Was 81mm mortar taken away from T1? Do you need to pick a doctrine to get pio flamer?
The counters are there.
In my experience the regular mortar doesn't deal enough DPS to take out the FHQ out before the soviet player(s) can react (either with counter mortar fire or direct infantry assaults).
Flame pios will never get anywhere near it and if you charge in you'll have wasted not just 200 MP but also 60 precious munis. If you do that you only facilitate the soviets' plan, since they will want you to attack the FHQ head on and commit as many troops to that as possible.
Early FHQ means only a handful of unupgraded conscripts to defend it, something that grens with HMG42 can push off.
This is where you are wrong. MG + gren push will result in a free mg for the soviets which will be almost impossible to decrew with its new 6 man crew.
If sov goes for T2 first, you will have T2 by the time you'll see FHQ.
And T2 helps you against FHQ how? (if you want to say PAK you'd better think twice) |
And FHQ doesn't force you into a specific doctrine?
Moreover one of MHT doctrines just happen to be one of the best ger doctrines.
It does, but it's a choice you make willingly.
Responding to that should be possible via a non-doctrinal choice. |
It's not an issue of balance where it's too strong, it's a design issue where there is only one proper response.
Spot on mate. Ignoring it is not always an option and MHT forces you into a specific doctrine. |
Well, at least I know what you're talking about. In 2v2 in certain maps like Semoisky one player goes for the HQ while the other works towards a super heavy ISU. Obviously "just bomb it" wont work because the other player WILL have mortars and snipers. Adding MG and AT to surround his map, while the second player goes conscript/penals then works to guards rifle. Playing offensively while FHQ guy fortifies EVERYTHING.
Yes this is a very viable strat for the soviets on Semois and I've been up against it many times.
I think the only times I've managed to beat it (after very hard fought battles each time) was when using a combination of Festung Support (MHTs early game and LeFH late game) and Jaeger Armor (for obvious reasons). However it's quite annoying to face FHQ spam on that map and it takes a lot of work to manage to counter it (much more than the soviets have to do anyway).
|
Can you name one? I'd love to look for any of his games or stream.
FHQ is potent, but I can't see how it would be able to actually work against competent player because.
I'll try to post some replays this w/e of games it was used against me wisely. You'll see my point then. |
I use this doctrine sporadically and have yet to see a single streamer use it outside of 4v4.
That doesn't mean it's not used or that it can't be super effective if you capitalize on its strengths. Granted it's not as used as the t34/85s or isu doctrines, but there are some pretty good players who use it well both in 1v1 and 2v2. |
Guess what?
No competitive player uses FHQ in 2v2.
You know why? Because that doctrine sucks donkey balls for early and late game, offering only some mid game that don't excel at anything.
Again, you have no idea what you're talking about.
Maybe if you actually played the game instead of dispensing theoretical advice on forums you'd know this doctrine is quite useful in skilled hands.
Show me your card before you post any more B/S. |
In this case its even easier, because you can coordinate with your team mate to push sov off it(use MG42 to pin) and just walk up to it with flame pio and torch it.
Clearly you never played 2v2 games competitively. |
Yeah as soon as you see it try go cap the rest of the map, ignore it. They want to fight around and near it, not be drawn away. You will have numbers advantage thanks to the cost of the FHQ.
At the same time bombard the building with a mortar.
That's all dandy and fine on paper, but on some maps (Semois, Kharkov) you can't really go someplace else, since the FHQ will be ideally located to cut you off or to force you into an engagement.
Regular mortars just don't deal enough dps in order to take out a fhq defended by a soviet mortar so if you don't get the MHT you're gonna be outgunned and will loose so much map control that the FHQ will have paid off, even if you manage to avoid manpower loses.
|
|
In my opinion there is a significant (and unjustified) difference in terms of efficiency and survive ability between the ostheer and soviet snipers, and that should be reconsidered.
The efficiency issue was largely explained by previous posters, but I also think squad size plays a huge role in the effectiveness equation. While ost snipers can be efficiently countered by several units in the soviet arsenal, soviet snipers with guard or at nade support are a lot more tough to (hard)counter.
I would say 80% of the 2v2s I play, I always face a double sniper into guards strat, which is by far the hardest play to counter if executed by a competent player.
On the opposite side, I've never seen a viable sniper strat from the ostheer. Thus the question becomes did Relic design snipers intentionally that way, or is this issue something that needs further analysis and change?
|
United States
![[blade] flag](/images/replay/soviets_flag.jpg)
[blade]
RtN.Chuck Norris
Relic Entertainment
cblanco ★ 
보드카 중대 
Heartless Jäger 
