If you had a blank sheet to overhaul the Pak 43 and 17 Pounder, what would you do with them?
You're limited by the engine, so you can't make them mobile or give them new animations. Beyond that though, you can change anything you like.
Super AT Guns
26 Jun 2019, 12:41 PM
#1
Posts: 3260
26 Jun 2019, 13:08 PM
#2
Posts: 17914 | Subs: 8
Why would they need any overhauls?
There is no point in fixing if there is nothing to fix.
There is no point in fixing if there is nothing to fix.
Maybe it's 'cause the Axis players aren't a bunch of forum crybabies, and they keep their cool and fight the uphill battle, unlike some of their "allied" counterparts.
26 Jun 2019, 13:49 PM
#3
Posts: 3260
Why would they need any overhauls?
There is no point in fixing if there is nothing to fix.
There's also no point in posting if you have nothing to add.
In all seriousness though, they're odd units at the moment, the Pak 43 especially. They seem to be built around 'being a giant gun' rather than any clear strategic purpose.
I think it'd be good if the balance team decided what they're for and then made them both good at it.
26 Jun 2019, 14:03 PM
#4
Posts: 17914 | Subs: 8
There's also no point in posting if you have nothing to add.
In all seriousness though, they're odd units at the moment, the Pak 43 especially. They seem to be built around 'being a giant gun' rather than any clear strategic purpose.
I think it'd be good if the balance team decided what they're for and then made them both good at it.
There's no point to creating a thread if you put out no premise too you know.
Also, PaK43 got dismantle ability which refunds it partly, you build it when you need it(for example vs high armor and health units its supposed to counter), then dismantle it if you don't/it gets too exposed(.
If that's not clear strategic purpose, I don't know what is.
Maybe it's 'cause the Axis players aren't a bunch of forum crybabies, and they keep their cool and fight the uphill battle, unlike some of their "allied" counterparts.
26 Jun 2019, 14:12 PM
#5
Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1
I guess one could try adding a crew that would be able to abandon the weapon.
If the crew was the only unit suitable to operate the weapon effectively or to operate at all, one could better balance these units.
If the crew was the only unit suitable to operate the weapon effectively or to operate at all, one could better balance these units.
26 Jun 2019, 14:42 PM
#6
Posts: 3260
I guess one could try adding a crew that would be able to abandon the weapon.
If the crew was the only unit suitable to operate the weapon effectively or to operate at all, one could better balance these units.
Should they be decrewable at all? The building model worked quite well for the 17-pounder.
26 Jun 2019, 14:53 PM
#7
Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1
Should they be decrewable at all? The building model worked quite well for the 17-pounder.
The idea here is that cost is divided between the emplacement itself and the crew.
That allows unit preservation and better pricing.
For instance if the crew could abandoned the weapon and survive bombardments one could increase XP value and price for the package but lower the price for building the structure only.
26 Jun 2019, 14:56 PM
#8
Posts: 3260
The idea here is that cost is divided between the emplacement itself and the crew.
That allows unit preservation and better pricing.
For instance if the crew could abandoned the weapon and survive bombardments one could increase XP value and price for the package but lower the price for building the structure only.
It's possible, but Brace is a cleaner implementation of the same idea.
26 Jun 2019, 15:01 PM
#9
Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1
It's possible, but Brace is a cleaner implementation of the same idea.
Pak44 does not have brace.
Imo brace should be removed or become doctrinal. A selfrepair ability costing MP or MU or FU would be a far better approach.
26 Jun 2019, 15:46 PM
#10
Posts: 783
I think all emplacements should be de-crewable.
I mean, the British AT Emplacement gets never decrewed but the Pak43 can. Zero logic!
I mean, the British AT Emplacement gets never decrewed but the Pak43 can. Zero logic!
I enjoy Coh2. I want this game to be balanced as it can possibly be for
ukf
usf
okw
soviets
ostheer. Do not judge me, for my opinion is balanced. 
This is my playercard number if you are curious: https://www.coh2.org/ladders/playercard/steamid/76561198127033144
ukfusfokwsovietsostheer. Do not judge me, for my opinion is balanced. This is my playercard number if you are curious: https://www.coh2.org/ladders/playercard/steamid/76561198127033144
26 Jun 2019, 16:41 PM
#11
Posts: 1954
If you had a blank sheet to overhaul the Pak 43 and 17 Pounder, what would you do with them?
You're limited by the engine, so you can't make them mobile or give them new animations. Beyond that though, you can change anything you like.
In general, I think they're fine right now. There are differences between the two but they're both pretty usable, and both great for punishing YOLO charges.
One possible change would be to make them self-spotting at max range. It seems really strange to have a game engine that requires a spotter for a direct fire weapon. I'd also make their range equal to any of the direct fire weapons that shoot at them.
Both of them should be able to be decrewed by attacking them with infantry. They should be highly vulnerable to infantry, grenades, or HE rounds and not easily damaged by AP rounds.
26 Jun 2019, 16:58 PM
#12
Posts: 607
In general, I think they're fine right now. There are differences between the two but they're both pretty usable, and both great for punishing YOLO charges.
One possible change would be to make them self-spotting at max range. It seems really strange to have a game engine that requires a spotter for a direct fire weapon. I'd also make their range equal to any of the direct fire weapons that shoot at them.
Both of them should be able to be decrewed by attacking them with infantry. They should be highly vulnerable to infantry, grenades, or HE rounds and not easily damaged by AP rounds.
They absolutely should not be self-spotting, that would give you an incredible map-hack ability that would put the old t-70 at vet-3 to shame.
I think they're fine to frustrating, particularly due to the "can shoot through obstacles" issue.
I'd rather see the pak43 be turned into an actual emplacement and no longer be able to shoot through obstacles, with a timed ability like the 17 pounder.
26 Jun 2019, 17:49 PM
#13
Posts: 495 | Subs: 1
The ability for either one to shoot through obstacles is silly in my opinion. Even if the rounds could physically penetrate a building while retaining enough energy to be effective on target, not explode early and not get deflected off target that still leaves the important question of HOW DO YOU AIM!? Lol
“Some people spend an entire lifetime wondering if they made a difference in the world. But, the Marines don't have that problem.” ― Ronald Reagan
Semper Fi
Semper Fi
26 Jun 2019, 18:50 PM
#14
Posts: 416 | Subs: 1
I'm ok with these units since they require some amount of micro from the player using them. That's why they're more fair/engaging than the Bofors or CoH1 88mm.
I would actually like to see them able to be moved slowly, maybe via truck/halftrack. That would give the player even more to control, and make hunting them down more interesting than hitting a delete button on them at your leisure.
The "dismantle for refund" ability is kind of the same idea, but lets you get rid of them once they've done their job, which is nice. That was probably the right way to handle the issue this late in the game's life.
I would actually like to see them able to be moved slowly, maybe via truck/halftrack. That would give the player even more to control, and make hunting them down more interesting than hitting a delete button on them at your leisure.
The "dismantle for refund" ability is kind of the same idea, but lets you get rid of them once they've done their job, which is nice. That was probably the right way to handle the issue this late in the game's life.
26 Jun 2019, 18:58 PM
#15
Posts: 4183 | Subs: 4
Brace given to both, but brace is changed to a lower damage reduction instead of like 80%. Something like 40%, a point where an IL2 bomb drop won't outright kill it, but may leave them with 20% HP.
Give scuttle to both emplacements so you can get rid of them and move them a bit without losing your resources or having them be so far back they're useless.
Pak43 loses transdimensional shells.
Give scuttle to both emplacements so you can get rid of them and move them a bit without losing your resources or having them be so far back they're useless.
Pak43 loses transdimensional shells.
26 Jun 2019, 19:05 PM
#16
Posts: 5279
Both big AT guns deal 32p damage do they not? Being able to half health a medium guaranteed is kind of a big deal... They are niche units for sure, but it's a giant fucking AT Gun..... of course they are! I don't feel they need any changes at this time. Both do their job tremendously but are simply out of meta
#stalinwept
26 Jun 2019, 20:20 PM
#17
Posts: 607
I'm ok with these units since they require some amount of micro from the player using them. That's why they're more fair/engaging than the Bofors or CoH1 88mm.
I would actually like to see them able to be moved slowly, maybe via truck/halftrack. That would give the player even more to control, and make hunting them down more interesting than hitting a delete button on them at your leisure.
The "dismantle for refund" ability is kind of the same idea, but lets you get rid of them once they've done their job, which is nice. That was probably the right way to handle the issue this late in the game's life.
RE: Micro -- I actually disagree. While I suppose you have to aim the gun in the right direction for the 17 pounder, the Pak43 has an, I assume unintended, feature that basically let's you auto-aim it (albeit as a reaction).
@shadowlink I think 40% is too low but I agree that 80% is too high; say 67% AKA 2/3rd?
Reason why I think it should be _somewhat_ high is because of how susceptible they are to fire DOTs that are lobbed when brace is midway through or on cooldown, and most factions have access to some kind of incendiary attack either doctrinaly or non-doctrinaly.
26 Jun 2019, 20:50 PM
#18
Posts: 416 | Subs: 1
RE: Micro -- I actually disagree. While I suppose you have to aim the gun in the right direction for the 17 pounder, the Pak43 has an, I assume unintended, feature that basically let's you auto-aim it (albeit as a reaction).
Oh right, I forgot about that. The inconsistency between the two guns is odd to me.
Still, a slow rotation speed for the gun makes flanking it viable and can allow the gun to be more powerful where it's pointing. I think that makes for more interesting gameplay and decision-making.
26 Jun 2019, 21:05 PM
#19
Posts: 607
I have no problem with either of them automatically rotating to shoot a tank within sight if a-moved the way a normal AT Gun works. It'd probably be better if that wasn't the case, but there are bigger issues in the game to spend time on.
I dislike that there's an obvious discrepancy in how one can be repaired and the other can't, decrew/recrewing, and ofc the shot-blocker situation.
Making them similar is the obvious fix to me but I understand that the current state of fixing the game is stuck operating in whatever limits.
I dislike that there's an obvious discrepancy in how one can be repaired and the other can't, decrew/recrewing, and ofc the shot-blocker situation.
Making them similar is the obvious fix to me but I understand that the current state of fixing the game is stuck operating in whatever limits.
26 Jun 2019, 21:45 PM
#20
Posts: 960
Vipper was pretty much spot on; it would be interesting to switch them to crewed weapons, but require a special squad to actually crew them ("Heavy AT Crew" or something), and then shift most of their price to the squad, rather than the weapon.
Right now, the PAK43 is 350/45/10pop and the 17lb is 400/75/14pop. Add the "Heavy AT Crew" 4-man squad (copy+paste of Pios) at 250mp/40f/12pop to brit/ost base, and then make the emplacement itself limited to one and cost 100/5/0pop for Ost, and 150/35/0pop for brits. Then, give both emplacements an "abandon" button, which lets the crew leave the weapon.
Ideally, this would make the emplacement less of a risk, since you could abandon it and save most of the resources, and more importantly, all of the vet.
Right now, the PAK43 is 350/45/10pop and the 17lb is 400/75/14pop. Add the "Heavy AT Crew" 4-man squad (copy+paste of Pios) at 250mp/40f/12pop to brit/ost base, and then make the emplacement itself limited to one and cost 100/5/0pop for Ost, and 150/35/0pop for brits. Then, give both emplacements an "abandon" button, which lets the crew leave the weapon.
Ideally, this would make the emplacement less of a risk, since you could abandon it and save most of the resources, and more importantly, all of the vet.
Opinions reflect all team modes (not 1v1)
I often edit my posts several times after posting
I often edit my posts several times after posting
1 user is browsing this thread:
1 guest
Livestreams
 |
|
|
60 | ||
|
|
|
|
9 | ||
 |
|
|
137 | ||
 |
|
|
34 | ||
 |
|
|
15 | ||
|
|
|
|
13 | ||
|
|
|
|
4 | ||
 |
|
|
2 | ||
|
|
|
|
2 | ||
|
|
|
|
1 |
Ladders Top 10
-
#Steam AliasWL%Streak
- 1.655231.739+15
- 2.842223.791+5
- 3.940410.696+6
- 4.35459.857-1
- 5.599234.719+7
- 6.278108.720+29
- 7.307114.729+3
- 8.645.928+5
- 9.10629.785+7
- 10.527.881+18
Data provided by
Relic Entertainment
Relic Entertainment
Replay highlight
VS
-
cblanco ★ -
보드카 중대
-
VonManteuffel -
Heartless Jäger
Einhoven Country
Honor it
11
Download
1265