Flame Halftrack

I just want to say some points, because i saw some comments in the twitch chat.
Yes you get very fast vet3 with this units, BUT the vet does not really care for the flamerhft.
You don't get really strong upgrades for it.

It is always a back and forward: flamerhft is on the field, allies are in trouble. T70 is on the fiel, axis are in trouble.

This is a bad mentality I see in this community. Just because a unit is a strong choice or is favoured in the meta doesn't automatically mean it needs to be nerfed. CoH2 seems to always want to nerf everything that becomes popular into the ground. I think what would instead be better is doing things other than nerfing the potency of the halftrack. There are many other things to do:

- Increase upgrade cost
- Increase upgrade time
- Add a requirement that requires upgrading to the next battlephase (the one that unlocks T3 - this is the requirement for flame HT in coh1)
- Decreasing acceleration on the halftrack (so it dies more easily)

Etc.

Exactly, +1

So unit did really well on a recent GCS2 and now people want to nerf it. Eh, all factions have counter to this unit so don't see the problem.

Unit fits ostroopen strat and mobile defence. Puma will be tied to tech so partly problem is solved

From a team game perspective, the flameHT is not terrible OP on its own, but talking about flamer units I do have a gripe to lay down.

Cost effectiveness:The ability to rush the flameHT out and alpha strike is not so much of a problem, provided you preparing for it, the part that bugs me is that is so much more cost effective than the wasp.

100 (or is 90) muni for 2 x flamers with 180 degree fire angle and 3 sec burst duration on a more durable platform with possible smoke.

Compare this to the wasp's 75 muni for a single flamer, with 90 degree fire cone and 2 sec burst duration on a more fragile platform. The wasp is also brits only mobile, non-doc anti-garrison unit.

This doesn't strike me as a good deal in comparison, especially considering that the wasp has to deal with threats like every German and their dog having fausts (especially grens with their long range version), magic bullets which insta-rape the wasp (any light vehicle for that matter), sneaky racks, shrecks, etc.

Now I'm not sure if its the flameHT is overly cost effective or its the wasp that has poor efficiency in comparison.

You've got this backwards. I never said anything countering the Flame HT.

I'm talking opportunity cost here. The 251 is not a super-light vehicle counter. The 222 is.

If you build the Flame HT, you didn't spend those resources and build time on a 222 or a Panzershreck squad.

That means you don't have a 222 or PGren squad yet.

That means enemy light vehicles are also more effective because you have few tools to counter them.

You dont say, but i ask, you logic, that 251 deley pac/shreks i say that no reason to deley this units, coz only USF have unit in FHT timing. Why you need pac at 5 min if t-70 come good if in 7 close to 8 ?

Cost effectiveness:the part that bugs me is that is so much more cost effective than the wasp.

100 (or is 90) muni for 2 x flamers with 180 degree fire angle and 3 sec burst duration on a more durable platform with possible smoke.

Compare this to the wasp's 75 muni for a single flamer

This doesn't strike me as a good deal in comparison,

You can't compare the two in this vacuum. Flame HT requires more tech, more resources to build and more resources to upgrade.

Flame UC is out way faster.

I counter OKW flakHT with PTRS penals all the time. The flaktrack full burst can't kill the M3 in a single burst, and when the burst ends, pop out and throw AT satchel. AT satchel + 1 burst of PTRS = dead HT.

I do same, but it was few times, not even 50 % of the games.

And SU has plenty of time to tech to t2 and get an at gun to counter a flame HT too.

And I didn't say use ghostbags (which is what one is able to do) but normal built sandbags are ok too.

Wait, wait, when same we write about oac vs t-70 or stuart with AEC, remember me what you write ? Maybe somthing like pac is not mobile compared to light vehicles ? So why in one situation this must dont work and work in another ?

You dont say, but i ask, you logic, that 251 deley pac/shreks i say that no reason to deley this units, coz only USF have unit in FHT timing. Why you need pac at 5 min if t-70 come good if in 7 close to 8 ?

One last try.

A 222 or a Panzerschreck squad counters UCs, Clown Cars and M20s.

A 251 does not.

You can't compare the two in this vacuum. Flame HT requires more tech, more resources to build and more resources to upgrade.

Flame UC is out way faster.

Why would it matter what time the wasp is able to hit the field? Its counters exist from the start of the game and the unit has a very hard time staying alive from the get go.

A units overall cost should not be dictated by its single use shock ability and should be comparative to its peers.

Yeah, the flameHT will cost some fuel but its hit like a truck (the wasp literally does one third the burst damage of the flame HT), is considerably more survivable and able to completely run amuck if the allied player failed to build AT in time. A wasp can't do that.

Why would it matter what time the wasp is able to hit the field? Its counters exist from the start of the game and the unit has a very hard time staying alive from the get go.

..

Timing is a very important factor. It was proven when Shock troops and Guards where simply moved from CP2 to CP1 and ended up completely dominating the field.

Timing is a very important factor. It was proven when Shock troops and Guards where simply moved from CP2 to CP1 and ended up completely dominating the field.

Timing as a whole is important, most certainly, but I'm referring to its relation to the actual cost of the unit. Units should not be made prohibitively expensive or cheap just because of the time of when they hit the field. Cost should reflect their performance, not shock value.

There are other ways to delay a units timing hitting the field.

Timing as a whole is important, most certainly, but I'm referring to its relation to the actual cost of the unit. Units should not be made prohibitively expensive or cheap just because of the time of when they hit the field. Cost should reflect their performance, not shock value.

There are other ways to delay a units timing hitting the field.

Early or late access to unit is reflected their cost, in game. For instance the fuel difference between the t-70 and the T-34/76 does not reflect their difference in performance.

Early or late access to unit is reflected their cost, in game. For instance the fuel difference between the t-70 and the T-34/76 does not reflect their difference in performance.

And this is bad design.

If want to replace a unit with a timing tax or build it at a point in the game past its prime, then I'm being punished just because a unit could have potentially come early and created shock value - that's just silly.

Worst still is that it creates this set of one trick pony units that only appear at a very specific times in the game, and not seen ever again, instead of promoting diverse armies with comprehensive synergies.

Units can be made to appear at the intended time in the game using build and upgrades times, no prohibitive costs necessary.

Now talking specifically about the wasp, its not a shock unit, so it doesn't quite deserve the timing tax. When it appears, the axis already have a full array of counters available and every thing can damage it. If I loose my wasp, I have to pay a disproportional more to replace it, if I want to carry on countering garrisons as Brits - doesn't seem right to me.

Dont fix what doesn't need fixing, the unit is fine. You know, you can give your opinions in the chatbox aswell, don't need to make new threads everyday..

Flame halftrack also works with at gun btw, so the removing puma thing doesnt make flame halftrack worse (imo).

Flame halftrack for me just feels less micro while having a very big impact.

Flame halftrack also works with at gun btw, so the removing puma thing doesnt make flame halftrack worse (imo).

Flame halftrack for me just feels less micro while having a very big impact.

AT guns are slow and require careful positioning and support to avoid being flanked.

Pumas can keep up with the 251.

IMO the damage needs to be toned down with the double flames. It just does so much damage that its easy to lose an MG in a building before it even gets a chance to pack up.
Maybe give it a cost increase or slow it down so its easier to snare or at least get with the AT gun?

AT guns are slow and require careful positioning and support to avoid being flanked.

Pumas can keep up with the 251.

A support... like... from flame halftruck for example?

The fact that it dies in 2 at hits makes it pretty balanced IMO. It’s very high risk high reward and is fairly easy to kill as allies most of the time since it has to get so close and usually doesn’t have smoke.

A support... like... from flame halftruck for example?

I'd say a Grenadier squad to faust any light vehicle that dives for the AT gun.

Part of the advantage of light vehicles is how quickly they can reposition around the map. If the Flame HT is reliant on a Pak to defend it then it has to stick where it can retreat to the Pak.

That's part of why the Puma's such a good pairing for the 251: the Puma can keep up with it.

I'd say a Grenadier squad to faust any light vehicle that dives for the AT gun.

Part of the advantage of light vehicles is how quickly they can reposition around the map. If the Flame HT is reliant on a Pak to defend it then it has to stick where it can retreat to the Pak.

That's part of why the Puma's such a good pairing for the 251: the Puma can keep up with it.

+1

It’s also much better offensively if they come in with a light vehicle and you find yourself in a position to dive it.