Should 17 pounder have less popcap?
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.
Posts: 960
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".
Posts: 2693 | Subs: 1
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.
Posts: 1220
Posts: 2885
Posts: 455
Posts: 213
Posts: 928
That said, if we got lowered popcap after getting rid of brace and compensated with HP increase, we could see more 17 pounders.
Posts: 41
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.
Posts: 1063
Posts: 4630 | Subs: 2
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.
Posts: 17914 | Subs: 8
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.
Posts: 284
Posts: 41
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.
Posts: 2885
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.
Posts: 283
Posts: 1217
This should however come with a nerf to the cancer regiment.
Posts: 1617
Hell no!
Posts: 692
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.
Posts: 374
20 is ok but 17pounder should shoot through walls
It can with it's ability
Livestreams
10 |
Ladders Top 10
-
#Steam AliasWL%Streak
- 1.829222.789+35
- 2.34957.860+14
- 3.587233.716+3
- 4.1095612.641+19
- 5.882398.689+4
- 6.280162.633+8
- 7.997646.607+1
- 8.379114.769+1
- 9.300113.726-1
- 10.717439.620+1
Replay highlight
- cblanco ★
- 보드카 중대
- VonManteuffel
- Heartless Jäger
Board Info
3 posts in the last week
23 posts in the last month
Welcome our newest member, vanyaclinic02
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM