|
There is no Point to Increase the Pop of the SU-85,the change of role and accuraqcy buff was needed as it was a really bad TD tank cause it had awful long range accuracy(for some reason we dont know),also it was nerfed hard vs mediums(it still is a danger but now its not a Machine Gun AT).
right now i find it ok considering the tanks your comparing it to are more powerful then it.
The Jackson is a Firefly Clone From the Original COH with more speed but less dirability,it does 200 damage(240 with special shells) and has high penetration,its more effective vs medium thanks to the speed(Panther still destroys it)
The Firefly is pretty much a 17 Pounder on a Tank(with less damage and penetration)still any tank fears it duo to its damage and Huge penetration.
The Jagdpanzer 4 is a SU-85 at this point but better.
Again i dont get it,the SU-85 also got a price increase so whats the problem that it needs more Pop? |
The ISG is a fundamentally poorly designed unit. It is a build and forget weapon that picks off troops at distance with no player input. Having said that, the changes you suggest only aggravate that fact. Even the significant reduction in range you offer will have only a minimal effect since you are significantly upping the MP bleed when units do come in range. Now that OKW has suppression platforms they can hold the line and allow the ISG to work. Prior they required such a long range unit in part because of infantry's ability to get in under the gun quickly.
Currently the ISG is boring to play with and against. It hugs the nearest base structure, and fires fairly constantly on small maps. In team games the first Schwer locks out any attempt to attack the unit, and its useless vet is not even noticeable because it has no need to move or require player input.
Without a complete overhaul of the unit I don't see a need to change the stats. I really never felt that this unit should have been brought into the game, and it should, in my opinion, have only a barrage option, acting like a true howie. It would be offset by its early arrival, rapid firing, mobility, and lack of fuel cost. In that way it would be a true support weapon that required good micro, but would help break up defensive lines early and punish excessive mortar play. To compensate for loss of autofire the barrage could receive a significant buff. Again, since this would require quite a bit of work I don't recommend changes to the unit right now.
What this guy said 
If it's not broken DONT Fix 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.
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.
|
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. |
|
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. |
Thread: Pak 439 Jul 2016, 16:54 PM
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? |
|
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. |
But it does need stats change
The monstrous 20 popcap
Another Issue for another time  |
|
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. |
|
This proposed change makes sense, but the tank already has too many stats,very good frotnal armor,speed,penetration.
i believe one of those stats must be reduced should we increase the moving accuracy(Transfer Power) and i would suggest a bigger increase in moving accuracy 0.7 should we choose to buff it.
|
Relic Entertainment
cblanco ★ 
보드카 중대 
VonManteuffel 
Heartless Jäger 
