Login

russian armor

Soviet FHQ should be build only on OWNED territories

15 Aug 2014, 02:16 AM
#21
avatar of Strummingbird
Honorary Member Badge

Posts: 952 | Subs: 1

Why not increase resistance of the FHQ to Stuka strikes and flames and let engineers repair it, and in exchange it takes awhile to set up, can only be built on owned territory, and can be decapped? That way everyone will be happy (or everyone pissed off, I don't know).
15 Aug 2014, 02:41 AM
#22
avatar of Greeb

Posts: 971

Why not increase resistance of the FHQ to Stuka strikes and flames and let engineers repair it, and in exchange it takes awhile to set up, can only be built on owned territory, and can be decapped? That way everyone will be happy (or everyone pissed off, I don't know).


I agree with everything.
15 Aug 2014, 08:17 AM
#23
avatar of Mr. Someguy

Posts: 4928

My main problem with it is, using Semoisky Winter as an example, you can start Top and just take FHQ the building next to your opponent's fuel. Now he has to decide between potentially over-extending himself to try and get your fuel, or trying to destroy the FHQ and get his back.
15 Aug 2014, 09:07 AM
#24
avatar of Cannonade

Posts: 752

I agree with OP.

Should be on owned territory only when built.

Im ok with it remaining active if territory is retaken by opponent.
15 Aug 2014, 09:30 AM
#25
avatar of pigsoup
Patrion 14

Posts: 4301 | Subs: 2

Why not increase resistance of the FHQ to Stuka strikes and flames and let engineers repair it, and in exchange it takes awhile to set up, can only be built on owned territory, and can be decapped? That way everyone will be happy (or everyone pissed off, I don't know).


this
15 Aug 2014, 09:36 AM
#26
avatar of GustavGans

Posts: 747

Why not increase resistance of the FHQ to Stuka strikes and flames and let engineers repair it, and in exchange it takes awhile to set up, can only be built on owned territory, and can be decapped? That way everyone will be happy (or everyone pissed off, I don't know).


Good idea.
15 Aug 2014, 09:45 AM
#27
avatar of Cannonade

Posts: 752

Imo FHQ carries enough buffs and advantage, that it really should remain vulnerable to the counters Strumming lists.

Trick is to not place it actually at the frontline, but as a fall back and support position from an adjacent sector.

I think the FORWARD HQ part has been miscontrued to mean that its actually on the frontline. In a historical/realist sense, though I dont like to bring that up except as a guideline, you also NEVER had a company HQ as the ability suggests, right on the line. A company HQ was/is essentially a support/logistics position with food/equipment/munitions/medic stations, commanding officers and a communications hub. It was never at the actual front, unless the line collapsed and it becomes a fortified position devoid of the support/logistics elements mentioned above.

I think a repair option with CE is the most valid change, on its own, similar to Ost variant of repairing a Bunker.

Another option is the building is structurally reinforced by making it an HQ, especially to indirect fire. I think this should be manageable statwise, by applying a specific cover modifier to the HQ building.
But I dislike that, because it needs to remain vulnerable to indirect fire that is designed to be structure dmg intensive and specific.
Else, how the hell are you supposed to kill it.

As to flames, well, if a flamer gets close enough, you sort of fked the defense of the HQ.

TLDR: Repair, yes. But never place a FHQ on the frontline, unless you are prepared to lose it for a temporary advantage. Always in an adjacent fallback sector.
15 Aug 2014, 10:13 AM
#28
avatar of Puppetmaster
Patrion 310

Posts: 871

What game type are people seeing this in? Been playing 2v2 and 4v4 lately and not seen one in what feels like forever
Vaz
15 Aug 2014, 14:51 PM
#29
avatar of Vaz

Posts: 1158

Well, it doesn't fit into the meta right now. Trying to hold positions like this with OKW in the game are just not valid. Their damage output at long ranges is too much. Combined with fast stuka to break the building, it just isn't worth it. Since no one is interested in losing massive amounts of cons anymore, there is no value in the fhq right now.
16 Aug 2014, 07:52 AM
#30
avatar of Cabreza

Posts: 656

I think the last time I saw a FHQ built was when it was bugged and all subsequent FHQs were free. The building is relatively expensive so spamming it is out of the question, sustained mortar fire will take down the building in a few minutes, and a mortar half track basically hard counters it.

I envision the FHQ working a lot like the OKW medic truck currently does. Give it a set up time, make it only buildable in friendly territory, and limit it to only one active FHQ at a time, but make it repairable and almost as durable as the OKW truck. That way it has much greater staying power until tanks and AT guns hit the field and can make a meaningful impact early game.

Urban defense tactics really needs to get a lot out of the FHQ to have any chance of being viable since the commander has the double death kiss of no elite infantry call-ins and no armor call-ins.
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

391 users are online: 391 guests
1 post in the last 24h
16 posts in the last week
34 posts in the last month
Registered members: 48861
Welcome our newest member, 12betrip1
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM