Login

russian armor

SNF / Halftrack

26 Jan 2014, 23:31 PM
#1
avatar of Z3r07
Donator 11

Posts: 1006

Relic was proposing to maybe bring a change so the HT can't reinforce if you upgrade it with flamers...

I still prefer my original idea:
http://www.coh2.org/topic/7048/suggestion-half-track-reinforcement

thoughts ?
26 Jan 2014, 23:37 PM
#2
avatar of Katitof

Posts: 17914 | Subs: 8

Considering its basically a new unit, I can support that, but only if it'll change vet bonuses to more suitable as well.

This way M5 quad could be buffed with vet to actually have more meaningful combat or AA performance and 251 could also benefit from combat vet.

Can't see how it wouldn't be done as M5 already changed into a different unit with different name and description after upgrade.
26 Jan 2014, 23:48 PM
#3
avatar of Con!

Posts: 299

proper counters like fast at guns or guards weren't even used to counter it so I think it would be an overeaction to change the halftrack just yet and your change doesn't really affect much.

The build used was designed to counter 5 cons and soviet builds that don't get early AT. Plenty of soviet builds that can beat it that where never used in snf.

A better change if one where made would be to make tanks better again besides call-in tanks because mp based AT invalidates tanks too much compared to tanks impact on the battle field and tanks are one of the only ways people can leverage their early game map control.
26 Jan 2014, 23:51 PM
#4
avatar of Jinseual

Posts: 598

why nerf the halftrack when not many players use it anyways?

not being able to kill the halftrack is a problem? get rid of crits!

i think the flamehalftrack should still be able to reinforce infantry around it.

the m5 quad does not need a buff, it does damage and it suppresses, which is what the german halftrack cannot do.
27 Jan 2014, 00:09 AM
#5
avatar of Unshavenbackman

Posts: 680

why nerf the halftrack when not many players use it anyways?

not being able to kill the halftrack is a problem? get rid of crits!

i think the flamehalftrack should still be able to reinforce infantry around it.

the m5 quad does not need a buff, it does damage and it suppresses, which is what the german halftrack cannot do.


+1
Dont nerf units that are not being abused.
27 Jan 2014, 00:20 AM
#6
avatar of Z3r07
Donator 11

Posts: 1006

why nerf the halftrack when not many players use it anyways?

not being able to kill the halftrack is a problem? get rid of crits!


A lot of players uses the halftrack.
27 Jan 2014, 00:52 AM
#7
avatar of sluzbenik

Posts: 879

On the larger maps, I always get one.

One of the things that really differentiates COH2 from vCOH is the importance of maintaining field presence(1). Mass retreats are punished instantly and ferociously by skilled players. One of the reasons it's so easy for Ostheer to win on certain maps (Kholodny with left side start, Langreskaya with south) is because they can follow up on a mass or near mass retreat by sending the entire army to camp the cut-off point with a halftrack to reinforce.

Once in a while when I'm too busy making Brumbars for trolling, a good player will focus everything on the halftrack first and eventually force me off those points. So I am in favor of Pquiemsieh's suggestion as it will make comebacks more possible.

However, the M5 halftrack still is underused and can be just as vital (a few, a very few, skilled Soviet players know this) so I really don't like the idea of nerfing reinforcement on it at all. Instead, take away overdrive completely from the M5 and let Soviets continue to use it for reinforcement if upgraded, just like the vCOH quad. If people figure out that you can time a quad pop while carrying double flamer engies inside and wtfpwn Ostheer positions while reinforcing (hint, hint) and this creates imbalance they can look at nerfing the damage of the quad mount.

People still won't use it, but hey, it'll still be there.

Limiting reinforcement to controlled areas is stupid and nearly entirely negates the strategic usefulness of these units.

Footnote:

(1) Capping speeds are faster and it is less risky to cap, so being forced off the field means an even more rapid change of map control then in vCOH. Coupled with COH2s faster teching means you are totally screwed if you are cutoff for more than a minute or two before resources have accumulated for T3/T4.

27 Jan 2014, 00:57 AM
#8
avatar of sevenfour

Posts: 222

A long time ago I suggested that:

1) the flamer upgrade should be available only after teching to tier 3
2) if you upgrade to FHT it should not be able to reinforce anymore

Seeing the amount of early FHT abuse in the SNF only proved to me that I had been right.
27 Jan 2014, 01:15 AM
#9
avatar of Jinseual

Posts: 598

making flame half track only available at t3 is a good suggestion but it still needs to reinforce after the upgrade.

It would also be great if you can still transport units around when it's upgraded, but in order to compensate for that nerf, the halftrack mgs should be improved since it barely does any damage to enemy infantry and there aren't many good counters for early shock troops

The mg42 is not good enough to counter shock troops, because of the extra 25 pct damage it receives the gunner dies immediately before it can fire and trying to retreat it is a loss since the other units tend to walk up to the mg and sit down before fleeing then just grabbing it.
27 Jan 2014, 01:31 AM
#10
avatar of sluzbenik

Posts: 879

Oh I forgot my big caveat.

They can only take away reinforce on the Ost halftrack when upgraded IF and ONLY IF they upgrade the damn mgs. It should act exactly like it did in vCOH, be able to do suppression in red cover, but otherwise you have to stand in front of it for a month for it to suppress anything or do much damage.

And it shouldn't need to cost much more if they do that. Maybe a few fuel, maybe, that's for the balance guys to add up fuel costs and see how far behind it would put you.

27 Jan 2014, 01:53 AM
#11
avatar of Mackie

Posts: 254

im tellin ya, su76!
27 Jan 2014, 02:02 AM
#12
avatar of DietBrownie

Posts: 308

jump backJump back to quoted post27 Jan 2014, 01:53 AMMackie
im tellin ya, su76!


comes late at times.
27 Jan 2014, 05:44 AM
#13
avatar of NorthWestFresh

Posts: 317

This is crazy! Talk of nerfing Halftracks and taking away their reinforcement? These are rediculously bad Ideas that will detract from the strategic elements of these units, leave them alone they are fine. A simple at gun in your build and a flamehalftrack is no problem. I find it rediculous that the top players are too stubborn to change their builds to produce simple and obvious counters to things like the flamehalftrack. And thats all it is .. stubborness.
27 Jan 2014, 06:11 AM
#14
avatar of akula

Posts: 589

I agree that taking away the reinforce ability detracts from the strategic elements of the game. All that would result in would be the building of two halftracks - one with flamen and one without for reinforcing. a dumb idea imo.
27 Jan 2014, 06:50 AM
#15
avatar of miragefla
Developer Relic Badge

Posts: 1304 | Subs: 13

Not needed at all given how vulnerable HTs/Quads/FHTs and the amount of munitions put into them. What else are they supposed to do when heavier AT is about which stops them from being used in a fight effectively until there's either an opening or the AT is cleared?
27 Jan 2014, 07:15 AM
#16
avatar of 5thSSPzWiking

Posts: 135

early shock/guards spam is alot more of an issue than fht reinforcements. fht is fine the way it is. how else can you stop shocks?
27 Jan 2014, 07:23 AM
#17
avatar of Qvazar

Posts: 881

In hindsight, this FHT and infantry blob into Tiger strat seems like the perfect opportunity for the SU-76M to prove its worth, followed by a Katyusha and SU-85. Then we might also have seen an AC with 20mm.

There's usually too many grenadiers with faust, and maybe a Pak, around the FHT for the T-70/T-34 to be a real threat.

I would like to see the flamer upgrade require T3 tech, but it's not the FHT that's the problem here.
27 Jan 2014, 07:35 AM
#18
avatar of WiFiDi
Honorary Member Badge

Posts: 3293

it will do much of anything other than further limit your early game options. getting rid of reinforcemnt from both the halftracks is a terrible terrible idea for gameplay.
27 Jan 2014, 07:38 AM
#19
avatar of Sorban

Posts: 36

I wonder why no one chose guards. Maybe with the call in mortar?
I don't say thats the solution at all but i wonder why they don't try it.
Are guards not viable?
27 Jan 2014, 07:38 AM
#20
avatar of Le Wish
Patrion 14

Posts: 813 | Subs: 1

Think HTs are fine. As stated, a FHT is a lot less valuable when tanks hit the field, a quad can still shoot down planes. No need to fix what ain't broken.
1 user is browsing this thread: 1 guest

Ladders Top 10

  • #
    Steam Alias
    W
    L
    %
    Streak
Data provided by Relic Relic Entertainment

Replay highlight

VS
  • U.S. Forces flag cblanco ★
  • The British Forces flag 보드카 중대
  • Oberkommando West flag VonManteuffel
  • Ostheer flag Heartless Jäger
uploaded by XXxxHeartlessxxXX

Board Info

931 users are online: 931 guests
0 post in the last 24h
3 posts in the last week
23 posts in the last month
Registered members: 48743
Welcome our newest member, kubetdlsite
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM