Pak 43 vs 17 Pounder Population costs.

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.

by your logic we should nerf the King Tiger even more cause its nondoctrinal compared to the Pershing/IS-2

just because its doctrinal DOESNT AUTOMATICALLY MEAN it should be more powerful then its non doctrinal counterpart

by your logic we should nerf the King Tiger even more cause its nondoctrinal compared to the Pershing/IS-2

just because its non doctrinal DOESNT AUTOMATICALLY MEAN it should be more powerful then its non doctrinal counterpart

OHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

+1

I didn't think about that

Both of these guns have a same role but should be used differently, the 17 pounder is a beefy emplacement that can and will take a beating before being destroyed, but the pak43 is a glass cannon, deals a shit ton of dmg from a great range but is easy to counter with any kinds of artillery, cheap barrages will most of the times decrew it but heavier arty (Let's say Time on Artilley) will demolish it with one go with 99% success rate also remember that that once the pak43 is de-crewed it loses all it's veterancy also and this is a big loss especially if you have 3-5 stars on it

The 17 pounder can also self spot with the flare (dunno if it's removed since I haven't used this unit in a while) which is pretty stronk if you're forced to retreat from a fight

But back to the actual topic: the Pak43s pop cap is fine since it's so fragile to artillery.

17 pounders pop cap is a little too high, something like 16/17 would be fine for it, now it's just a pain in the arse to have on the field since you can't push out nearly as many tanks. Taking to consideration the amount of fire power needed to destroy this thing, but the pop cap shouldn't be 10 by any means, this would cause people to spam them like hell, since they're so hard to kill compared to the pak43

17 pdr needs to have its range brought up to the range of the JT or the JT down to 17 pdr. Currently the 17 pdr can be outranged (which is silly with new OKW fuel income).

17 pdr must have its pop cap lowered, but not so far as to encourage sim city.

The crew vulnerability on the pak 43 is offset by the fact it rarely needs to be repaired and costs no fuel. By contrast the 17 pdr requires constant maintenance, and is a high fuel investment. To get the most from the gun you need to garrison a squad as well. It also requires constant munitions expenditures (flares and penetrating shot).

once the pak43 is de-crewed it loses all it's veterancy

Does it?

Both of these guns have a same role but should be used differently, the 17 pounder is a beefy emplacement that can and will take a beating before being destroyed, but the pak43 is a glass cannon, deals a shit ton of dmg from a great range but is easy to counter with any kinds of artillery, cheap barrages will most of the times decrew it but heavier arty (Let's say Time on Artilley) will demolish it with one go with 99% success rate also remember that that once the pak43 is de-crewed it loses all it's veterancy also and this is a big loss especially if you have 3-5 stars on it

The 17 pounder can also self spot with the flare (dunno if it's removed since I haven't used this unit in a while) which is pretty stronk if you're forced to retreat from a fight

But back to the actual topic: the Pak43s pop cap is fine since it's so fragile to artillery.

17 pounders pop cap is a little too high, something like 16/17 would be fine for it, now it's just a pain in the arse to have on the field since you can't push out nearly as many tanks. Taking to consideration the amount of fire power needed to destroy this thing, but the pop cap shouldn't be 10 by any means, this would cause people to spam them like hell, since they're so hard to kill compared to the pak43

you think the 17 pounder is not weak to artillery??

they are used the same way cause their the same units,you put it on the front lines and your gonna lose it,you put it too far near your base and you may not use it at all and eat your pop for nothing.

BOTH AT GUNS have long range to shot FROM A DISTANCE

10 pop for the pak 43 can not be considered ok if you think the 17 pounder should only take 14-16 pop
their the same unit!!!!

don't forget, the pak43 can shoot through objects

Pak 43 has maphax built in, this isn't even a contest.

you think the 17 pounder is not weak to artillery??

they are used the same way cause their the same units,you put it on the front lines and your gonna lose it,you put it too far near your base and you may not use it at all and eat your pop for nothing.

BOTH AT GUNS have long range to shot FROM A DISTANCE

10 pop for the pak 43 can not be considered ok if you think the 17 pounder should only take 14-16 pop
their the same unit!!!!

The brit fanboy is stronk in this one Also babby's first powerfantasy

But do you realise that the pak43 can be decrewed with 3-4 mortar shots with some good rng?
The pak43 is far more weak to artillery compared to the 17 pounder, 17 punder can take a 200 ammo barrage to the face, and pak43 can be destroyed by a 150 ammo barrage

The brit fanboy is stronk in this one Also babby's first powerfantasy

But do you realise that the pak43 can be decrewed with 3-4 mortar shots with some good rng?
The pak43 is far more weak to artillery compared to the 17 pounder, 17 punder can take a 200 ammo barrage to the face, and pak43 can be destroyed by a 150 ammo barrage

do you realise that the 17 pounder can not be decrewed but gets destroyed once someone hits it 6-8 times with mortar shells?when someone drops flame nades to it?? flame mortar rounds??

the 17 pounder can not be decrewed so once you lose the emplacement its gone it and the resources you gave to built it UNLIKE the Pak 43 which it will get decrewed from those weapons NOT OUTRIGHT DESTROYED.

BOTH the pak 43 and the 17 pounder get destroyed by offmap callins,but cause you havent seen the 17 pounder you think otherwise..

"BUT BRACE.."

then mortar it its already dead and you cant repair it while its under fire.

lets also not forget the pak 43 shells pierce terrain(the 17 pounder needs vet 1 and 90 munitions for timed pierce shells)

their the same unit just like the sherman and the panzer 4 are

The brit fanboy is stronk in this one Also babby's first powerfantasy

But do you realise that the pak43 can be decrewed with 3-4 mortar shots with some good rng?
The pak43 is far more weak to artillery compared to the 17 pounder, 17 punder can take a 200 ammo barrage to the face, and pak43 can be destroyed by a 150 ammo barrage

Aaaaaaand 17 Pounder can be destroyed by small arms

I'd rather it be destroyed than decrewed, just so it can never be captured.

by your logic we should nerf the King Tiger even more cause its nondoctrinal compared to the Pershing/IS-2

just because its doctrinal DOESNT AUTOMATICALLY MEAN it should be more powerful then its non doctrinal counterpart

You're right.


Good point about terrain pierce too, it's important.

I'm not talking about nerfing overall power though. It can be any mechanism that makes turtling up difficult. I like dynamic play, that's why strong emplacements bother me.

You're right.


Good point about terrain pierce too, it's important.

I'm not talking about nerfing overall power though. It can be any mechanism that makes turtling up difficult. I like dynamic play, that's why strong emplacements bother me.

The cost of emplacements are pretty high and their too big(size),and this brings many problems,one of them is the lack of an actual force to protect them,the other is the lack of an actual answer to their hard counters(artillery,flame weapons)cause once you lose them you lose the game and how hard it is to use them in alot of maps or how hard its to even place them in the first place.

the other is the population their taking kills your army and economy.

the worst offender is how cheap their counters are(mortars,ISG) compared to emplacements and how effective those counters are to the entire faction and the last straw is how the british are unable to answer to that,in vCOH you could atleast try to bomb them to hell with 25 pounders but now....now 25 pounders are the definition of useless......

i DONT WANT emplacemetns to be the ONLY VIABLE option to play us the british BUT i want them to be A VIABLE option,and i want to feel i have choices on how i can answer to their counters just like i have an answer to an AT gun.

if those 2 things are fixed turtling wouldnt be UP and it would be enjoyable for both sides.

The cost of emplacements are pretty high and their too big(size),and this brings many problems,one of them is the lack of an actual force to protect them,the other is the lack of an actual answer to their hard counters(artillery,flame weapons)cause once you lose them you lose the game and how hard it is to use them in alot of maps or how hard its to even place them in the first place.

the other is the population their taking kills your army and economy.

the worst offender is how cheap their counters are(mortars,ISG) compared to emplacements and how effective those counters are to the entire faction and the last straw is how the british are unable to answer to that,in vCOH you could atleast try to bomb them to hell with 25 pounders but now....now 25 pounders are the definition of useless......

i DONT WANT emplacemetns to be the ONLY VIABLE option to play us the british BUT i want them to be A VIABLE option,and i want to feel i have choices on how i can answer to their counters just like i have an answer to an AT gun.

if those 2 things are fixed turtling wouldnt be UP and it would be enjoyable for both sides.

Sounds quite reasonable. I stopped playing UKF because of this reasons a month ago. Playing OKW/Soviet/USF atm. When I'm up versus brits with OKW I'm always happy if opponents go heavy on emplacements, because I can react with two or three ISG near my medical truck and shell them from there without much risk. Don't go for walking stuka, it is scrap versus emplacements, multiple ISG on the other side destroy multiple emplacements.

The only thing worth building are one or two mortar emplacements if you build them very defensive so that they barely cover the important points near your frontline in the mid of the map and can't be fired at that easy.

Bofors and 17pounders are a fuel sink that minimize brit tanks on the field. It is typical for Relic: On one side Bofors is still op as hell versus infantry and light vehicles and on the other side is countered so easily if you know how. 17pounder is strong too, but countered the same way + much too population heavy.

I would like to see brit emplacements as viable option too, not as a fuel sink, which delays your best units on the fields.

i mean, it's fuel price keeps it un-spammable.

even 10 pop would be fine imo.

My ideas from my mod:

-Cost Reduced from 400 manpower and 75 to 400 manpower and 50 fuel.
-Population from 21 to 12.

Why the cost reduction and the population reduction? Because it's a stationary anti-tank gun with a massive hit box and it actually takes significant damage from any 160 damage source when unbraced. Pak 43s can at least shoot from behind object stock, though the gun needs more health to avoid being one-shotted by off-maps. You can't afford you have one immobile, situational unit taking up 1/5th of the pop cap that also delays tanks considerably and is vulnerable to infantry assaults.

Also, Brits need a way to tear down their emplacements for a partial refund so they can actually move the line up and not have these units take up pop-cap when not doing anything.

OP answered gis iwn question: is pak43 too strong? No. Is 17pdr too weak? No.
Ergo: no changes needed if you truely want abalanced game. The rest of the thread is fanboyism at its finest. No rhyme or reason to almost any argument. Basically people argueing whether giraffes or rattlesnakes are better and why.

OP answered gis iwn question: is pak43 too strong? No. Is 17pdr too weak? No.
Ergo: no changes needed if you truely want abalanced game. The rest of the thread is fanboyism at its finest. No rhyme or reason to almost any argument. Basically people argueing whether giraffes or rattlesnakes are better and why.

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.