Profile of FathersSon

--- sorry for double post ---

As a German player, flanking is much more viable anyway. The only non-doctrinal soviet tank is the t34, and it loses against every piece of non doctrinal German armor except the Ostwind.
In 2vs2 and up, flanking as Soviet is near impossible, making an Elefant untouchable. That is not true for German armor, they can actually counter.

With the changes to scatter damage, the Tiger and Tiger Ace do a crap load of damage to infantry squads, I don't consider the isu more scary than those. I think it's fine that soviet also have a doctrinal unit that is comparably scary.

I don't know if this point has been raised before
AND
I know this game is not balanced around team games.

BUT let me add this anyway, even if it might already have been mentioned:
At least in 2vs2 assGrens are spammed heavily, and shocks are the only thing other than maxim spam to stop this. In 2on2, it's usually assGrens and bunkers at chokes into flamer HT. Shocks give you a very small window, not to stop this but to not get dominated.
I don't know how this behaves in 1on1, but team games favour germans more. From 2on2, where it's slightly noticable to 4vs4, where Ostheer dominates.
I really like my shocks at 1 CP there.

In 1on1 I only play Ostheer, in teamgames only soviet.

So one question to those who really play both sides in 1on1 and know both sides' pain in this matchup:

Are shocks at 1CP that much harder to counter for Germans compared to the difficulty Soviets have with 0 CP AssGrens?

Pretty ridiculous when the Elephant is 300 fuel and God knows how much manpower. Also, even the Elefant doesn't two shot a Panther.

Okay, let me say it differently.
Maybe it is true that a forward HQ and a vetted zig does deny axis armor that approaches head-on in a limited part of the map.
But I'd say that for the price of 500/90 you could also do that with an additional zig and a T34.
I used the forward HQ several times now and I just don't think it's worth it. Or at least it's extremely situational.
There is so much annoying theory going on in this thread. In the actual game the building just collapses in the first fight.

I **always** had the forward HQ die in the first attack (playing only 2vs2). The building just collapses. It dies to panzerwerfers and tanks, grenades, PAKs ... I yet have to see a fight where it would not have been better to call in a squad of Shock Troopers that you keep all game.
The area of effect of that HQ is very small, you have to keep your troops very close to it.
I never ever thought: "Wow, that were 500 manpower and 90 fuel well spent". I think it's gimicky.

I play 2on2 (only with soviets) and 1on1 (only with Ostheer). In 1on1, I never encountered a forward HQ. Maybe it is better there. Doubt it, though. In 1on1, you can not keep a significant portion of your army at one spot. That is something you can do in teamgames.

So, if someone is building exactly one FHQ (not abusing the free-FHQ bug), did someone *ever* have a serious problem with it?

...That is just fucked up.

Essentially what that means is, one Vet2 Zis next to one HQ will two shot a Panther. That is ridiculous.

I don't know what they were thinking with this Forward HQ idea but clearly there was no QA testing involved whatsoever.

Yeah, that sounds almost as powerful as an Elephant. Minus the range, the spotting scope, the mobility and versatility, that is. At 840 mp and 90 fuel.