX RANGE.

26 Dec 2015, 10:39 AM
#66
avatar of Australian Magic

Posts: 4630 | Subs: 2

jump backJump back to quoted post26 Dec 2015, 10:03 AMcr4wler


The point is that trying to compare 17pdr and pak43 is like comparing the ost sniper to soviet shocktroops. Both are anti infantry, both are infantry. One is stock, one is doctrinal. And that already is where the similarities end. 17pdr (like shocks, but unlike pak43) is a frontline unit. It can tank single units for literally minutes, even without brace. Pak43 is more of a long range, sniper like unit, which is why it has higher range and ignores terrain. Both units have entirely different uses (apart from both being AT), just like sniper/shock. If i were to argue that the sniper needs a buff because it has less hp, less dps, cannot self spot, is more expensive, costs more popcap (?) etc. people would call me crazy, and rightfully so.

Considerably lowering popcap and/or cost of 17pdr will absolutely DESTROY teamgames. Emplacements already are cancer enough.


Different uses? I mean, you use Pak 43 to kill tanks but you use 17 Pounder to what? Shoot confetti?
26 Dec 2015, 10:40 AM
#67
avatar of cr4wler

Posts: 1164

If the 17 pdr is your only frontline unit versus multiple paks and indirect fire units... then yeah. But then thats your fault (like complaining a mg42 bunker is getting pak'ed to death). If it isn't, it's fairly easy to defend.
26 Dec 2015, 10:43 AM
#68
avatar of cr4wler

Posts: 1164



Different uses? I mean, you use Pak 43 to kill tanks but you use 17 Pounder to what? Shoot confetti?


So you use your snipers the same way you use your shocks? Please stop being so retarded right after i explained it so that a kindergarten kid could understand.
26 Dec 2015, 10:46 AM
#69
avatar of Australian Magic

Posts: 4630 | Subs: 2

jump backJump back to quoted post26 Dec 2015, 10:43 AMcr4wler


So you use your snipers the same way you use your shocks? Please stop being so retarded right after i explained it so that a kindergarten kid could understand.



Holy garden. I havent seen such bullshit for a long long time.

So 17 pounder is close combat at gun? :romeoMug:

PS
Im going to surpsise you but Pak 43 can be more durable than 17 pounder.
26 Dec 2015, 10:46 AM
#70
avatar of Nabarxos

Posts: 392

jump backJump back to quoted post26 Dec 2015, 10:40 AMcr4wler
If the 17 pdr is your only frontline unit versus multiple paks and indirect fire units... then yeah. But then thats your fault (like complaining a mg42 bunker is getting pak'ed to death). If it isn't, it's fairly easy to defend.


you can flank with your tanks and kill the 17 pounder.

never thought about that huh?

i dont blame you,you dont play the british.

also you ignored the fact that they can attack it with AT guns but i guess you cant find a solid argument about that,not even a bad one but i dont blame you.
26 Dec 2015, 10:51 AM
#71
avatar of cr4wler

Posts: 1164



you can flank with your tanks and kill the 17 pounder.

never thought about that huh?

i dont blame you,you dont play the british.

also you ignored the fact that they can attack it with AT guns but u guess you cant find a solid argument about that,not even a bad one but i dont blame you.


I did address it but please, go on insulting me instead of reading my posts.

You can also flank the pak43... even easier because it has way narrower arc. And can't turn as quickly as the 17pdr. Or because it has no brace. Or because it gets killed by small arms.

Also: i do play brits.
26 Dec 2015, 11:06 AM
#72
avatar of general_gawain

Posts: 919

jump backJump back to quoted post26 Dec 2015, 10:51 AMcr4wler


I did address it but please, go on insulting me instead of reading my posts.


..says the man that comes in here insulting everybody who posted so far as allied fanboy right in his first post. Congrats.

Btw. comparison of Ostheer Sniper/Shock Troops with Pak43/17pdr is so wrong, but others explained it already.
26 Dec 2015, 11:07 AM
#73
avatar of Australian Magic

Posts: 4630 | Subs: 2

Since Cr4wler has some big issues with understanding the game, I mean, he compare Pak43 to sniper and 17 pounder to shocks :snfPeter: I'm going to put it simple.

17 Pounder pros:

Quicket rotation.
Brace.
Non doctrinal.
Garrsion + flare.

17 Pounder cons:
Cost.
Pop cap.
Cannot shoot through obstacles.
Huge hit box.
Countered by Elephnat or Jadgtiger.
Heavy damage from fire.
Can be destroyed by small arms.

Pak 43 pros:
Cheap
Can shoot through everything.
Pop cap.
Can be decrewed*
Cant be killed by At Gun when placed properly.
Cannot be destroyed by fire.
Cannot be destroyed by small arms.

Pak 43 cons:
Can be decrewed*
Slow rotation.
Doctrinal.

*It's pro and con at once, why? It's con becasue opposite to 17 pounder you lose your crew to fire, but it's pro becasue you lose just a crew, not whole gun and you can easily recrew it later.

____
Please someone upgraded this list with stats aka penetration, reload etc.
26 Dec 2015, 11:09 AM
#74
avatar of Nabarxos

Posts: 392

jump backJump back to quoted post26 Dec 2015, 10:51 AMcr4wler


I did address it but please, go on insulting me instead of reading my posts.

You can also flank the pak43... even easier because it has way narrower arc. And can't turn as quickly as the 17pdr. Or because it has no brace. Or because it gets killed by small arms.

Also: i do play brits.


"If the 17 pdr is your only frontline unit versus multiple paks and indirect fire units... then yeah. But then thats your fault (like complaining a mg42 bunker is getting pak'ed to death). If it isn't, it's fairly easy to defend."
:lolol:

even i could no think about such a stupid argument :rofl:

and its not only that but you counter argument your own point(fact being the 17 pounder is not a front line AT gun)

so well done mate:thumb:

also cause you dont know much about the british is just obvious (dont you know the 17 pounder doesnt have arc but needs to lock on to a tank? which up close and personal is suicide) it also fires slower but how would you know that you compared to me shocks with werhmacht snipers.

and the only guy who insults you is yourself, just look what are you telling me your attacking yourself for no reason.



26 Dec 2015, 11:11 AM
#75
avatar of Nabarxos

Posts: 392

Since Cr4wler has some big issues with understanding the game, I mean, he compare Pak43 to sniper and 17 pounder to shocks :snfPeter: I'm going to put it simple.

17 Pounder pros:

Quicket rotation.
Brace.
Non doctrinal.
Garrsion + flare.

17 Pounder cons:
Cost.
Pop cap.
Cannot shoot through obstacles.
Huge hit box.
Countered by Elephnat or Jadgtiger.
Heavy damage from fire.
Can be destroyed by small arms.

Pak 43 pros:
Cheap
Can shoot through everything.
Pop cap.
Can be decrewed*
Cant be killed by At Gun when placed properly.
Cannot be destroyed by fire.
Cannot be destroyed by small arms.

Pak 43 cons:
Can be decrewed*
Slow rotation.
Doctrinal.

*It's pro and con at once, why? It's con becasue opposite to 17 pounder you lose your crew to fire, but it's pro becasue you lose just a crew, not whole gun and you can easily recrew it later.


the elefant cant counter the 17 pounder only the jagdtiger but that takes time

Good points overall:clap:
26 Dec 2015, 11:17 AM
#76
avatar of Australian Magic

Posts: 4630 | Subs: 2



the elefant cant counter the 17 pounder only the jagdtiger but that takes time

Good points overall:clap:


In fact it can.

If you put them in front of each other, Elephnat will kill 17 pounder first.

Now try to put AT ISU152 in front of Pak43 :snfPeter:
26 Dec 2015, 11:44 AM
#77
avatar of cr4wler

Posts: 1164

You'd think at least one person would actually read my post.... everybody is goong crazy about the sniper/shock comparison, when in reality i never compared the two... i said doing it would be JUST AS STUPID as trying to compare pak43 vs. 17pdr... hyperbolic? Maybe a little. Still serves well to prove my point here.

Also the list is ridiculously skewed in supposed axis favor. "Can be decrewed" is about as much a pro for the pak43 as it is for the mg42. Or "can be countered by jt" oh, a doctrinal super heavy tank that can only be fielded by one faction can maybe kill it at like 13cp while it costs like 300 fuel, but only if you arent quick enough with the bracing.... yeah that sounds like its TOTALLY something that should be in that con list :-) also good luck destroying a 17 pdr with small arms... that whole list basically is proof enough of the rampant fanboyism going on here. Ignoring arguments that dont fit your narrative and purposely misinterpreting others are dotting the i here.
26 Dec 2015, 12:49 PM
#78
avatar of Superhet

Posts: 132

I have never made the 17-pdr, but I would make the Pak 43. Even if you can afford the 17-pdrs manpower cost, its pop cost is so huge that you can't make a proper tank force when the time to do so occurs. This will restrict your capability to win fights anywhere except where the 17-pdr is so imo, it's only really viable to make it at a point where it can guard 2 VPs. Otherwise your offensive ability becomes too restricted to contest the other VPs effectively. It doesn't help that constructing and repairing the 17-pdr is in itself something that detracts from it, because if the fighting is calm enough for them to build stuff, that's valuable time your sappers could've spent laying mines which have a far lesser opportunity cost to them.

I used to not make the Pak 43 either for the same reason - its pop cost was so ridiculously high that it was unfeasible to make it. Thus I think the 17-pdr's pop cost should be reduced, not the Pak 43's increased. Make more things more viable instead of making everything less viable.

Also, the 17-pdrs pop cost is symptomatic of the wider CoH2 phenomenon that sometimes you have to kill off your infantry to make room for late game units. That should be fixed by reducing the pop costs of infantry units and instead letting upkeep limit them. You should never think "I can't call in another tank unless I kill a squad" like it is now but instead "I can't call in another tank unless I kill my whole army" like in CoH1.
26 Dec 2015, 13:48 PM
#79
avatar of Grim

Posts: 1096

jump backJump back to quoted post26 Dec 2015, 11:44 AMcr4wler


Also the list is ridiculously skewed in supposed axis favor. "Can be decrewed" is about as much a pro for the pak43 as it is for the mg42.


But by that logic the vickers mg would be destroyed completely.....so yeah I'd rather have something decrewed than utterly destroyed.

26 Dec 2015, 14:08 PM
#80
avatar of Superhet

Posts: 132

Also for reference in CoH1 the 17-pdr took 3 pop (I would've made an Axis comparison but they had no emplacements). Did that cause problems? did it make the unit overpowered? I don't get where CoH2 got its enormous pop costs from or why, instead of balancing around resources and a roomy but existing pop cap we now have a balance around not being able to make a complete army because you can't make more units. Why? did it get it from DoW2 where it was a terrible idea too?
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

866 users are online: 866 guests
1 post in the last 24h
11 posts in the last week
27 posts in the last month
Registered members: 50002
Welcome our newest member, rwintoday1
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM