Soviet Forward HQ is completely broken.
Posts: 432
Unfortunately, it also has an Achilles' Heel - a mortar halftrack's incendiary barrage will light the building on fire and it will burn down on its own. For a 200/40 investment + some munis, in a commander that usually ends in a Tiger, it's not a bad decision to make, albeit binary - you go MHT and burn the house down, or you lose map control to Soviet slow creep.
It's not an issue of balance where it's too strong, it's a design issue where there is only one proper response. The FHQ needs to be buffed and nerfed at the same time. Buffed so it can be fire-resistant plus some late game viability, but nerfed so the cumulative accuracy-damage-healing buff doesn't stack ridiculously in Soviet's favor, and its immunity to be decaptured.
Posts: 93
It's not an issue of balance where it's too strong, it's a design issue where there is only one proper response.
Spot on mate. Ignoring it is not always an option and MHT forces you into a specific doctrine.
Posts: 17914 | Subs: 8
Moreover one of MHT doctrines just happen to be one of the best ger doctrines.
Posts: 93
And FHQ doesn't force you into a specific doctrine?
Moreover one of MHT doctrines just happen to be one of the best ger doctrines.
It does, but it's a choice you make willingly.
Responding to that should be possible via a non-doctrinal choice.
Posts: 747
It does, but it's a choice you make willingly.
Responding to that should be possible via a non-doctrinal choice.
+1
Posts: 17914 | Subs: 8
It does, but it's a choice you make willingly.
Responding to that should be possible via a non-doctrinal choice.
Was 81mm mortar taken away from T1? Do you need to pick a doctrine to get pio flamer?
The counters are there. Doctrinal one is just most effective one as 2 incendiary shots will burn the building and placing another FHQ pretty much equals to GG.
Early FHQ means only a handful of unupgraded conscripts to defend it, something that grens with HMG42 can push off.
If sov goes for T2 first, you will have T2 by the time you'll see FHQ.
I simply can't see FHQ being a game winner against a player who is not completely surprised by it to the point where he doesn't know what to do.
Posts: 93
Was 81mm mortar taken away from T1? Do you need to pick a doctrine to get pio flamer?
The counters are there.
In my experience the regular mortar doesn't deal enough DPS to take out the FHQ out before the soviet player(s) can react (either with counter mortar fire or direct infantry assaults).
Flame pios will never get anywhere near it and if you charge in you'll have wasted not just 200 MP but also 60 precious munis. If you do that you only facilitate the soviets' plan, since they will want you to attack the FHQ head on and commit as many troops to that as possible.
Early FHQ means only a handful of unupgraded conscripts to defend it, something that grens with HMG42 can push off.
This is where you are wrong. MG + gren push will result in a free mg for the soviets which will be almost impossible to decrew with its new 6 man crew.
If sov goes for T2 first, you will have T2 by the time you'll see FHQ.
And T2 helps you against FHQ how? (if you want to say PAK you'd better think twice)
Posts: 747
In my experience the regular mortar doesn't deal enough DPS to take out the FHQ out before the soviet player(s) can react (either with counter mortar fire or direct infantry assaults).
Flame pios will never get anywhere near it and if you charge in you'll have wasted not just 200 MP but also 60 precious munis. If you do that you only facilitate the soviets' plan, since they will want you to attack the FHQ head on and commit as many troops to that as possible.
Also note that the FHQ is very often "fortified" with green cover around it (fences and stone walls) making it easy to set up your cons defensively (R&M right Fuel, Moscow Church, Charkov Middle, Semoski middle etc.).
Posts: 93
Posts: 747
On top of that cons can easily set up their own green cover in no time.
Yeah I should have mentioned that too
Posts: 17914 | Subs: 8
Posts: 93
I guess I should start wondering why no one ever use it, no one uploads 1v1 or 2v2 reps featuring it, no one streams using or going against it and no one even have it on their commander selection if its so awesome and why meta isn't about it, but about reliable call-ins for early and late instead.
It's more difficult to pull it off in 1v1s, but if I recall correctly I've seen OnCe_Ov3R do it very effectively at least a couple of times.
As for team games, it's usage is certainly higher but it's not as common as other doctrines because:
1. it's designed to only work well on maps on which buildings can play a significant role
2. requires good coordination with your teammates
3. its risk/reward ratio keeps growing the longer the game goes on
4. it's not free
Posts: 3293
Posts: 3552 | Subs: 2
FHQ has not I think been changed in anyway since it's release.
Yet only now are people complaining about it.
This means two possibilities:
1) It has always been good but people have only now started to realise that or use it
2) Balance is otherwise so good that we are down to to the semi-obscure stuff
Posts: 17914 | Subs: 8
It was changed.
It got cheaper by 25% and its buff got weaker by 50%.
Posts: 3552 | Subs: 2
http://www.coh2.org/topic/4307/company-of-heroes-2-changelog/post/93618
Six months and several patches ago though
So it's been in it's current format for quite a long time
Posts: 17914 | Subs: 8
And it was just as rarely used then as it is now.
Thats why I also believe that people start to cry about it only because they have run out of things to complain and QQing about CEs would make them look really bad.
Thats why if FHQ is oh so evil, I'd like to see some evidence of it in form of reps, which sadly no one can give, because no one uses the doctrine, because no one likes to loose if he won't win by 10 min.
Posts: 93
Yep.
Thats why if FHQ is oh so evil, I'd like to see some evidence of it in form of reps, which sadly no one can give, because no one uses the doctrine, because no one likes to loose if he won't win by 10 min.
No one said it's evil, just that it's poorly designed and needs to be looked at.
Just as (almost) everyone is unhappy about the current state of the ISU - Elephant dynamic.
The only difference is that the second one is encountered very often, as everyone has access to both units as opposed to FHQ being paid DLC and situational.
Try to keep an open mind. Just because you haven't been up against it to see what it means or that not so many people use it doesn't automatically mean it's fine the way it is. Maybe some hands on experience might be helpful.
Posts: 17914 | Subs: 8
I just don't think your arguments have a solid base backed up by the actual meta, because if something is potent, then meta shifts towards it and last time FHQ based strats were potent was when it was bugged and spammable for free. FHQ being DLC isn't really a good argument, because Elite Troops is also a DLC and everyone and his dog have it.
That is like arguing that NKVD or german blitz and infantry doctrines are strong, but all top, medicore and bad players fail to see it.
If it was as strong as you make it seem to be it would be used more often, because players like using things that are strong, effective and reliable.
Its not used, because it doesn't meet the criteria to be appealing to anyone outside of hipster or "I have beat you so hard that I can get FHQ and still win" strats.
The only truly potent ability in this doctrine, flame arty, is littered in all other soviet doctrines that are much more potent.
Posts: 4928
Ladders Top 10
-
#Steam AliasWL%Streak
- 1.829222.789+35
- 2.34957.860+14
- 3.483190.718-1
- 4.587233.716+3
- 5.1095612.641+19
- 6.894399.691+4
- 7.280162.633+8
- 8.1004649.607+5
- 9.304113.729+4
- 10.379114.769+1
Replay highlight
- cblanco ★
- 보드카 중대
- VonManteuffel
- Heartless Jäger