Login

russian armor

Thoughts on OKWs Flak Half Track

PAGES (7)down
30 Aug 2019, 09:27 AM
#41
avatar of ullumulu

Posts: 2243

ask yourself: why has it only the half dmg from the USF ht??

why has it the disatvantage to be stationary while all other similar units can move and kit units?? it should have a advantage for this disadvantage!

and dont say smoke....it has only smoke because it must be stationary. if it wouldnt has this disadvantage...it wouldnt need smoke
30 Aug 2019, 09:31 AM
#42
avatar of Katitof

Posts: 17914 | Subs: 8

ask yourself: why has it only the half dmg from the USF ht??

Because:
-its cheaper
-shoots much faster
-is more accurate(much lower scatter)

why has it the maulus to be stationary while all other similar units can move and kit units?? it should have a pro for this maulus!

Because that's how it worked. It literally can not rotate when its on the move.
Blame german superior engineering.

and dont smoke....it has only smoke because it must be stationary. if it would has this malus...it wouldnt need smoke

But it does have smoke and that gives it superior survivability and utility.
30 Aug 2019, 09:39 AM
#43
avatar of Balanced_Gamer

Posts: 783

ask yourself: why has it only the half dmg from the USF ht??

why has it the disatvantage to be stationary while all other similar units can move and kit units?? it should have a advantage for this disadvantage!

and dont say smoke....it has only smoke because it must be stationary. if it wouldnt has this disadvantage...it wouldnt need smoke


It is not half the damage output. Although USF has less accuracy on main gun (which is far greater against lights and AA in damaging by 2.5 times greater since it does 40 damage per shot has good rate of fire) but okish against infantry.

Its other guns which are active on the move does even better also, way better at close especially mid range.

WHY. DPS output is simply better and damage and accuracy (which is greatly compensated for its insane rate of fire which is greater by 2.66 times) for the 2 smaller guns.


How do the DEVS not even see the difference.


The timing, the price between the 2 are the same really.

Even if it were a minor price difference.

The performance difference is far too great.
30 Aug 2019, 09:44 AM
#44
avatar of ullumulu

Posts: 2243

jump backJump back to quoted post30 Aug 2019, 09:31 AMKatitof

Because:
-its cheaper
-shoots much faster
-is more accurate(much lower scatter)


Because that's how it worked. It literally can not rotate when its on the move.
Blame german superior engineering.


But it does have smoke and that gives it superior survive ability and utility.



1. it isn't THIS cheaper that would be the reason.
2. Ah bullshit reality Argue. Then ply explain why KW2 can shot while its turret is moved..because it could only shot when turret is moved to front. and why it can move the turret faster in coh2 than a KT...which had MUCH fast turret speed. and than explain why IS shot so fast..in reality it has very low shot frequent
3. it would be better to be on par with other HT which can deal with all other LV...and don't must move and hope to run away...while other can shot on the move and maybe win the fight.
30 Aug 2019, 09:50 AM
#45
avatar of Balanced_Gamer

Posts: 783




1. it isn't THIS cheaper that would be the reason.
2. Ah bullshit reality Argue. Then ply explain why KW2 can shot while its turret is moved..because it could only shot when turret is moved to front. and why it can move the turret faster in coh2 than a KT...which had MUCH fast turret speed. and than explain why IS shot so fast..in reality it has very low shot frequent
3. it would be better to be on par with other HT which can deal with all other LV...and don't must move and hope to run away...while other can shot on the move and maybe win the fight.


+1 True

Definitely not cheaper. It is the same price.

Performance with USF AA is far greater and even used competitively.

While OKW Halftrack performance is bad and is never seen in competition (even if it were, it would not last and wont do much) due to that fact it has no reliability.
30 Aug 2019, 10:56 AM
#50
avatar of Balanced_Gamer

Posts: 783

Well I mean Bofors for its performance.

It can potentially fend of mediums but just long enough to get the support it needs.

Bofors can soak damage and inflict damage against mediums is what I think ullumulu was trying to say.


It is so strong against infantry, lights and it has decent indirect fire which is only possible if a squad is in the bofors but does fail AA role. Though I believe it does more than it should for its price since it exceeds against infantry and vehicles (lights definitely and potentially mediums) compared to any other emplacement.


Back to the topic.


OKW FHT needs simply a buff in accuracy and damage in order for it to combat better, fend itself better and vet.

Which the Devs need to reconsider.
30 Aug 2019, 11:03 AM
#51
avatar of GI John 412

Posts: 495 | Subs: 1

Back on topic.....

I think the OKW flack halftrack would be much more viable if it weren’t overshadowed by the Luch and Puna combo. It’s really not that the Flak HT is super bad, it’s just not AS GOOD as Luch and Puma.

A solution would be to cut its fuel cost and maybe bump up is manpower cost. This would make going for battlegroup HQ the fuel efficient way to rush Panzer HQ and a quick Panzer IV. You go for Battlegroup and get a relatively cheap Flak HT with its reduced fuel cost and then rush for a P4 while the Flak HT fights a delaying action backed by the numerous Volksgrenadiers and a Rakettenwerfer and maybe even Sturmpioneers with a Shrek.

This rush strategy would be a lot like USF going Lieutenant and getting an M20 but no Stuart. It works for USF because the M20 has a low fuel cost, so reducing the fuel cost of the Flak HT for OKW might work for them too.
30 Aug 2019, 11:06 AM
#52
avatar of Balanced_Gamer

Posts: 783

Back on topic.....

I think the OKW flack halftrack would be much more viable if it weren’t overshadowed by the Luch and Puna combo. It’s really not that the Flak HT is super bad, it’s just not AS GOOD as Luch and Puma.

A solution would be to cut its fuel cost and maybe bump up is manpower cost. This would make going for battlegroup HQ the fuel efficient way to rush Panzer HQ and a quick Panzer IV. You go for Battlegroup and get a relatively cheap Flak HT with its reduced fuel cost and then rush for a P4 while the Flak HT fights a delaying action backed by the numerous Volksgrenadiers and a Rakettenwerfer and maybe even Sturmpioneers with a Shrek.

This rush strategy would be a lot like USF going Lieutenant and getting an M20 but no Stuart. It works for USF because the M20 has a low fuel cost, so reducing the fuel cost of the Flak HT for OKW might work for them too.



It is mostly the performance that matters. Without it, the cost does not really matter because even it were cheaper, it still wont be that much good because performance and impact on the field is more important than getting a cheaper unit.

Performance wise, FHT does not have it at all. That is why it is overshadowed.

It should be better than Luchs but it is just far worse.
30 Aug 2019, 12:46 PM
#53
avatar of GI John 412

Posts: 495 | Subs: 1

Better than Luchs? I don’t think so. I should be different than Luch, and it is. Flak HT needs some tweaks and it is underperforming for its cost, but I think adjusting its cost might be the easiest solution to that problem.
30 Aug 2019, 12:57 PM
#54
avatar of Balanced_Gamer

Posts: 783

Better than Luchs? I don’t think so. I should be different than Luch, and it is. Flak HT needs some tweaks and it is underperforming for its cost, but I think adjusting its cost might be the easiest solution to that problem.



The easiest solution to solve an under-performing unit is to decrease the price, Really?


That will most definitely NOT help improve the game at all.

It is like giving a price decrease to Maxim only without changing/improving its performance. Same thing.

It simply does not help at all.



What FHT needs is to perform for its current cost. It has to do much better.

Now it is just so bad to use because it is not viable in any situation except AA support.

It cant kill infantry at all properly, cant protect itself at least from lights, hell it does not even know what it is supposed to do.

THe OKW doctrinal 222 Scout Car does more efficiently in support, kills overall for its cost and performance better than what FHT can even provide.

FHT is terribly unbalanced.
30 Aug 2019, 14:15 PM
#55
avatar of Balanced_Gamer

Posts: 783

Watch this video of -HOI-12Th ANGEL LELIEL
https://www.twitch.tv/videos/474180026

On the 1:00:00 when he gets FHT.


See how little an effect/impact it does. It is like nothing really.

Gets easily countered, performance hardly even pays off with FHT.
30 Aug 2019, 21:52 PM
#56
avatar of zerocoh

Posts: 930

Watch this video of -HOI-12Th ANGEL LELIEL
https://www.twitch.tv/videos/474180026

On the 1:00:00 when he gets FHT.


See how little an effect/impact it does. It is like nothing really.

Gets easily countered, performance hardly even pays off with FHT.


"easily" by 2 VERY good USF light vehicles.

I think you are too focused on the "kills" thing, you have to remember that supression and area denial are a big thing. Not to mention some other stuff like how flaktrack have a big AoE attack that completely destroy cover and supress units behind cover at the same time.
31 Aug 2019, 09:33 AM
#57
avatar of Balanced_Gamer

Posts: 783

jump backJump back to quoted post30 Aug 2019, 21:52 PMzerocoh


"easily" by 2 VERY good USF light vehicles.

I think you are too focused on the "kills" thing, you have to remember that supression and area denial are a big thing. Not to mention some other stuff like how flaktrack have a big AoE attack that completely destroy cover and supress units behind cover at the same time.


Kills is an important factor on how it can Vet and to clearly evaluate the quality of the unit.

FHT does not do a great job in area denial. It surpresses but it does not damage them to a state where they would retreat.

It cant even fend off the lightest of vehicles. Instead the lighter vehicles counters the FHT.

Its AOE is 1, not big at all, in fact it is small considering even how bad its accuracy is on top of scatter.

It does not surpress either consistently, when it misses which it does, suppress does not take effect.

Terrible against units behind cover, since damage is terrible. I am sure you should realise that by now when I have watched your vids as well as other vids. Even bad at destroy cover other than yellow cover.

When USF AA Halftrack is stationary against cover, it does around 80 damage per shot. Far more efficient and surpresses even better due to the higher rate of fire. It is not comparable. USF AA is simply superior.


The real unit in area denials are:

Puma, Luchs, MG34, USF Halftrack (which is far better), STUART and amongst many other lights that have far more an effect.

FHT is simply terrible at denying areas. One of the Worst units in game in doing anything efficiently

It is like a Maxim but worse considering its costs and effect. It has a deathloop simply. Does not do anything really efficiently. Maxim is even better against units in cover than FHT.


Zerocoh, I am just saying this as nicely as I can but your matches have not encountered any real threats for FHT, not even any real AT or even units like STUART, AEC, T70 or even having a Penal AT on top of a halftrack for that matter.

FHT is useless.


If anybody can see for how it actually performs. I am sure you would agree. If you consider some factors and comparisons.


31 Aug 2019, 09:42 AM
#58
avatar of Divisionario

Posts: 32


I don't see the problem at flack, it already has smoke to repel enemy attacks and will flee instantly
31 Aug 2019, 09:57 AM
#59
avatar of Balanced_Gamer

Posts: 783


I don't see the problem at flack, it already has smoke to repel enemy attacks and will flee instantly


It cant flee instantly since it takes a short moment before it moves.

Smoke is good for concealing but the reason why it has while the USF AA does not is because it has to be stationary.

Does not neccessarily make it better.

I guess many took it the wrong impression and that is why it was nerfed as it currently is. Cuz it has smoke while the other does not.
31 Aug 2019, 10:00 AM
#60
avatar of Divisionario

Posts: 32



It cant flee instantly since it takes a short moment before it moves.

Smoke is good for concealing but the reason why it has while the USF AA does not is because it has to be stationary.

Does not neccessarily make it better.

I guess many took it the wrong impression and that is why it was nerfed as it currently is. Cuz it has smoke while the other does not.


sincerely disagree. I still remember how it was before I needed to fold to move, now it only takes about half a second to march back, although I think if you need a small suppression buff
PAGES (7)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

698 users are online: 698 guests
0 post in the last 24h
7 posts in the last week
34 posts in the last month
Registered members: 49118
Welcome our newest member, Ava Sofia
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM