Login

russian armor
COH2.ORG » Forums » Parlor Room » COH2 Central » COH2 Balance » Should 17 pounder have less popcap?

Should 17 pounder have less popcap?

PAGES (2)down
New topic New topic     Upload replay New Reply
Should UKF 17lber have less pop cap?
Option Distribution Votes
15%
3%
27%
30%
25%
Total votes: 89
Vote VOTE! Vote ABSTAIN
Arclyte
2 May 2016, 20:33 PM
#1
avatar of Arclyte

Posts: 692



The 17 pounder can be directly compared to the pak43 for the most part. They're both stationary AT guns with good range and a lot of firepower. It's not right to compare them in a vacuum, though, as they both have different enemies with different units supporting them.

We all know the drill. PaK43 is doctrinal and can shoot through walls, 17lber can brace etc, i won't waste time listing their traits.

I think we can all agree though the 17lber is virtually non-existent due to an outrageous 20 pop cap. I know there's a lot of hate for advanced emplacement doctrine, so a lot of people will immediately shit on any idea that buffs an emplacement out of spite. That is the wrong attitude.

I would also add that the Pak, like all other on-map non-UKF emplacements, is too vulnerable to being 1 shotted by offmap arty. The howitzers/guns should have enough hp to withstand the cheaper offmaps, excluding big things like air superiority

I think it should be no more than 14 pop and no less than 12.
Reply Reply Multi Quote Reply Reply
Doomlord52
2 May 2016, 20:40 PM
#2
avatar of Doomlord52

Posts: 960

Voted 16pop.

The main reason (IMO) for the massive pop difference is that the 17lb can't be decrewed (and can brace, on top of that). That's a massive advantage that I would take over anything the Pak43 has right now. However 20 pop is far too high, even for what it does.

I think 16 is about right, since any lower than that and you're almost competing with single squads in terms of pop usage, and I really don't want to see the game devolve into "do I want a squad or an incredibly resilient building".
Opinions reflect all team modes (not 1v1)
I often edit my posts several times after posting
Reply Reply Multi Quote Reply Reply
Aerohank
2 May 2016, 20:43 PM
#3
avatar of Aerohank

Posts: 2693 | Subs: 1

I'd say 14 is fine.

Making it 10 is too low considering the Brits can supplement the 17pdr with other emplacements to make an impressive fortified position. However, anything over 14 is a very high cost for an immobile unit that needs open lanes of fire.
Reply Reply Multi Quote Reply Reply
SupremeStefan
2 May 2016, 20:47 PM
#4
avatar of SupremeStefan

Posts: 1220

20 is ok but 17pounder should shoot through walls
http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=429076979 <- check my map
Reply Reply Multi Quote Reply Reply
ferwiner
2 May 2016, 20:49 PM
#5
avatar of ferwiner
Donator 11

Posts: 2885

High pop is the reason why it is underused. It should be lowered down to 18. But there are also other emplacements that are being overused. These should have their pop higher than it is right now.
Reply Reply Multi Quote Reply Reply
Kamzil118
2 May 2016, 21:38 PM
#6
avatar of Kamzil118

Posts: 455

Somewhere around the 12-15 popcap since the 17-pdr can brace itself, use flares for itself, and fire AP shells for increased penetration. I believe this popcap range is reasonable since the 17-pdr has more abilities and durability in combat. This would allow the British player to consider using the unit while it is not overused and allows the player to consider its placement.
Reply Reply Multi Quote Reply Reply
Crumbum
2 May 2016, 22:28 PM
#7
avatar of Crumbum

Posts: 213

I think 16 pop is good since its an emplacement which naturally makes it much more durable than the pak 43. Making it lower than this could see it abused in large team games quite badly where some brit players will make the 3 three emplacements in combination to defend a point against all threats making it extremely tough to counter.
Reply Reply Multi Quote Reply Reply
hubewa
2 May 2016, 23:53 PM
#8
avatar of hubewa

Posts: 928

IMO 17 pounder is perfectly fine with popcap considering its abilities.

That said, if we got lowered popcap after getting rid of brace and compensated with HP increase, we could see more 17 pounders.
Had fun doing this earlier
Reply Reply Multi Quote Reply Reply
DjDrowsyBear
3 May 2016, 05:54 AM
#9
avatar of DjDrowsyBear

Posts: 41

Literally just commented about this on the Bofors thread before seeing this.

I vote for decreasing the population cost to 14. It is powerful and has a strong range but is limited by being fragile (even with Brace), requiring a lot of AI support, and being static. Requiring it to have the population cost equivalent of two 6-pounders makes sense to me in that way.

Of course, I would also argue for a pop cost increase for both the mortar pit and bofors up to 12. That's pretty important to my idea of it.
Reply Reply Multi Quote Reply Reply
vietnamabc
3 May 2016, 06:46 AM
#10
avatar of vietnamabc

Posts: 1063

This thing can not shoot through building and just this single feature makes Pak 43 way better, especially in 1v1, when you can surprise the enemy, 1 Pak trade 1 tank is pretty good if you happen to catch an unsuspecting IS/Pershing or some greedy Callie.
Reply Reply Multi Quote Reply Reply
Australian Magic
3 May 2016, 07:56 AM
#11
avatar of Australian Magic

Posts: 4630 | Subs: 2

I fail to see how 17 pounder can be more expensive and how the hell it takes 20 pop cap.

Sure, it has brace, cannot be decrwed and can be supported by other emplacement BUT
Pak43 does not cost any fuel, has 10 pop cap, shoots through everything, cannot be killed by AT gun, flames just decrew it instead of destroing it, so I fail to see why 17 pounder is much more expensive.

Oh and it does not have arc of fire which pisses me hard.
Reply Reply Multi Quote Reply Reply
Katitof
3 May 2016, 08:04 AM
#12
avatar of Katitof

Posts: 17914 | Subs: 8

Even 14 seems like a stretch.

It has one single role, it gets countered by multiple units, its almost never good idea to build it for the fuel cost alone.

No one in his right mind will put a fifth of popcap for immobile AT gun.

Sure, it can't be one shoted by off-map like PaK43 can, but other then that it really isn't more survivable.
jump backJump back to quoted post25 Nov 2015, 11:09 AM$nuffy
Maybe it's 'cause the Axis players aren't a bunch of forum crybabies, and they keep their cool and fight the uphill battle, unlike some of their "allied" counterparts.
Reply Reply Multi Quote Reply Reply
RiCE
3 May 2016, 08:44 AM
#13
avatar of RiCE

Posts: 284

They are stationary and have tons of counters. They could really use some love imo... i mean people need good reasons to build a stationary artillery magnet.
Reply Reply Multi Quote Reply Reply
DjDrowsyBear
3 May 2016, 18:41 PM
#14
avatar of DjDrowsyBear

Posts: 41

jump backJump back to quoted post3 May 2016, 08:04 AMKatitof
Even 14 seems like a stretch.

It has one single role, it gets countered by multiple units, its almost never good idea to build it for the fuel cost alone.

No one in his right mind will put a fifth of popcap for immobile AT gun.

Sure, it can't be one shoted by off-map like PaK43 can, but other then that it really isn't more survivable.


I agree with all of this, however, the Pak43 can be decrewed and stolen. The 17-pounder can not. That is the main reason I am okay with the 17-pounder being more expensive (in some form).

All in all though, the 17-pounder is a really just a tricky emplacement to nail down. On one hand, it is static, fragile vs indirect fire, and gets easily blocked by terrain. On the other hand, it is an extremely strong anti-tank area denial emplacement, has a long range, fast turn rate (in comparison to the Pak 43), and with a flare ability. It definitely needs its cost adjusted but nailing down exactly what it is worth is difficult to determine.

I would maybe advocate for 340mp, 40 fuel, and 14 population cost but I am not certain. I am paranoid about turning the 17-pounder from a never used emplacement to spammed everywhere.
Reply Reply Multi Quote Reply Reply
ferwiner
3 May 2016, 18:48 PM
#15
avatar of ferwiner
Donator 11

Posts: 2885

jump backJump back to quoted post3 May 2016, 07:56 AMAustralian Magic
I fail to see how 17 pounder can be more expensive and how the hell it takes 20 pop cap.

Sure, it has brace, cannot be decrwed and can be supported by other emplacement BUT
Pak43 does not cost any fuel, has 10 pop cap, shoots through everything, cannot be killed by AT gun, flames just decrew it instead of destroing it, so I fail to see why 17 pounder is much more expensive.

Oh and it does not have arc of fire which pisses me hard.


There is one much more important difference between the two: one is countered by every arty offmap present in game and the other laughs at everything including stuka dive bombs. This basically means building pak43 is completely out of question while building 17 pounder is just a bad idea.
Reply Reply Multi Quote Reply Reply
Mirdarion
3 May 2016, 19:58 PM
#16
avatar of Mirdarion

Posts: 283

Let's not forget that the 17pdr automatically turns to engage targets.
Reply Reply Multi Quote Reply Reply
Butcher
3 May 2016, 20:09 PM
#17
avatar of Butcher

Posts: 1217

No reason for it being that high. 14 popcap is the maximum it should have. Nobody is going to waste the pop of almost a heavy tank on a static gun.

This should however come with a nerf to the cancer regiment.
Reply Reply Multi Quote Reply Reply
Thunderhun
3 May 2016, 20:11 PM
#18
avatar of Thunderhun

Posts: 1617

More sim city cancer emplacements?

Hell no!
Reply Reply Multi Quote Reply Reply
Arclyte
3 May 2016, 20:31 PM
#19
avatar of Arclyte

Posts: 692

jump backJump back to quoted post3 May 2016, 18:48 PMferwiner


There is one much more important difference between the two: one is countered by every arty offmap present in game and the other laughs at everything including stuka dive bombs. This basically means building pak43 is completely out of question while building 17 pounder is just a bad idea.


You can add another weakness to the 17lber. Just had my 17lber get countered by a Jagdtiger. He didn't use his ability, he just shot it normally until it died. I'm sure the Elefant does the same thing.

Really lame when your 20 pop cap AT gun gets countered by a tank.
Reply Reply Multi Quote Reply Reply
dreamerdude
3 May 2016, 20:49 PM
#20
avatar of dreamerdude
Benefactor 392

Posts: 374

jump backJump back to quoted post2 May 2016, 20:47 PMSupremeStefan
20 is ok but 17pounder should shoot through walls


It can with it's ability
Reply Reply Multi Quote Reply Reply
PAGES (2)down
New topic New topic     Upload replay New Reply
1 user is browsing this thread: 1 guest
COH2.ORG » Forums » Parlor Room » COH2 Central » COH2 Balance » Should 17 pounder have less popcap?

Ladders Top 10

UKF
USF
OKW
SOV
OST
1v1
2v2
3v3
4v4
  • #
    Steam Alias
    W
    L
    %
    Streak
Data provided by Relic Relic Entertainment

Replay highlight

Top Tier Teams
VS
  • U.S. Forces flag cblanco ★
  • The British Forces flag 보드카 중대
  • Oberkommando West flag VonManteuffel
  • Ostheer flag Heartless Jäger
Einhoven Country
Einhoven Country Honor
Honor it
9
 Download
Download
1235
uploaded by XXxxHeartlessxxXX

Board Info

975 users are online: 975 guests
0 post in the last 24h
8 posts in the last week
34 posts in the last month
Registered members: 49107
Welcome our newest member, Falac851
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM