Should 17 pounder have less popcap?

I think 15-16 is a good spot for it. Much lower than that and it might be a little too spammable in larger team games... not that I play them but ya know, out of respect for all those 4v4 warriors out there. From a 1s and 2s perspective its more or less non-existent from my experience.

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.

And how many off maps allies have which can one shot it?

Mechanized arty (which isnt used at all) and 2 doctrines with IL-2 which are out of the meta.
Eventually Concentrated barrage.

And it's not like 17poinder can laugh at off maps. If you use just off map, 17pounder will brace.
It's all about to force to brace and use off maps when brace is on cooldown.

Keep at 20 or reduction to 18 at most.

It cannot be de-crewed
It can brace
Fire flare
Exists along side other emplacement
Cancer regiment makes it even tougher

It is twice as good as the pak88 in almost all circumstances due to how well it synergizes with other emplacements and doctrine.

It also maintains veternacy much better... Since the crew is immortal. That is a major selling point of higher pop cap as well.

Any reduction will lead to more sim city, more cancer.

Yes, I am, and will only view the balance of emplacement under the assumption cancer doc is used. Anything less is pointless.

Keep at 20 or reduction to 18 at most.

It cannot be de-crewed
It can brace
Fire flare
Exists along side other emplacement
Cancer regiment makes it even tougher

It is twice as good as the pak88 in almost all circumstances due to how well it synergizes with other emplacements and doctrine.

It also maintains veternacy much better... Since the crew is immortal. That is a major selling point of higher pop cap as well.

Any reduction will lead to more sim city, more cancer.

Yes, I am, and will only view the balance of emplacement under the assumption cancer doc is used. Anything less is pointless.

The problems you are seeing have more to do with how awful the other emplacements are to deal with, not the 17-pounder. The 17-pounder looks good on paper, but that is it. The real solution to all of this is to balance all of the emplacements. Bofors and mortar pit need sizable cost increases and the 17-pounder needs a cost decrease.

The problems you are seeing have more to do with how awful the other emplacements are to deal with, not the 17-pounder. The 17-pounder looks good on paper, but that is it. The real solution to all of this is to balance all of the emplacements. Bofors and mortar pit need sizable cost increases and the 17-pounder needs a cost decrease.

Suppose you are right, but the only argument I will raise is this.

As of this patch, emplacement as a whole are already extremely difficult to deal with, leaving medium-heavy armor as the only solution against British using advanced emplacement regiment. Having the 17pdr buffed without the other emplacement toned down in terms of effectiveness or durability will make the "fort" too capable against all targets.

Suppose you are right, but the only argument I will raise is this.

As of this patch, emplacement as a whole are already extremely difficult to deal with, leaving medium-heavy armor as the only solution against British using advanced emplacement regiment. Having the 17pdr buffed without the other emplacement toned down in terms of effectiveness or durability will make the "fort" too capable against all targets.

Honestly, I think the advanced emplacement regiment just needs to be reworked. Half his abilities are near useless and the other half are far too overpowered.

That being said, tell me what you would think if this idea was implemented (if the cancer doctrine wasn't a worry):

Bofors: Nerf the range of the Bofors "suppressive barrage" ability down from 60 to 50. Doing so would prevent it from countering indirect fire by itself (something it wasn't mean to do). Also, raise its cost from 280/30/10 to 350/60/12. This would help in three ways, it would make the bofors arrive later, match the Bofors more closely with its performance, and punish the UKF player on teching (especially if he built more than one).

Mortar Pit: Raise the population cost from 8 to 12 (to prevent spamming and contribute to population saturation making sim-city less viable by the late game).

17-pounder: lower the cost from 400/75/20 to 360/50/14. I am still iffy on this price because it still seems too high for me. The 17-pounder is a good anti-tank (its currently just far too expensive) but, unlike the (current) Bofors, it absolutely requires support and good placement. That being said, the UKF player would probably just build a Bofors with the 17-pounder which would clearly be a strong combination. The difference there being that they would be spending a lot of gas, manpower, and population to do it with no clear answer to indirect fire.

Just to be clear, I am not advocating this as a complete fix for emplacements, but I do believe it will go a long way helping making emplacements much more balanced.

Honestly, I think the advanced emplacement regiment just needs to be reworked. Half his abilities are near useless and the other half are far too overpowered.

That being said, tell me what you would think if this idea was implemented (if the cancer doctrine wasn't a worry):

Bofors: Nerf the range of the Bofors "suppressive barrage" ability down from 60 to 50. Doing so would prevent it from countering indirect fire by itself (something it wasn't mean to do). Also, raise its cost from 280/30/10 to 350/60/12. This would help in three ways, it would make the bofors arrive later, match the Bofors more closely with its performance, and punish the UKF player on teching (especially if he built more than one).

Mortar Pit: Raise the population cost from 8 to 12 (to prevent spamming and contribute to population saturation making sim-city less viable by the late game).

17-pounder: lower the cost from 400/75/20 to 360/50/14. I am still iffy on this price because it still seems too high for me. The 17-pounder is a good anti-tank (its currently just far too expensive) but, unlike the (current) Bofors, it absolutely requires support and good placement. That being said, the UKF player would probably just build a Bofors with the 17-pounder which would clearly be a strong combination. The difference there being that they would be spending a lot of gas, manpower, and population to do it with no clear answer to indirect fire.

Just to be clear, I am not advocating this as a complete fix for emplacements, but I do believe it will go a long way helping making emplacements much more balanced.

I think all but one of these changes would be great and the one I have an exception with is the bofors price that you proposed, while I do agree that the bofors needs a range reduction on the barrage and a cost increase I think you went a bit overkill with the fuel cost, I think 45 or 50 would be more fair than 60 fuel but other than that I like the suggestions.

I think all but one of these changes would be great and the one I have an exception with is the bofors price that you proposed, while I do agree that the bofors needs a range reduction on the barrage and a cost increase I think you went a bit overkill with the fuel cost, I think 45 or 50 would be more fair than 60 fuel but other than that I like the suggestions.

Thanks, I appreciate the support!

I can understand the worry with the Bofors. I am actually a UKF-specific player so I wouldn't be terribly thrilled with the fuel cost increase either but I do believe it is fair. The Bofors shreds infantry, easily destroys half tracks, luchs tanks, and even pumas (if the enemy is stupid enough to rush forward with it), and, on top of all that, can shoot down enemy airplanes. It is a very powerful emplacement which needs to have a cost reflecting its ability.

That being said, I could also support a price of around 380/50/12 if that was deemed more appropriate.

As this post concerns only the 17 pounder. I'd rather have a mirror copy of the pak43 for the same pop and cost. I will NEVER pay for a 17 pounder that's inferior and costs more. Firing through unshootables is such a powerful defense tool. For those who clamor that the pak43 can be stolen and used against you. How often have you ever seen that? pak43s are built and placed in positions that are clearly advantageous to just one side.

Honestly, I think the advanced emplacement regiment just needs to be reworked. Half his abilities are near useless and the other half are far too overpowered.

That being said, tell me what you would think if this idea was implemented (if the cancer doctrine wasn't a worry):

Bofors: Nerf the range of the Bofors "suppressive barrage" ability down from 60 to 50. Doing so would prevent it from countering indirect fire by itself (something it wasn't mean to do). Also, raise its cost from 280/30/10 to 350/60/12. This would help in three ways, it would make the bofors arrive later, match the Bofors more closely with its performance, and punish the UKF player on teching (especially if he built more than one).

Mortar Pit: Raise the population cost from 8 to 12 (to prevent spamming and contribute to population saturation making sim-city less viable by the late game).

17-pounder: lower the cost from 400/75/20 to 360/50/14. I am still iffy on this price because it still seems too high for me. The 17-pounder is a good anti-tank (its currently just far too expensive) but, unlike the (current) Bofors, it absolutely requires support and good placement. That being said, the UKF player would probably just build a Bofors with the 17-pounder which would clearly be a strong combination. The difference there being that they would be spending a lot of gas, manpower, and population to do it with no clear answer to indirect fire.

Just to be clear, I am not advocating this as a complete fix for emplacements, but I do believe it will go a long way helping making emplacements much more balanced.

I feel if this fix is to be followed, they would need to re-evaluate the British early game. There is a lot of reliance on the Bofors to carry the Brits to Mid-Late game ever since the neutering of the AEC.

With the further British Nerfs and lack of real buffs in the balance patch mod, this looks even more worrysome.

I feel if this fix is to be followed, they would need to re-evaluate the British early game. There is a lot of reliance on the Bofors to carry the Brits to Mid-Late game ever since the neutering of the AEC.

With the further British Nerfs and lack of real buffs in the balance patch mod, this looks even more worrysome.

I actually just read the new preview updates. I didn't mind the Land mattress changes, but the base howitzer flares change bugged the crap out of me. I know the range has still been buffed considerably, but those things could use more love, not less.

Anyhow, I agree that the early game for the Brits could use a reevaluation. I have an entire list of changes I would like to see for the Brits which would likely help. Maybe I'll post that some time soon. My main idea being to reduce the cost of tommies from 280 to 260, add a Bren gun upgrade to them, and get rid of the weapon racks upgrade altogether. By contrast, engineers would get a cost increase (from 210 to 250) but would also get a (modified) PIAT upgrade. Overall, I think it would really help the British early game by making the tommies more useful while also making the Engineers less spam-efficient.