Login

russian armor

Flame Halftrack

PAGES (8)down
17 Sep 2018, 19:05 PM
#21
avatar of Lago

Posts: 3260

jump backJump back to quoted post17 Sep 2018, 18:53 PMEsxile
It has more to do with Ostheer being strong enough early game to delay even more the pak or not needing the 222.
Someone mentioned high risk high reward unit, I don't see any high level risk to call it asap and upgrade it with flamer.


90 munitions means you're not fielding a Panzershreck squad, and the Pak isn't the best as a light vehicle counter. The AI power of the Flame HT comes at the cost of AT power.


It sounds to me like Panzer Tactician is more the problem. Crank it up to 5 CPs and it'll still do its job without making 222s and Flamer HTs too powerful early on.
17 Sep 2018, 19:05 PM
#22
avatar of aerafield

Posts: 3032 | Subs: 3

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.




Hmm I am 90% sure that vet 3 gives a bonus to the flamer cooldown, IIRC it was part of the Halftrack rework. (Upgrade on 251/M5 means you can no longer reinforce; all HTs have shared veterancy if they dont have an upgrade)
17 Sep 2018, 19:08 PM
#23
avatar of vasa1719

Posts: 2635 | Subs: 4

Permanently Banned
jump backJump back to quoted post17 Sep 2018, 19:05 PMLago


90 munitions means you're not fielding a Panzershreck squad, and the Pak isn't the best as a light vehicle counter. The AI power of the Flame HT comes at the cost of AT power.


It sounds to me like Panzer Tactician is more the problem. Crank it up to 5 CPs and it'll still do its job without making 222s and Flamer HTs too powerful early on.


One question, what can counter HT in his timing from light vehciles ? m3 with PTRS ?
17 Sep 2018, 19:15 PM
#24
avatar of Lago

Posts: 3260

One question, what can counter HT in his timing from light vehciles ? m3 with PTRS ?


It's more you don't have a vehicle counter of your own. The 222 and upgraded PGrens are Ostheer's best counters to the Universal Carrier, M20 Utility Car and M3 Clown Car. If you rush out a Flame HT you're fighting those with a Pak.

That's not to say you can't: GCS 2 proves a Flamer HT rush strat works. You'll just have a harder time killing enemy light vehicles.
17 Sep 2018, 19:25 PM
#25
avatar of insaneHoshi

Posts: 911



One question, what can counter HT in his timing from light vehciles ? m3 with PTRS ?


The same way that OKW is supposed to counter clowncars. Mines and hope for the best.

Also you can use sandbags to interfere with its pathing.
17 Sep 2018, 19:27 PM
#26
avatar of vasa1719

Posts: 2635 | Subs: 4

Permanently Banned
jump backJump back to quoted post17 Sep 2018, 19:15 PMLago


It's more you don't have a vehicle counter of your own. The 222 and upgraded PGrens are Ostheer's best counters to the Universal Carrier, M20 Utility Car and M3 Clown Car. If you rush out a Flame HT you're fighting those with a Pak.

That's not to say you can't: GCS 2 proves a Flamer HT rush strat works. You'll just have a harder time killing enemy light vehicles.


Wait, are we talk about that PRO tourneys games dont proof anything that was used to make balance here ? So why here "top" players or another users use this like arguments and balance team ask them about changes ?
When thay go partisans and maxims its proofs that strat are OP.
When thay go luchs rush in ostwinds its proof same.
But now, when thay do same, its not proof ?
How many m20 are in Siphon stats compared to 251 and 222 ? How many UK ?
To fight vs UK or m3 dont need pac, if you cannot kill without pac, its more about map, skill, luck.
I can agree with USF AA HT, but not with all another.
17 Sep 2018, 19:31 PM
#27
avatar of Lago

Posts: 3260



To be clear, I'm saying I don't think the OST Flamer HT needs changing. If you build it you delay your anti-tank tools, but in return you get a very powerful anti-infantry light vehicle.
17 Sep 2018, 19:33 PM
#28
avatar of vasa1719

Posts: 2635 | Subs: 4

Permanently Banned


The same way that OKW is supposed to counter clowncars. Mines and hope for the best.

Also you can use sandbags to interfere with its pathing.


OKW have at gun in t0 compared to all another faction that cost less and can retreut.
Use bugs are nice idea.
Also damage of clown car and HT are very different to compare each other like same problem.
17 Sep 2018, 19:35 PM
#29
avatar of vasa1719

Posts: 2635 | Subs: 4

Permanently Banned
jump backJump back to quoted post17 Sep 2018, 19:31 PMLago


To be clear, I'm saying I don't think the OST Flamer HT needs changing. If you build it you delay your anti-tank tools, but in return you get a very powerful anti-infantry light vehicle.

Its can only deley AT tools vs USF AA HT, vs all another type of vehicles you can get pac, puma, shreks, coz there timing are more slow then HT.
17 Sep 2018, 19:41 PM
#30
avatar of Lago

Posts: 3260

Its can only deley AT tools vs USF AA HT, vs all another type of vehicles you can get pac, puma, shreks, coz there timing are more slow then HT.


There are plenty of vehicles with faster timings than the AAHT.

Universal Carrier.
AEC Armoured Car.
M3 Clown Car.
M20 Utility Car.
And doctrinally, the WC51 and M3 Halftrack.
17 Sep 2018, 19:45 PM
#31
avatar of vasa1719

Posts: 2635 | Subs: 4

Permanently Banned
jump backJump back to quoted post17 Sep 2018, 19:41 PMLago


There are plenty of vehicles faster than the AAHT.

Universal Carrier.
AEC Armoured Car.
M3 Clown Car.
M20 Utility Car.
And doctrinally, the WC51 and M3 Halftrack.


How UK counter HT ?
AEC faster then HT ? Really ? So you see AEC and build HT ?
M3 need ptrs to counter HT inside.
m20 come faster, but counter possibility are low.
17 Sep 2018, 20:10 PM
#32
avatar of Lago

Posts: 3260

How UK counter HT ?
AEC faster then HT ? Really ? So you see AEC and build HT ?
M3 need ptrs to counter HT inside.
m20 come faster, but counter possibility are low.


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.
17 Sep 2018, 20:29 PM
#33
avatar of TheGentlemenTroll

Posts: 1044 | Subs: 1

Isn't the issue more that the current meta revolves around Puma call in? I mean the Flame HT is a great unit that is very strong but its major weakness is countered effectively by a Puma. I feel like the changes to Mobile Defense might make the Flame HT less potent.
17 Sep 2018, 21:25 PM
#34
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1

Imo all flame vehicles should have their DOT moved to an ability and their DPS better balanced on their direct fire.

That force players to plan the usage of flame vehicles, instead of driving these vehicles around hoping to spread enough DOT.
17 Sep 2018, 22:03 PM
#35
avatar of ShadowLinkX37
Director of Moderation Badge

Posts: 4183 | Subs: 4



One question, what can counter HT in his timing from light vehciles ? m3 with PTRS ?


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.
17 Sep 2018, 23:06 PM
#36
avatar of insaneHoshi

Posts: 911



OKW have at gun in t0 compared to all another faction that cost less and can retreut.
Use bugs are nice idea.
Also damage of clown car and HT are very different to compare each other like same problem.


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.
17 Sep 2018, 23:41 PM
#37
avatar of ferwiner
Donator 11

Posts: 2885

People are surely overreacting. Not many players can use flame ht to the same level as the ones we watched in the tourney. And actually, on the top level it works exactly as it should, coh1 style:
m3 < 222 & 251 < t70 < puma < t34

That is why I think there is no real problem with potency of 251. The only change I would support, if any, is to reduce its damage on the move, so it needs a little more time to wipe on retreat. Right now it is better at chasing retreating squads than T70.

Also, while we are at halftracks, soviet M5 still needs some ballance love.
18 Sep 2018, 07:11 AM
#38
avatar of Esxile

Posts: 3602 | Subs: 1

jump backJump back to quoted post17 Sep 2018, 19:31 PMLago


To be clear, I'm saying I don't think the OST Flamer HT needs changing. If you build it you delay your anti-tank tools, but in return you get a very powerful anti-infantry light vehicle.


Which you don't need anymore so early. 4xgren + 1 or 2 Mg42 is the standard now, not rushing T2 to get your pak or 222 early enough to counter allied light vehicle.
It is not rocket science to understand that the 251flamer hasn't been nerfed the moment all other lights were and then is now in a good position to dominate when it hit the field.

Just to remember AAHT have seen its dps cut in half a year ago or so for no real reason.
18 Sep 2018, 09:33 AM
#39
avatar of Siphon X.
Senior Editor Badge

Posts: 1138 | Subs: 2

I think basing anything on the GCS2 games is tricky to some extent (btw, 222s were still more commonly build than 251s, just saying...). The problem that I see is that we don't really know where Ostheer stands outside of Mobile Defense. SOV vs. OH seems to be reasonably well balanced (with Mobile Defense);

On the other hand, FHT without Mobile Defense might be considerably weaker (that said, Hans and Jesulin were using the FHT with Osttruppen...).

Sidenote: Frankly, I'm not a big fan of tying the Puma to tech (or most stuff for that matter). I'm totally fine with it working as the "Oh Shit" button, but I feel it should be a worse choice in the long run. My first choice would be to replace Smoke with something useless and see how that goes.

On the same note: My impression was that the alpha strike of the FHT is ok, but it might be too easy to run down retreating units with it; rather than reducing it's damage there (which might be tricky due to how flames work) it might be better to increase the risk of that. Not having smoke helps in that respect, but reducing the health so that it survives a mine with 1 HP left (or maybe not even that) might also be an option.

Alternatively, the risk might be increased by delaying tech: Maybe make the FHT upgrade cost like 20 fuel, so that the second vehicles would be delayed?

18 Sep 2018, 09:44 AM
#40
avatar of Dangerous-Cloth

Posts: 2066

When puma gets tied to tech, this will be solved.
PAGES (8)down
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

696 users are online: 696 guests
0 post in the last 24h
8 posts in the last week
34 posts in the last month
Registered members: 49115
Welcome our newest member, Pound309
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM