Hello COH2.ORG
As the title suggestes i am creating this topic to discuss with you a simple problem and or issue the 17 pounder has,the arc of fire.
we cant see it nor we know how large it is,we cant place the 17 pounder knowing when to worry about it and when not to,we dont know when it will engage enemy vehicles and or Infantry.
Both the guy with the 17 pounder and the Guy facing it have this one problem i really want to see fixed.
Make visable the arc of fire of the 17 Pounder,thats it,no stat change or anything,just this simple information.
17 Pounder Arc of Fire
4 Jul 2016, 13:02 PM
#1
Posts: 392
4 Jul 2016, 13:17 PM
#2
Posts: 670
But it does need stats change
The monstrous 20 popcap
The monstrous 20 popcap
I myself bought 14 OKW factions during a Steam sale last year for alt accounts
4 Jul 2016, 13:41 PM
#3
Posts: 392
But it does need stats change
The monstrous 20 popcap
Another Issue for another time
4 Jul 2016, 14:19 PM
#4
Posts: 935
Another Issue for another time
another issue for another year (in relic case)
4 Jul 2016, 15:12 PM
#5
Posts: 3145 | Subs: 2
There are people who use that thing? A tank has less pop cap, A TANK.
4 Jul 2016, 15:27 PM
#6
Posts: 2066
This is the problem that most emplacement based at weapons have. At least 17 pounder has brace, unlike pak43 that dies to one nade lol. 20 pop cap is just absurd..
Kappa
4 Jul 2016, 15:47 PM
#7
Posts: 392
population sure is an issue but still we cant demand a fix for it when the AT gun doesnt have a visible arc of fire so you can position it like other AT guns.
And besides its something i havent seen people mention.
And besides its something i havent seen people mention.
4 Jul 2016, 17:36 PM
#8
Posts: 500
It costs 70 fuel, nobody is ever going to use it, regardless of popcap.
4 Jul 2016, 18:29 PM
#9
Posts: 276
It costs 70 fuel, nobody is ever going to use it, regardless of popcap.
A popcap decrease of5-7 would make it viable IMO. A good AT gun with great survivability is worth 70 fuel. 20 popcap however, is not.
I am not responsible for anything I say.
4 Jul 2016, 23:35 PM
#10
Posts: 3145 | Subs: 2
Now that you mention the fuel price... That too, I prefer a Puma or an AEC for that price, and besides, what's the point when I can wait for 40 more fuel for a Cromwell? Just not worth it atm.
5 Jul 2016, 02:29 AM
#11
Posts: 444
This is the problem that most emplacement based at weapons have. At least 17 pounder has brace, unlike pak43 that dies to one nade lol. 20 pop cap is just absurd... Well Pak 43 can shoot thru buildings and still do full damage 17pounder can't so place it behind shot blockers
5 Jul 2016, 02:33 AM
#12
Posts: 444
17pounder currently is a last resort surprise strike.. u lure late game heavy tanks to its position and stun them with tulips or aec thread buster.. after u score a kill forget about 17pounder it will die don't bother saving it
9 Jul 2016, 16:57 PM
#13
Posts: 392
the 17 Pounder apart from the population cap really needs to have ATLEAST a visable arc of fire.
i believe the population cap really needs to be addressed BUT this thread is not about it,if more people could use it they could understand the point i am trying to make.
i believe the population cap really needs to be addressed BUT this thread is not about it,if more people could use it they could understand the point i am trying to make.
9 Jul 2016, 17:47 PM
#14
Posts: 1281 | Subs: 3
I agree with your preposition.
I think a possible issue people have is that starting this thread is like giving an analysis of the problems with Hitler's oral hygiene. It may be an issue for the 17pder, but it's far from its worst concern.
I think a possible issue people have is that starting this thread is like giving an analysis of the problems with Hitler's oral hygiene. It may be an issue for the 17pder, but it's far from its worst concern.
9 Jul 2016, 18:18 PM
#15
Posts: 2272 | Subs: 1
there's a 17pounder in this game?
9 Jul 2016, 20:15 PM
#16
Posts: 283
In that case, the targeting should be removed. Right now it automatically turns to engage units in range, which makes it much more of a "place and forget" weapon. If that were the case, sure, make it visible.
A popcap reduction could be fine as well, but unless it becomes more vulnerable to infantry the fuel cost should stay. If it is immune to one type of unit, it should have some cost attached to it.
A popcap reduction could be fine as well, but unless it becomes more vulnerable to infantry the fuel cost should stay. If it is immune to one type of unit, it should have some cost attached to it.
10 Jul 2016, 16:54 PM
#17
Posts: 392
In that case, the targeting should be removed. Right now it automatically turns to engage units in range, which makes it much more of a "place and forget" weapon. If that were the case, sure, make it visible.
A popcap reduction could be fine as well, but unless it becomes more vulnerable to infantry the fuel cost should stay. If it is immune to one type of unit, it should have some cost attached to it.
I am sorry but when was the last time you used the 17 pounder?
cause from your opinion i see a guy that barely touched it and came to a conclusion.
It tracks tanks and or targets but needs to setup itself,i cant count the times the gun wont pick a target and you need to order it to look the target so it can fire on it just like the rest of the AT guns,this creates an awkward situation that makes the 17 pounder unreliable to use in cases it supposed to dominate(aka Shooting Big Freaking Tanks)
As for the population cap i stand that it should have ATLEAST 16 population but it would be more like 12 or 14 but the thing i cant understand is your logic that the 17 pounder is more "durable" against infantry,something any British player knows this to be false,the gun is weak against infantry and AT guns something many infantry type units are not so i dont get it,you want the gun to die in seconds just to a lone infantry squad? If so make a thread about it cause this is not the thread about it.
10 Jul 2016, 17:58 PM
#18
Posts: 283
I am sorry but when was the last time you used the 17 pounder?
cause from your opinion i see a guy that barely touched it and came to a conclusion.
[...]
As for the population cap i stand that it should have ATLEAST 16 population but it would be more like 12 or 14 but the thing i cant understand is your logic that the 17 pounder is more "durable" against infantry,something any British player knows this to be false,the gun is weak against infantry and AT guns something many infantry type units are not so i dont get it,you want the gun to die in seconds just to a lone infantry squad? If so make a thread about it cause this is not the thread about it.
The projection is strong with this one.
I never argued against the pop-cap reduction by the way, honing your reading skills would have proven to be helpful here. And yes, I want it to become vulnerable to infantry in the same sense (but not to the same extent) that the PaK 43 is vulnerable to infantry. It's either that or the high fuel cost. And no, the "phasing rounds" of the PaK 43 are not an argument here, because the PaK 43 already is significantly more vulnerable to everything, has the smaller arc of fire (even if the 17lbs's arc is invisible), and can be recrewed by the enemy for maximum lulz.
10 Jul 2016, 19:02 PM
#19
Posts: 392
The projection is strong with this one.
I never argued against the pop-cap reduction by the way, honing your reading skills would have proven to be helpful here. And yes, I want it to become vulnerable to infantry in the same sense (but not to the same extent) that the PaK 43 is vulnerable to infantry. It's either that or the high fuel cost. And no, the "phasing rounds" of the PaK 43 are not an argument here, because the PaK 43 already is significantly more vulnerable to everything, has the smaller arc of fire (even if the 17lbs's arc is invisible), and can be recrewed by the enemy for maximum lulz.
It seems someone else needs to hone his reading skills.
Look below my replay to you before
"I am sorry but when was the last time you used the 17 pounder?
cause from your opinion i see a guy that barely touched it and came to a conclusion.
It tracks tanks and or targets but needs to setup itself,i cant count the times the gun wont pick a target and you need to order it to look the target so it can fire on it just like the rest of the AT guns,this creates an awkward situation that makes the 17 pounder unreliable to use in cases it supposed to dominate(aka Shooting Big Freaking Tanks)
As for the population cap i stand that it should have ATLEAST 16 population but it would be more like 12 or 14 but the thing i cant understand is your logic that the 17 pounder is more "durable" against infantry,something any British player knows this to be false,the gun is weak against infantry and AT guns something many infantry type units are not so i dont get it,you want the gun to die in seconds just to a lone infantry squad? If so make a thread about it cause this is not the thread about it."
I attacked your knowledge of the gun as pointed with RED in responce to what you said in your original replay
"In that case, the targeting should be removed. Right now it automatically turns to engage units in range, which makes it much more of a "place and forget" weapon. If that were the case, sure, make it visible. "
With the population cap as said before this is not the thread about it but i made my stance clear as pointed with Blue,i didnt attack or offend you and it seems we agreed so i dont get it how did i argued against it?.
My Replay
"As for the population cap i stand that it should have ATLEAST 16 population but it would be more like 12 or 14"
Your Original Post about Pop
"A popcap reduction could be fine as well, ...."
But your stance on infatry and your proposed changes as well as some bold claims about the arc of fire(something we cant see ingame to compare and i am trying with this thread to make possible),sure i disargee alot but this is not the thread and i replayed to you to make a thread about it with black
"but the thing i cant understand is your logic that the 17 pounder is more "durable" against infantry,something any British player knows this to be false,the gun is weak against infantry and AT guns something many infantry type units are not so i dont get it,you want the gun to die in seconds just to a lone infantry squad? If so make a thread about it cause this is not the thread about it."
If you derail the thread more i kindly and politely ask you to stop and make a thread to state your beliefs on the matter cause this thread is not about it.
1 user is browsing this thread:
1 guest
Livestreams
 |
|
|
31 | ||
 |
|
|
27 | ||
 |
|
|
20 | ||
|
|
|
|
19 | ||
|
|
|
|
5 | ||
|
|
|
|
2 | ||
 |
|
|
1 | ||
|
|
|
|
1 | ||
|
|
|
|
1 |
Ladders Top 10
-
#Steam AliasWL%Streak
- 1.831222.789+37
- 2.600215.736+15
- 3.34957.860+14
- 4.1107614.643+8
- 5.305114.728+1
- 6.916405.693-2
- 7.273108.717+24
- 8.722440.621+4
- 9.1041674.607-2
- 10.17146.788+1
Data provided by
Relic Entertainment
Relic Entertainment
Replay highlight
VS
-
cblanco ★ -
보드카 중대
-
VonManteuffel -
Heartless Jäger
Einhoven Country
Honor it
9
Download
1234
Board Info
1006 users are online:
1006 guests
0 post in the last 24h
8 posts in the last week
37 posts in the last month
8 posts in the last week
37 posts in the last month
Registered members: 49102
Welcome our newest member, Rusel334
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM
Welcome our newest member, Rusel334
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM