Pak 43

OH Pak43 should loose the shoot-through-buildings-ability but be upgradeble to Pak44 for 100 ammo.
90 range, more HP, slightly more dmg /

The pak43 gun has 470 hp and the 17-pdr has 900, so where are you guys getting the 3-4 times more hp figure from? Not sure where you're getting that it has more range either, the guns have the same range (80).

Here are the real differences between the guns according to coh2 stats:

Pak43:
470 hp gun + 320 hp crew
Shoots through buildings
Doctrinal
500 manpower cost
10 pop cost
42.35 dps far, 48.12 dps near
Vet1: Unlocks the 'Target Weak Point' ability
Vet2: -30% reload, +100% rotation speed
Vet3: +30% accuracy, -20% reload

17-pdr
900 hp
400 manpower cost
75 fuel cost
20 pop cost
28.73 dps far, 32.65 dps near
0,87 second setup
Vet1: Unlocks Piercing Shot
Vet2:+30% accuracy, -40% scatter
Vet3:-30% reload

Balanced or not, Pak shooting through building stay ugly and unrealistic. And don't tell that "ukf and sov on same front blabla" I TALK ABOUT PHYSIC. Same for teleguided panzerfaust and rpg.

The Pak 43 had no problems going through wooden buildings, concrete buildings or reinforced bunkers.


In theory, the Pak43 was able to penetrate Battleships.

British 17 Pounder:

Pros:

- Invincible crew; cannot be taken by the enemy
- About 3-4 times the HP of the PaK43
- Doesn't need a specific commander
- Can Brace
- Has more range than the PaK43
- Can be covered by a mortar pit

Cons:

- Costs 70 fuel

PaK43

Pros:

- Can shoot through buildings
- Doesn't cost Fuel

Cons:

- Countered by any artillery immideatly
- Costs 600MP
- Very little HP
- Only available in some commanders
- No brace or anything



TBH I would take a 17pounder over a PaK43 anytime.

Sorry but you are truly one sided here.
Pak43 is way better in almost every way than 17 Pounder.

17 Pounder:

Pros:

• Non doc
  
• Brace
  
• Can't be decrewed
  
  Cons:
  
• No arc of fire
  
• 70 Fuel
  
• 20 pop cap
  
• Can be destroyed by incendiary
  
• Can be destroyed by small arms fire
  
• Can be countered by at guns
  
• Can't shout through obstacles
  
  Pak43:
  
  Pros:
  
• Costs only MP
  
• Can shoot through everything
  
• Can surpsire enemy when built behind blockers
  
• Better RoF
  
• Cannot be destroyed by small arms
  
• Cannot be destroyed by incendiary
  
• Arc of fire
  
• Veterancy
  
  Cons:
  
• Doctrinal
  
• Easy to decrew
  
• Can be killed by off map.
  
  I wonder where you did you find that part about 3-4 more HP. Pak43 without crew needs 3 shots to be destroyed. With crew, you need at least 2 shots to kill crew and then additional 2-3 shots to destroy it.
  Full health 17 Pounder needs 5 shots. So I just wonder how 4-5 shots are 3-4 times more than 5 shots?
  
  As far as I know, both have 80 range. At least it's something what coh2 stats says.
  
  Just a fact that you see only 1 con for 17 pounder and only 2 pros for Pak43 speaks for itself.

Sorry but you are truly one sided here.
Pak43 is way better in almost every way than 17 Pounder.

17 Pounder:

Pros:

• Non doc
  
• Brace
  
• Can't be decrewed
  
  Cons:
  
• No arc of fire
  
• 70 Fuel
  
• 20 pop cap
  
• Can be destroyed by incendiary
  
• Can be destroyed by small arms fire
  
• Can be countered by at guns
  
• Can't shout through obstacles
  
  Pak43:
  
  Pros:
  
• Costs only MP
  
• Can shoot through everything
  
• Can surpsire enemy when built behind blockers
  
• Better RoF
  
• Cannot be destroyed by small arms
  
• Cannot be destroyed by incendiary
  
• Arc of fire
  
• Veterancy
  
  Cons:
  
• Doctrinal
  
• Easy to decrew
  
• Can be killed by off map.
  
  I wonder where you did you find that part about 3-4 more HP. Pak43 without crew needs 3 shots to be destroyed. With crew, you need at least 2 shots to kill crew and then additional 2-3 shots to destroy it.
  Full health 17 Pounder needs 5 shots. So I just wonder how 4-5 shots are 3-4 times more than 5 shots?
  
  As far as I know, both have 80 range. At least it's something what coh2 stats says.
  
  Just a fact that you see only 1 con for 17 pounder and only 2 pros for Pak43 speaks for itself.

atleast somebody else mentioned it,thats something right?

It's very unrealistic the way it work... bad design.

It should have rather a longer range helped with/without a spotter and more hp. Instead of destroying it, rather make the gun decrew and taking a long time to repair if nearly broken dead.

A gun like that should be protected with AA , placed to have a clear los and far enough from the front to be protected for medium arty while still able to kill unit around the frontlines..

Thanks.

wahh wahh

I'm saying that in a game where realism is a joke anyway, only retards would care about realism. A hell lot more unrealistic things in this game, telepathic pak43 is not a surprise. It's established that it's obviously balanced gameplay-wise, so that's not an issue. Crying about realism is pointless lol.

It's very unrealistic the way it work... bad design.

It should have rather a longer range helped with/without a spotter and more hp. Instead of destroying it, rather make the gun decrew and taking a long time to repair if nearly broken dead.

A gun like that should be protected with AA , placed to have a clear los and far enough from the front to be protected for medium arty while still able to kill unit around the frontlines..

Thanks.

How do you suggest balancing such a unit, that will be hard to reach due to its range? On the other hand, what exactly would you give the PaK 43, as even with the phasing-rounds it is still pretty close to uselessness? Just increasing its range won't suddenly make it more useful than before.

Quote

Ok you might be right, I wrote it in some kind of rage (I'm not joking)

But honestly, I think both emplacements are rather bad

Before I get this bumplocked by a mod I will say this:

Yes I know you could use IL-2 strikes, ToT artillery, satchel charges etc

My concern is that the ability of pak 43 being able to fire from behind buildings does not fit any coherence of logic. The 18-pounder cannot do this. Also it being behind buildings covers it from artillery, which should be its counter. The 18-pdr can brace, but is susceptible to artillery nonetheless.

Why is it my critique and re-review of a game mechanism got my previous thread bumplocked with the smug tagline of ''working as intended''. IS this such a sacred cow that discussion is forbidden?

I agree, its ridiculous, AT gun shooting thru buildings, its StarCraft, not coh.

Make it cheaper and more like brit AT gun

It shouldn't be able to shoot through walls because that's dumb. This game isn't realistic, but nothing else is so completely implausible.

Make it an emplacement, because that's what it is basically.

The Pak 43 needs to be able to shoot through walls to maintain any level of usability. It is not nearly as useful as it should be because it is a highly specific immobile counter. The unit should have been the 88mm (without pierce) able to fire a barrage at vet 1, but oh well.

game mechanic, irrelevant

Bro, you contradicted yourself so hard.
Give up the principle. It is utterly unfounded.
Come play Kriegspiel Realism Overhaul V3 with me and Rebel if you want closest to realism in CoH2

Bro, you contradicted yourself so hard.
Give up the principle. It is utterly unfounded.
Come play Kriegspiel Realism Overhaul V3 with me and Rebel if you want closest to realism in CoH2

Sooooooo, how's that.

Sooooooo, how's that.

"Pak shooting through building stay ugly and unrealistic"
Implying PaK's mechanic should change because it's unrealistic.
"'Or how ptrs slow and blind a tank ?' game mechanic, irrelevant"
Implying unrealistic thing shouldn't change because it's a game mechanic.

The principle that any one thing should be chanced for the sake of realism cannot be kept unless one is willing to go all the way and be 100% consistent about it in all areas.

Unless I'm reading his first post wrong. Hmm.

Sure, we can remove the shoot through building mechanic.

After indirect fire weapons get nerfed into the ground.

Otherwise?

Yeah, screw that noise.

The Pak-43 absolutely needs that shoot-through-buildings thing, otherwise it would become trivial to just bumrush it with tanks, or snipe its crew or,... you get the idea.

I know that some factions have uneven access to artillery than others, but, hey, at least the Pak43 is doctrinal.

The solution for Pak43 (also applies to Elefant and JT) is to just train your ears.

The unit makes a very distinct sound when it fires, which should give you a clue that the area is now a no-tank zone, until you can come up with your response. 500MP just doesn't just grow in the trees, you know!


Non-doctrinal counters

(apart from infantry bum-rushes)

Soviets: Katyusha, satchel charges
USF: Major artillery
UKF: Anvil Artillery, Firefly Tulips (if you fire Tulips at a decrewed team-weapon it becomes insta-gibbed; sort of like T-34 ram)

British 17 Pounder:

Pros:

- Invincible crew; cannot be taken by the enemy
- About 3-4 times the HP of the PaK43
- Doesn't need a specific commander
- Can Brace
- Has more range than the PaK43
- Can be covered by a mortar pit

Cons:

- Costs 70 fuel

PaK43

Pros:

- Can shoot through buildings
- Doesn't cost Fuel

Cons:

- Countered by any artillery immideatly
- Costs 600MP
- Very little HP
- Only available in some commanders
- No brace or anything



TBH I would take a 17pounder over a PaK43 anytime.

You are ignoring one crucial aspect of the 17-pounder:
- It has a gignormous hitbox, and a small HP pool (900), which makes it trivial for tanks to counter the 17 pounder (not to mention anti-tank guns...)

A stationary AT gun that can't defend itself against tank rushes is just plain useless.


(also, both Pak43 and 17 pounder have the exact same range)

Solution: make the 17 pounder a clone of pak43, and do something with target tables so that it doesn't auto-die to Walking stuka barrages (due to the fact it is super accurate).

(off-map artillery instagibbing pak43/17-pounder is valid, since everyone already does this).