17 Pounder Arc of Fire

Jump back to quoted post4 Jul 2016, 13:17 PMTheSleep3r

But it does need stats change

The monstrous 20 popcap

Jump back to quoted post4 Jul 2016, 13:41 PMNabarxos

Another Issue for another time

Jump back to quoted post4 Jul 2016, 17:36 PMDomine

It costs 70 fuel, nobody is ever going to use it, regardless of popcap.

Jump back to quoted post4 Jul 2016, 15:27 PMDangerous-Cloth

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..

Jump back to quoted post9 Jul 2016, 20:15 PMMirdarion

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.

Jump back to quoted post10 Jul 2016, 16:54 PMNabarxos

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.

Jump back to quoted post10 Jul 2016, 17:58 PMMirdarion

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.