Best way to fix the Flak HT: Give it smoke at Vet 0, like how the puma doesn't need vet to use it.
I hope you're jocking.
Please give the Flak HT some love
17 Aug 2014, 02:22 AM
#41
Posts: 971
I hope you're jocking.
17 Aug 2014, 02:35 AM
#42
Posts: 2487 | Subs: 21
I hope you're jocking.
I'm a troll, I'm always joking.
But uh, I don't want the Flak HT to get overbuffed and become OP, so the little things help. Start slow, then see what else needs to be changed.
17 Aug 2014, 02:41 AM
#43
7 
Posts: 1664
Despite my grief for the OP I do think the OKW HT could use a bit of a health and/or armour buff.
17 Aug 2014, 08:40 AM
#44
Posts: 656
The OKW HT is actually pretty durable for a HT. It has the same health as the American HT and actually 1 more frontal armor than the American HT has rear armor. A little extra armor might help but the real killer is the tear down time. If that was reduced a bit then I think the OKW HT would be in a good spot survivability wise.
17 Aug 2014, 09:58 AM
#45
Posts: 1740
Honestly people are arguing because of that video?
It is by far the worst gameplay I have seen in a while.
Next time I will drive an IS-2 with his ass infront of 3 Pak43.
'Buff it, buff it!'
It is by far the worst gameplay I have seen in a while.
Next time I will drive an IS-2 with his ass infront of 3 Pak43.
'Buff it, buff it!'
It is though God by command has withdrawn every other throne.
And God is saying 'No. These people will deal with me alone.'
And God is saying 'No. These people will deal with me alone.'
17 Aug 2014, 10:32 AM
#46
1 Posts: 927
packup time needs to go.
17 Aug 2014, 11:07 AM
#48
Posts: 18
USF HT is in every way better, OKW HT is a toaster compared to USF HT.
I agree the USF HT is better in every way. But my point was that the OKW HT isn't bad, its quite good in my opinion, but it is outclassed by the USF HT. Now, there's two ways to go about it. Either buff the OKW HT and we get roaming terminator machines that are likely to dominate early game, or we can adjust the USF HT down a bit so that they are on a more similar level.
Main reason that I don't like the USF HT is that I've seen it shoot at and kill a Puma in one burst (Expert AI, don't know if that has any bearing). OKW HT is great versus infantry but is totally impotent against anything armored, the USF HT is good at both, no setup time, great mobility, survives three hits.
Like I said in my first post, the OKW HT is fine, the USF HT isn't.
17 Aug 2014, 11:34 AM
#49
Posts: 627
Serious, that video was a joke.
Drive rear armour towards 2 M1's, two BAR and a Thimpson at point blank. Begin setting up. Force off LT squad as all the supporting fire opens up and die. Hurradurr?
Drive rear armour towards 2 M1's, two BAR and a Thimpson at point blank. Begin setting up. Force off LT squad as all the supporting fire opens up and die. Hurradurr?
17 Aug 2014, 11:41 AM
#50
Posts: 170
While I agree the FlaK HT is underperforming that video was terrible, if they buff it up they should add a cost the vet1 smoke though.
17 Aug 2014, 12:09 PM
#51
Posts: 119
This video is joke, yes, worst use ever, yes, BUT the Flak HT need better survivability, before reach vet1 smoke, the pack up time is huge pain/nullified micro, and no brainer... This is not a MG, this is a 55 fuel priced vehicle, who now cant escape vs a simply AT gun what start shoot from fog of war, or charging AT inf. I think vet0 smoke need this unit better, than puma/or pack up time must go... Another problem, is the ballistic weapon type, vs open ground, where terrain have a bit elevation, simply dont hit nothing, but the ground. This need change, again.
17 Aug 2014, 13:21 PM
#52
14 Posts: 10665 | Subs: 9
U are beginner, right?
U used it shittly.
If you had read post #5, there would have been no need to have written what you did. An apology to the OP might not go amiss.
17 Aug 2014, 14:10 PM
#53
Posts: 19
Classic balance thread, people who are bad at the game insulting each other and the OP. Should need to be top 100 before commenting game on game balance.
The OKW flak HT under performs and the US AA HT over performs.
The OKW flak HT under performs and the US AA HT over performs.
17 Aug 2014, 15:09 PM
#54
Posts: 196
IMO, the only thing that needs to be fixed about the Flak HT is the way it constantly shoots into terrain/the ground.
 | Playercard of Kallie | |||||||||||||||||||
|
17 Aug 2014, 15:28 PM
#55
Posts: 170
Obviously the video wasn't intended to show exactly how poor of a unit the flak ht is, of course it was poorly used (though I reckon my opponent clicked the lieutenant squad and the flak did the driftin' over several meters before setup thing), but the point is, there is absolutely no reason or 'balance' to have the thing die that quickly to small arms fire. The range in this case bumped up the penetration by 20% (bar has 1.2/1.1/1.0 penetration) but given its target size, accuracy was irrelevant. This thing is too squishy, it should NOT die to small arms fire like that.
17 Aug 2014, 17:15 PM
#56
Posts: 145
Removing collision on shoots would help flak HT alot, its really annoying when flak HT waste it whole round just to hit ground or tiny bush, and if u add setup/desetup time it gets even worst.
20:53 - slother: its time
20:54 - Вοгіﻛ Τ Rατ: fail time
20:54 - slother: its time to lose our streak
20:54 - Вοгіﻛ Τ Rατ: hehe let me have a shower
20:54 - Вοгіﻛ Τ Rατ: i need to feel clean for the rape
17 Aug 2014, 18:46 PM
#57
Posts: 950 | Subs: 1
The OKW HT is actually pretty durable for a HT. It has the same health as the American HT and actually 1 more frontal armor than the American HT has rear armor.
how does having front armor almost equal to the US ht rear armor make it durable? the only hts its actually more durable than are the mortar hts. the 251 and infrared ht have the same durability but the infrared obviously isnt a combat unit and the 251 isnt either at this point.
both the US and soviet hts are much more resistant to small arms.
17 Aug 2014, 18:49 PM
#58
Posts: 508
Serious, that video was a joke.
Drive rear armour towards 2 M1's, two BAR and a Thimpson at point blank. Begin setting up. Force off LT squad as all the supporting fire opens up and die. Hurradurr?
That was a terrible use of it, but for 55 fuel, even the rear armor should do a little better against small arms fire.
edit - it's hard to judge what the issue with the FHT really is, as it hits the ground so often. If that were adjusted it'd be a totally different unit.
17 Aug 2014, 18:51 PM
#59
Posts: 135
Video is how not to use it, but the flak half track always hit other things on the map, that makes it useless, not to mention its set up time stupidly long so that most could run away from it, those that think the flak half track is fine where it is, is just silly
18 Aug 2014, 00:10 AM
#60
Posts: 656
how does having front armor almost equal to the US ht rear armor make it durable? the only hts its actually more durable than are the mortar hts. the 251 and infrared ht have the same durability but the infrared obviously isnt a combat unit and the 251 isnt either at this point.
both the US and soviet hts are much more resistant to small arms.
The reason I compare the front armor of the OKW HT to the rear armor of the American HT is because the American HT will usually have it's rear armor facing the opponent due to the way the gun works. So typically the OKW HT is going to have 1 more armor than the American HT when taking small arms fire.
The point I was making was that it has similar durability to the American HT. The difference between the two isn't their ability to mitigate damage but the American HT's ability to run away from it.
2 users are browsing this thread:
2 guests
Livestreams
 |
|
|
57 | ||
 |
|
|
24 | ||
 |
|
|
1 | ||
 |
|
|
1 |
Ladders Top 10
-
#Steam AliasWL%Streak
- 1.549203.730+3
- 2.830222.789+36
- 3.34957.860+14
- 4.1095612.641+19
- 5.916404.694-1
- 6.280162.633+8
- 7.305114.728+1
- 8.721440.621+3
- 9.8520.810+7
- 10.14758.717+1
Data provided by
Relic Entertainment
Relic Entertainment
Replay highlight
VS
-
cblanco ★ -
보드카 중대
-
VonManteuffel -
Heartless Jäger
Einhoven Country
Honor it
9
Download
1222
Board Info
486 users are online:
486 guests
1 post in the last 24h
16 posts in the last week
37 posts in the last month
16 posts in the last week
37 posts in the last month
Registered members: 48909
Welcome our newest member, rudyegill
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM
Welcome our newest member, rudyegill
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM