Pak 43 vs 17 Pounder Population costs.

Jump back to quoted post23 Dec 2015, 02:06 AMgeneral_gawain

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.

Jump back to quoted post23 Dec 2015, 04:09 AMJaedrik

No option to make the 17 Pounder also 10 pop.

Bad poll imo tbh

Jump back to quoted post23 Dec 2015, 13:26 PMcapiqua

Double of 10pop is muuuuuuch.

Jump back to quoted post24 Dec 2015, 08:44 AMAustralian Magic

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.

Jump 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)

Jump back to quoted post24 Dec 2015, 13:13 PMTatatala

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?

Jump 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

Jump 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

Jump back to quoted post24 Dec 2015, 13:34 PMAustralian Magic

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.

Jump back to quoted post22 Dec 2015, 10:52 AMCadianGuardsman

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

Jump back to quoted post24 Dec 2015, 14:18 PMBulgakov

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