This is why I suggested that "emplacing" the Pak 43 would take away the block-shooting.
And what is the point of suggesting it?
Mods said multiple times its not 17 pounder and it will never be, so stop trying to make it into one.
Posts: 17914 | Subs: 8
This is why I suggested that "emplacing" the Pak 43 would take away the block-shooting.
Posts: 1323 | Subs: 1
Posts: 3145 | Subs: 2
Removing the ability to shoot through terrain and making it a building rather than sudo fixed team weapon still doesn’t warrant the potential of ever getting a 100% refund. The partial refund is a pretty huge buff as it is. 17 pounder is a structure as it lacks range, collisions with objects and also now can’t pick up and move elsewhere. It is really impossible to put the comments of the PAK 43 shock value in a vacuum and call it a unique issue to the unit when the 17 pounder suffers the same issue.
And what is the point of suggesting it?
Mods said multiple times its not 17 pounder and it will never be, so stop trying to make it into one.
Posts: 1392
...
Posts: 3145 | Subs: 2
sooo! I made a new model. Now like you wished! ^^
Here is a video: https://1drv.ms/v/s!Auba63jVJDDGnMZRRic2ARYhByygmQ
Posts: 626 | Subs: 1
Pak 43 is supposed to be shock value and then scuttle? At the very most you'll get a single medium kill from it and at the very least you'll get 1 shot off. Not worth the resources even remotely to inflict 1 320 damage shot.
Posts: 2243
Posts: 122
All brits defense their emplacement to have a brace ability with the fact: it cant move. So it must survive a attack.
what is with other emplacements from other faction? like pak43 ? can it move? have it 900 hp like a 17pdr? no..it has the half of it!
and cant brace...and cant shoot flares, and dont aim they 360 alone, and need a doc and 8cp!
Posts: 4183 | Subs: 4
I understand the concept of this changes. Idea is good, won't be used often, but can do their job. Even if it kills 1 t34 and then packed up it will still be worth it BUT Thing is that pak43 in that specific form can't be used effectively becouse build time and packing up takes too much time, way too much time. Where is the shock value if building time takes 2 years to finish?
Personally i;m a bigger fan of making this specific pak43 in defensive doctrine as a emplacement.
Posts: 3145 | Subs: 2
Personally I don't like it nor understand it. I mean I don't want 88mm creep like bunker spam is currently, and ideally I wouldn't want a 17pdr clone but I'd take the clone over 88 creep any day. What it is now is just a half baked idea imo.
Posts: 3053
Posts: 1392
...
Posts: 1323 | Subs: 1
Armor company in general seems much less appealing than mechanized. Cav rifles bleed less than assault engies and Thompsons are great (so are flamers though) as well as vehicle satchels. Dodges offer a lot too (early game boost, mark vehicle, arty) and the 76mm sherman is millions times better than the m10 in almost literally every way. The mortar HT is also very useful. Armor just seems pretty overshadowed as it stands, only really being good for the bulldozer and shock value of 0cp assault engies.
Posts: 3145 | Subs: 2
So, I made a new variant, less dominant.
Video:
https://1drv.ms/v/s!Auba63jVJDDGnMZW7ZOWZITjjwWlyA
Posts: 1220
So, I made a new variant, less dominant.
Video:
https://1drv.ms/v/s!Auba63jVJDDGnMZW7ZOWZITjjwWlyA
Posts: 1392
...
...
...
Posts: 390 | Subs: 2
Posts: 3145 | Subs: 2
Regarding the PAK43, it seems like a brace option isn't gonna make it through, but how about making it at least not de-crewable prior to the gun itself dying? Similar to Brit emplacements.
That way a single satchel can't nullify it and all you'd have to worry about is repairing it versus healing the crew.
38 |