OKW Flak Halftrack

Currently, the OKW Flak Half track is quite weak compared to other light vehicles. The not viable light vehicle makes OKW at the moment pretty linear to tech since T1 is basically useless and everyone builds T2 for Puma/Luchs, while T1 is teched sometime later for the medics and the option of the Königstiger.

The Half track especially sucks against USF, because their AT gun fires so quickly that you often don't get your vehicle out if you don't pull it back in a split second. It performs decently against SOV T1 builds, due to SOV lack of AT. Against UKF it is also usually not worth it due to the AEC and also a good AT gun.

Now, enough problem description. The key design of the unit is to hold ground, not take it. Volks shall push, the Flak drives up, sets up and then supports against the counter push. That design is interesting and I would like to keep that. What I feel that drags the unit down the most is that it dies in 2 shots, which makes is a throw away unit after the first medium comes out, because the medium will always get two shots off so you must pray to RNGsus to make one shot miss. Also it usually loses to other light vehicles due to immobility (which enables vehicles to shoot the rear armor) and generally low DPS.

I want to make three suggestions to discuss that could potentially fix the issues. Not all of them are meant to be implemented at once, only one might already be enough:

1. Give it 40 HP more. Does the trick, now it dies in three shots, or two shots and a snare. Or maybe also in two shots and a bit of small arms fire. Maybe this needs to be compensated with 5 FU cost more, slightly longer set up or pack up times etc, but it would greatly add to the survivability and make it more usable once the mid game begins.

2. Give it more penetration. Would allow to defend better against T70, and maybe also the AEC and Stuart. Not to the point where it beats them, but where it can deal some damage when supported properly. Remember, the half track can't run away anyway unless there is enough infantry near it to snare the attacker.

3. The most intricate one: Give it a fortified mode. Either a toggle or OKW Volks/Sturms can set it into a fortified mode like OST has it in doctrines. But instead of giving it more range, it could just get a damage reduction like the KV1.

I kinda like 2 and 3, but if 3 gets implemented then it should probably lose the smoke.

An interesting idea would be to halve its speed, 2sec delay on smoke and give it 0.25x its current setup speed, in exchange for slightly better anti inf damage and some actually good penetration.

That way with good positioning and supporting it you can be rewarded with a unit worth its cost.

The Flak Halftrack is fine, but the Puma is too good to pass on.

Allow Sturms to upgrade a second Schreck for another 60 muni if med truck is deployed, opening up more AT options if you opt for a T1 build.

Allow Sturms to upgrade a second Schreck for another 60 muni if med truck is deployed, opening up more AT options if you opt for a T1 build.

Like that idea a lot. BGHQ could use a little love

Not T1 useless……T2 light armor too great……maybe exchange AAHT with any T2 light armor will improve T1 value

An interesting idea would be to halve its speed, 2sec delay on smoke and give it 0.25x its current setup speed, in exchange for slightly better anti inf damage and some actually good penetration.

That way with good positioning and supporting it you can be rewarded with a unit worth its cost.

IMO its offensive capabilities are fine, it's its defensive capabilities that are bad and hold it back. Those changes would really work out to be a mega-nerf IMO.

Allow Sturms to upgrade a second Schreck for another 60 muni if med truck is deployed, opening up more AT options if you opt for a T1 build.

That's an interesting idea. Would make me actually think about getting schrecks instead of auto minesweeper. Although honestly on a unit that expensive I'd be totally fine with also making schrecks and sweepers not mutually exclusive, especially since it's already that way for usf and brits.

The unit is practically fine with a single exception. It's performance against other light vehicles.

I've always found stupid how you can have the unit setup and the USF AAHT just move in front of you and kill it for example.

I'll give it a +4dmg (from 16 to 20) against non infantry through target tables in the same fashion PTRS work.

unit is a mobile bofor...i was expecting someone to complain how strong it is lol..if you get killed easy by AT most probably you not keeping it at max range...it's range is insane...use it far behind infantry and you're fine.

Didn't it just got buffed?

OKW Flak HT is my favourite AAHT. I prefer it over the USF one and the M5. You just need to know when to build it. If you see Soviet T1 or USF LT then it does a very good job. It's not very effective vs UKF and USF captain builds but there is nothing that can be done about that unless we decide to make it completely OP.

I don't understand the complaints about survivability either, 320 HP + smoke is pretty much all you can expect from this type of vehicle. USF AA HT and M5 don't have smoke and also die to 2 AT shots.

I would have to go with option 2. increasing penetration. This thing already performs well enough against infantry and any buffs to health or direct damage output would make it outperform.

Increasing its penetration is called for to mirror the anti-light vehicle performance of USF AA HT. There is no need for these AI supression platforms to have that high of a AT capability to begin with.

That being said, I don't believe that making OKW T1 great again should be done by just buffing the vehicle that comes out of it.
-It seems that the cost of going T1 is not worth the marginal utility. If you don't wanna buff anything just make T1 cheaper and people are going to start going for it more. Simple economics. Long live capitalism.

Didn't it just got buffed?

more buffs pls

Didn't it just got buffed?

It still needs some work. Personally I like the to see option 1 or 3 added.

I would try 2 firing modes.

1) suppress but does little damage
2) does not suppress but does more damage

It just got +33% suppression and a hefty contextual boost from the buff to the Raketenwerfer, upon which it relies for AT.

I think the dust needs a little more time to settle on this unit.

defensive smoke -
receive -20% damage reduction after popped the smoke for 5 seconds.

1. Give it 40 HP more. Does the trick, now it dies in three shots, or two shots and a snare. Or maybe also in two shots and a bit of small arms fire. Maybe this needs to be compensated with 5 FU cost more, slightly longer set up or pack up times etc, but it would greatly add to the survivability and make it more usable once the mid game begins

I like this option, but I'd also like to see its armor increased by just a tiny bit. Right now, the USF HT has 15/10 armor, while the FlakHT is at 11/5.5; it's a tiny numerical difference, but it works out to 50%/80% less damage taken from infantry. Increasing the HP to 360 and the armor to 15/10 would mean a stock FlakHT has the same defensive value as a vet 3 USF AA-HT, but it still misses out on firing on the move, and it of course has much less pen. Those downsides, combined with a +5-10 fuel increase would (imo) make it quite a viable unit, while not making it too strong (or just out-classing the AAHT).

I like this option, but I'd also like to see its armor increased by just a tiny bit. Right now, the USF HT has 15/10 armor, while the FlakHT is at 11/5.5; it's a tiny numerical difference, but it works out to 50%/80% less damage taken from infantry. Increasing the HP to 360 and the armor to 15/10 would mean a stock FlakHT has the same defensive value as a vet 3 USF AA-HT, but it still misses out on firing on the move, and it of course has much less pen. Those downsides, combined with a +5-10 fuel increase would (imo) make it quite a viable unit, while not making it too strong (or just out-classing the AAHT).

Correct me if I'm wrong, but comparing the armor values of these 2 vehicles is misleading. The USF half track drives in reverse into battle, so the effective armor value is 10 while the OKW half track has an armor of 11. Now this does not factor in the sides with are also hit and as far as I know count as rear armor, but still this should be kept in mind

Do you also mean giving it both more armor AND more HP? If at all, I'd rather see the armor slightly decreased so that the half track still survives 2 long range ATG shots, but can be taken down by small arms fire when combat gets too close. Overall this should be a buff for the vehicle.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but comparing the armor values of these 2 vehicles is misleading. The USF half track drives in reverse into battle, so the effective armor value is 10 while the OKW half track has an armor of 11. Now this does not factor in the sides with are also hit and as far as I know count as rear armor, but still this should be kept in mind

The direction it's moving doesn't really matter for the point I'm making - that the USF AAHT is much less susceptible to small arms (50-80% less). An increase of 4/4.5 armor isn't going to really change it's resilience against anything that is AT-focused, but it's going to make a pretty big difference against something like riflemen.

Do you also mean giving it both more armor AND more HP? If at all, I'd rather see the armor slightly decreased so that the half track still survives 2 long range ATG shots, but can be taken down by small arms fire when combat gets too close. Overall this should be a buff for the vehicle.

Yes, for a +5-10f price increase. Increasing the armor is a good idea; I fully agree with that. However, increasing it's vulnerable to small arms isn't something I want to see - I'd rather it be decreased, so it matches the resilience of the USF AAHT.