Halftracks

[mofetagalactica]

This is an idea suggestion on making Halftracks a little more interesting by adding an hability that locks the halftrack in place this gives the unit a boost range for infantry to reinforce.

[MarKr]

What does it mean? The HT would be static but infantry could use the "Reinforce" button fartrher away from it?
I would need to check but I don't think it is possible to change the distance at which infantry can reinforce around units. Does the reinforce radius even matter that much?

[tarakancheg]

Does the reinforce radius even matter that much?

Yes the reason HTs die 90% of the time is when you use them on the front-line as reinforcement for in midfight and it gets killed by random AT gun

[mofetagalactica]

What does it mean? The HT would be static but infantry could use the "Reinforce" button fartrher away from it?
I would need to check but I don't think it is possible to change the distance at which infantry can reinforce around units. Does the reinforce radius even matter that much?

Yeah, something like that HT would be static (maybe the MG would be disabled aswell) the Reinforce range would reach further distance, and yes it is important.

Why the suggestion? Well, its just easier to micro, a fun addition to both parties to manage infantry without having microing like crazy at the same time so your halftrack dosn't get kill. And honestly thats all what players use it for just to reinforce units, i have barely seem them being use for offensives in the ''frontlines" (wich is why peopple often pick ambulance truck/halftracks instead).

[Consti255]

would like such change if it would be possible.

[MarKr]

I would need to check but I don't think it is possible to change the distance at which infantry can reinforce around units.

Well, I stand corrected - there is a modifier that should be able to change the reinforcement radius.

Why the suggestion? Well, its just easier to micro, a fun addition to both parties to manage infantry without having microing like crazy at the same time so your halftrack dosn't get kill. And honestly thats all what players use it for just to reinforce units, i have barely seem them being use for offensives in the ''frontlines" (wich is why peopple often pick ambulance truck/halftracks instead).

and

Yes the reason HTs die 90% of the time is when you use them on the front-line as reinforcement for in midfight and it gets killed by random AT gun

OK, how does the bigger radius help with this? If you're attacking, your infantry is moving forward. This suggestion says that the halftracks would be static with the bigger radius. So once you advance, you get out of the radius and cannot reinforce again unless you move the halftrack. In that case, isn't it more practical to send the HT to the depleted units?

Or maybe better question would be - what would be the radius in static mode? Right now, they can reinforce in radius of "20".

[tarakancheg]

OK, how does the bigger radius help with this? If you're attacking, your infantry is moving forward. This suggestion says that the halftracks would be static with the bigger radius. So once you advance, you get out of the radius and cannot reinforce again unless you move the halftrack. In that case, isn't it more practical to send the HT to the depleted units?

Or maybe better question would be - what would be the radius in static mode? Right now, they can reinforce in radius of "20".

I guess 30-35 range would be good enough. You set up you HT on a safe distance/in cover and reinforce pushing infantry out of harms way. HT's are still squishy and are a good target for mortars/arty so to not make them OP you can add a delay like on PE armored cars sector lock so you cant instantly move out of danger with it.
Another option is to give HT's suppression ability just like tanks for 20-ish muni to make it a viable early game opening on high res.

[MarKr]

Thinking of this, wouldn't it be better if halftracks got an upgrade option that would turn them into a retreat point? That way you could leave it at a safe space in optimal range away from the fight and they would just retreat to it, reinforce and join the fight again.

There would be some technical limitations to this - e.g. you could have only one halftrack with such upgrade at a time, we would need to make it so that you either have a HT with the upgrade or a placed retreat flag but not both at the same time to prevent retreat-hierarchy problems, but sounds like a more practical solution.

[tarakancheg]

Thinking of this, wouldn't it be better if halftracks got an upgrade option that would turn them into a retreat point? That way you could leave it at a safe space in optimal range away from the fight and they would just retreat to it, reinforce and join the fight again.

Why not just use FHQ then? Or retreat to CW CP?
HT are mobile and can stay close to the frontline- that's what makes them useful. You want to use HT reinforce mid-combat to always have more men than your opposition and If you retreat you soften the pressure with having less inf. Problem is, as Hawks mentioned in other topic, that reinforcing tanks make it better while being much more survivable than HTs that die to anything if you try to reinforce frontline troops.

[Consti255]

Thinking of this, wouldn't it be better if halftracks got an upgrade option that would turn them into a retreat point? That way you could leave it at a safe space in optimal range away from the fight and they would just retreat to it, reinforce and join the fight again.

There would be some technical limitations to this - e.g. you could have only one halftrack with such upgrade at a time, we would need to make it so that you either have a HT with the upgrade or a placed retreat flag but not both at the same time to prevent retreat-hierarchy problems, but sounds like a more practical solution.

You already have the retreat points with various units. An in general that is not the reason why HT do suffer right now, its the reason what tara and mo already mentioned. No need to turn them just in a super backline role with giving them a retreat point ability. Rereat points are super agressive, but also super risky due the high presence of arty and spotters in the game once they get spotted. So puting them to near the line is super risky and could loose you the game.

I think 2 possible things are fitting their role and dont turn them in a overlapping role:

- increase the reinforce radius (upgrade costing 100 MP)
- add the static reinforce idea (upgrade costing 100MP)

I personally would like a more agressive and mobile gameplay with a simply bigger radius (like the RAF glider maybe?), they were build for infantry to keep up with the tanks and fast overwhelming attacks and overall as multipurpose vehicles like medic HTs and other variants. Aswel, this could give you some space before you run into a AT gun.

[MarKr]

I would say that "reinforcing in combat" should be mainly the field of paratroopers who can do it without the need for any extra units, it is also available in a few doctrines that have the reinforcing tanks but those are doctrines that don't have access to any strong infantry. Giving such an option to all doctrines would surely be convenient but at the same quite OP. Having Ranger/Assault Gren/Grens (or in general any infantry squad in Def doc with the defensive bonuses) constantly reinforcing in combat would be sort of insane. It would take away the intended advantage of paratrooper squads, it would largely lower the need to retreat infantry and it would be available for every doctrine.

You already have the retreat points with various units. An in general that is not the reason why HT do suffer right now, its the reason what tara and mo already mentioned. No need to turn them just in a super backline role with giving them a retreat point ability. Rereat points are super agressive, but also super risky due the high presence of arty and spotters in the game once they get spotted. So puting them to near the line is super risky and could loose you the game.

Doesn't that support what I said? Yes, retreat points are magnets for arty. Because you know it's a place with high chance of infantry concentration and it is static. The HT would be mobile so you could move it a bit every few minutes. Also, if you have a retreat point set up, you usually have a halftrack near it anyway because you need to reinforce the retreated squads. So the idea felt like something that would simplify something that people do anyway.

Well, I'm not trying to force the idea. If people don't like it, no problem. However, I'm against giving the ability to reinforce in combat to every doctrine for the reasons stated above.

[Red]

When thinking about buffing halftracks and other medic/reinforce light vehicles the first thing that would come to my mind is acceleration and speed. They are utility vehicles and not really a combat unit.

Also I believe we should differentiate between the different types. E.g. for the Germans: the Wehrmacht Halftrack can reinforce and can upgrade MGs, but cannot heal. The PE halftrack can reinforce and heal, but has no weapons. The Sdkfz 250/9 in PE can reinforce and has a 20mm gun and MG, but cannot heal. And then there is the Stoormtrooper Halftrack in Blitzkrieg, which costs CP, but then can reinforce, heal, has MGs and acts as a retrat point.
So for me, the Sdkfz 250/9 in PE is fine, because of its guns.
For the WH and PE halftrack as well as for the Stoormtrooper one, I would propose to boost acceleration and speed, so they are more mobile and therefore can be sent in and out quicker.
Then the WE halftrack is to me the one with the most need to get something on top, as the MGs are not really effective.

[Consti255]

Well, I'm not trying to force the idea. If people don't like it, no problem. However, I'm against giving the ability to reinforce in combat to every doctrine for the reasons stated above.

I agree here aswell.
How about putting the upgades behind tiering?

[MarKr]

How does that go along the "I'm against giving the ability to reinforce in combat to every doctrine"? This is still "combat reinforcement for every doctrine" only delayed.

[mofetagalactica]

How does that go along the "I'm against giving the ability to reinforce in combat to every doctrine"? This is still "combat reinforcement for every doctrine" only delayed.

Your suggestion is to disable all combat reinforcement when units are in combat and only make paratroopers able to reinforce trought air? In exchange we get more range for haltracks to get more reinforcement range?

Is that what you're saying?

[MarKr]

Not "disable". I'm saying that "reinforce in combat" is one of the intended advantages of paratrooper squads. Some doctrines got the option to reinforce infantry in combat around some tanks - those are docs that don't have some super strong infantry, so I would say that is still OK.

What you're asking is to give the option to reinforce in combat to every doctrine - through the halftracks. That's what I don't like.
Because:

Giving such an option to all doctrines would surely be convenient but at the same quite OP. Having Ranger/Assault Gren/Grens (or in general any infantry squad in Def doc with the defensive bonuses) constantly reinforcing in combat would be sort of insane. It would take away the intended advantage of paratrooper squads, it would largely lower the need to retreat infantry and it would be available for every doctrine.

[mofetagalactica]

Not "disable". I'm saying that "reinforce in combat" is one of the intended advantages of paratrooper squads. Some doctrines got the option to reinforce infantry in combat around some tanks - those are docs that don't have some super strong infantry, so I would say that is still OK.

What you're asking is to give the option to reinforce in combat to every doctrine - through the halftracks. That's what I don't like.
Because:

Giving such an option to all doctrines would surely be convenient but at the same quite OP. Having Ranger/Assault Gren/Grens (or in general any infantry squad in Def doc with the defensive bonuses) constantly reinforcing in combat would be sort of insane. It would take away the intended advantage of paratrooper squads, it would largely lower the need to retreat infantry and it would be available for every doctrine.

So... what docs could get something like this then?

Also i tought that paratroopers are supposed to reinforce infantry BEHIND ENEMY LINES, without having to fight on the frontline with a halftrack behind it... so..

[idliketoplaybetter]

Buuut, what's gonna be a trade off then? Bigger price for the halftrack? Just upgradable thing paid additionally?

It seems like time spent in EuInRuins mod cause this frustration. different gameplay pace..

[MarKr]

So... what docs could get something like this then?

My opinion is that no doc should get the upgrade for halftracks. The paratrooper docs can reinforce in combat without halftracks, the docs that have "reinforcing tanks" don't have strong infantry. Giving the option to relatively safely reinforce in combat to other docs would go against some intended game mechanics.

Also i tought that paratroopers are supposed to reinforce infantry BEHIND ENEMY LINES, without having to fight on the frontline with a halftrack behind it... so..

Gameplay wise? Not really. You can deploy them behind the lines to quickly take out some annoying unit but you usually cannot keep them alive too long so they need to retreat sooner or later and then they fight on the front line. There they can still reinforce without any halftrack - which is their intended advantage over non-paratroop squads.

[mofetagalactica]

So... what docs could get something like this then?

My opinion is that no doc should get the upgrade for halftracks. The paratrooper docs can reinforce in combat without halftracks, the docs that have "reinforcing tanks" don't have strong infantry. Giving the option to relatively safely reinforce in combat to other docs would go against some intended game mechanics.

What about giving the halftrack this hability to every doc but changing the way reinforce works by not being able to reinforce while in combat?

Btw i still don't understand why you put the '''tanks can reinforce'' in this topic also tanks could get and i think they have less range for reinforce so they're not a unit dedicated to it, we're talking about giving halftrack a superior logistic hability here, the current mechanics are only used in your imagination cause they're not as useful as you think.
Currently they're too slow, their firepower support is not really that great, neither used for offensives since they're too squishy and have to be too close on the firefight to reinforce, so currently they're just a tool sitting far behind and just used to reinforce, what are the intended game mechanics that you talk about and what would you suggest to change, please explain.

[MarKr]

What about giving the halftrack this hability to every doc but changing the way reinforce works by not being able to reinforce while in combat?

I don't know if I understand the topic then. I thought the reason for larger reinforce radius was to make halftracks able to "park" farther back in relative safety and reinforce infantry in combat from there. If you cannot reinforce infantry in combat, what is the point of larger radius then?
(I'm also not sure if reinforcing can be limited that way)

Btw i still don't understand why you put the '''tanks can reinforce'' in this topic also tanks could get and i think they have less range for reinforce so they're not a unit dedicated to it, we're talking about giving halftrack a superior logistic hability here, the current mechanics are only used in your imagination cause they're not as useful as you think.

I keep mentioning the tanks because if I say something like "reinforcing in combat should be the advantage of paratroopers", someone will jump in with "so why can tanks reinforce infantry?!?" - I'm just trying to prevent people nitpicking what I said.

Currently they're too slow, their firepower support is not really that great, neither used for offensives since they're too squishy and have to be too close on the firefight to reinforce, so currently they're just a tool sitting far behind and just used to reinforce, what are the intended game mechanics that you talk about and what would you suggest to change, please explain.

Purpose is to have a reinforcement point that can be placed anywhere on the map so you don't need to retreat your infantry to base every time when you need to replace losses.
Suggested changes from my side: None. I react to what has been said/requested by pointing out what I see as problematic.

[CGarr]

If the main issue is that HT's can't be used in frontline combat, maybe we can find a way to address that instead of focusing on reinforcement range?

I would lean towards going all-in on the idea of making HT's a mobile suppression platform similar to the Bren carrier with its upgrade. Give HTs a 50-75 muni upgrade option called "Frontline Support" that does the following:
- Removes the HT's ability to carry troops
- Gives the HT a hull-down ability (or just a stationary mode, if hull-down isn't possible). If possible, make the set-up and pack-up time longer than normal, so that players have to commit to a position rather than using this ability mid-push.
- Gives the HT's roof MGs the same suppression stats as their faction's HMG team while in hull-down mode. (Driver is assisting the gunner with keeping the gun loaded, so the gunner can focus on shooting).
- Gives nearby inf reduced muni-dependent cooldowns.

There would obviously be some overlap with the unarmed ammo transport units in the game, but I've never seen someone (*cough* Kwok *cough*) use those on the frontline as anything other than a VBIED.

[MarKr]

I would be more for turning the HTs more into the direction of "infantry firepower support" than the combat-reinforce thing.
I don't know if it is needed to make the units hull down (it should be possible to do, though). Their MGs are usually forward-facing only so it would be quite limiting. Stationary mode is possible too, but why should it have one? If the point is to make HTs an MG support for infantry, shouldn't mobility be the important factor? Hulldown/stationary mode with the bonuses, along with "normal MG" stats would turn them into "moveable MG trench".
Lower monition cooldowns would work but I guess it the impact would be rather low as abilities usually don't need several activations during a single firefight.
Removing the ability to carry troops is possible. Would it still be able to reinforce infantry with this "Frontline support" upgrade?

I'm also not sure about the impact for PE as they have the Armored car with top MG, which can already be used as a "suppression platform" so there would be some overlap. On the other hand the AC can cap and OP points, HT would have different utility uses so the overlap would be just partial.

[Red]

Building on what has been written I would propose the following:

For WH and US Halftracks:
Ability to upgrade to weapon support platform (suppression of HMG of that faction, but no more transportation)
Ability to reinforce is kept
Ablity to go hull down purchasable for 25 ammo, and if in hull down position, then also acts as retreat point (retreat point cost 50 ammo from officer, but lower cost here because if the HT is destryoed, the ammo is lost)

For PE Halftrack, US and CW ambulances (no weapons):
Slightly increased acceleration and speed
Hull down purchasable similar to WH and US

Sturmtruppen HT (Blitzkrieg Doc):
Ability to upgrade to weapon support platform (suppression of HMG of that faction, but no more transportation)

CW Bren:
Add ability to reinforce

Summary of proposal:
WH and US have halftracks that can suppress and act as retreat points (when hull down), but only Infantry (US) and Blitzkrieg (WH) Docs have mobile healing.
PE and CW have one quick vehicle to reinforce and heal (PE Halftrack and CW ambulance), as well as one vehicle each that can shoot and reinforce (SdKfZ 250/9 and Bren).

[tarakancheg]

CW Bren:
Add ability to reinforce

I think Bren needs some buff, but reinforcing right after getting LT is not the way to go IMO.