Skip to main content

Forums / Games / Halo Wars Series

Analysis on Anti-Vehicle Infantry

OP legofan3225

  1. 1
  2. ...
  3. ...
  4. 2
SWAT 79 wrote:
Great post, I agree with a lot of what you said. The only thing I'll add, is that killing Cyclops seems much easier than Hunters. There should be some more balancing, either a slight nerf to Hunters or a slight buff to cyclops. I think Grizzlies need a buff, and air should be more effective against ground.

Otherwise I think things are pretty on point.
Aren't Cyclops faster and cheaper than Hunters?

I ask out of curiosity, I genuinely don't know.
Omni Sweep wrote:
I've noticed over the last few weeks that anti-vehicle infantry has been a popular topic of discussion. I figured I'd throw in my two cents on the unit type and how it should interact with other units.

Now, a lot of players keep saying "Anti-vehicle infantry is anti-vehicle, and therefore it should beat all vehicles, no questions asked." That line of thought makes sense. I mean, anti-vehicle is in the name. Why would it not kill vehicles? All vehicles should die to it.

The problem is, that line of thought is fundamentally flawed. Anti-vehicle infantry should indeed beat vehicles- but not all vehicles. It makes perfect sense for T2 anti-vehicle infantry to kill T2 vehicles, and scouts. However, when it can kill (not just kill, but STOMP) T3 heavy vehicles, we run into some problems.

Tech 3 vehicles are VERY expensive and time intensive units. Anti-vehicle is not. When a cheap, easy to mass unit can stomp a heavy unit that takes a huge recourse and time investment, why would you build that heavy unit? The answer is simple: you wouldn't. We saw this in the earliest versions of the game. Literally NOBODY would even consider building a vehicle building for anything but locusts, because vehicles are so easy to counter. When Wraiths and Scorpions were buffed to the point they can handle anti-vehicle infantry, people actually began to play vehicles. To keep the game balanced, there needs to be SOME unit type that can kill infantry, and all infantry, effectively. If the mainline tech 3 units are shut down by cheap tech 2 units, there's literally no reason to go to tech 3 outside of a bigger army population.

In the current state of the game, that is worked out well. When you hit endgame, the Scorpion and Wraith can both handle anti-vehicle infantry units. That makes it worth it to build vehicles. When you dedicate that amount of recourses into a unit (upgrading to T3, upgrading that unit, and buying that unit), you get some sort of payout. This makes turtles worth it, it makes techning worth it, and more. Otherwise, there's no reason to play the game defensively.

Now, why is this important? There two main reasons. 1.) Johnson and Forge. In the current state of the game, The Sarges are borderline unplayable. The reason for this boils down to one main reason- their core, specialty units are vehicles, and their supposedly "heavy" vehicles don't stand a CHANCE against anti-vehicle infantry. You don't start to dominate when you finally pump out your colossuses (or colossi? Who knows) or grizzlies. Instead, your opponent just needs to build 6 or so Hunters or Cyclopses and you're extraordinarily expensive tanks are dead. Nobody plays forge, and nobody plays Johnson (outside of those just screwing around), because they have no lategame answer to mass-infantry that works with their leader kit.

2.) Discussions on Nerfing T3 Tanks. This one is self explanatory. A lot of people in the community are crying out for a nerf to the core tanks. However, if we do this and tanks can be crushed by anti-vehicle again, tanks will literally be unplayable again, just like in early versions of the game, and as we now see with Johnson and Forge. Tanks shouldn't function on the level of the Colossus and Grizzly, they should function across the board on the level of Isabel's scorpions.

But how do we deal with tank spam, then? The answer to this one is pretty simple. Buff air! It needs it. If air has a much heavier damage modifier against tanks, the game will be a lot more balanced. Air would still take losses from tanks, of course, because of anti-air vehicles. However, it should still come out on top unless there is a heavy dedication to anti-air. This would bring the game close to it's rock-paper-scissors roots and make it a lot better all around.

Hopefully this provided at least a bit of insight into my thinkings on the anti-vehicle and vehicle interaction scene. In conclusion, the answer isn't to buff anti vehicle any more, or make it any more effective against all vehicles. Heavy units need to come out on top for them to have any reason to be built. Tanks are in a pretty good spot as is (although a canister shell nerf in damage against other vehicles is much needed). I hope somebody from the dev team comes across this.

Feel free to argue in the comments, I'd love to address some of the more common arguments.
Honestly the only issue with tanks right now is Isabelle's Hologram. Any other power and you can still kill her tanks with hunter/cyclopes armies. When you add holo into the mix it gives her tanks an ungodly amount of survivability and allows them to defeat armies they otherwise would not have been able to. It's quite apparent to, when Isa is really the only one that can even play tanks effectively.

Honestly the main anti vehicle should be air. Then anti-vehicle infantry should be a soft counter, something more to just tip the odds in your favor. This is due to the fact that vehicles are supposed to counter infantry in this game. Right now though, infantry just hard counter the crap out of every vehicle for the most part. Which leads to late game armies like cyclopes/night's/hornets literally make playing tanks impossible or in Johnson's case mantis'.

This is why people tend to go air as late game UNSC. They are more mobile, cheaper, faster built, have healers, contain your super unit, pop cost is cheaper and their hard counters are more soft counters (also easier to deal with).
no u cant rofl its been tested u r wrong lol isabel tanks stomp everything.... its been tested
I've noticed over the last few weeks that anti-vehicle infantry has been a popular topic of discussion. I figured I'd throw in my two cents on the unit type and how it should interact with other units.

Now, a lot of players keep saying "Anti-vehicle infantry is anti-vehicle, and therefore it should beat all vehicles, no questions asked." That line of thought makes sense. I mean, anti-vehicle is in the name. Why would it not kill vehicles? All vehicles should die to it.

The problem is, that line of thought is fundamentally flawed. Anti-vehicle infantry should indeed beat vehicles- but not all vehicles. It makes perfect sense for T2 anti-vehicle infantry to kill T2 vehicles, and scouts. However, when it can kill (not just kill, but STOMP) T3 heavy vehicles, we run into some problems.

Tech 3 vehicles are VERY expensive and time intensive units. Anti-vehicle is not. When a cheap, easy to mass unit can stomp a heavy unit that takes a huge recourse and time investment, why would you build that heavy unit? The answer is simple: you wouldn't. We saw this in the earliest versions of the game. Literally NOBODY would even consider building a vehicle building for anything but locusts, because vehicles are so easy to counter. When Wraiths and Scorpions were buffed to the point they can handle anti-vehicle infantry, people actually began to play vehicles. To keep the game balanced, there needs to be SOME unit type that can kill infantry, and all infantry, effectively. If the mainline tech 3 units are shut down by cheap tech 2 units, there's literally no reason to go to tech 3 outside of a bigger army population.

In the current state of the game, that is worked out well. When you hit endgame, the Scorpion and Wraith can both handle anti-vehicle infantry units. That makes it worth it to build vehicles. When you dedicate that amount of recourses into a unit (upgrading to T3, upgrading that unit, and buying that unit), you get some sort of payout. This makes turtles worth it, it makes techning worth it, and more. Otherwise, there's no reason to play the game defensively.

Now, why is this important? There two main reasons. 1.) Johnson and Forge. In the current state of the game, The Sarges are borderline unplayable. The reason for this boils down to one main reason- their core, specialty units are vehicles, and their supposedly "heavy" vehicles don't stand a CHANCE against anti-vehicle infantry. You don't start to dominate when you finally pump out your colossuses (or colossi? Who knows) or grizzlies. Instead, your opponent just needs to build 6 or so Hunters or Cyclopses and you're extraordinarily expensive tanks are dead. Nobody plays forge, and nobody plays Johnson (outside of those just screwing around), because they have no lategame answer to mass-infantry that works with their leader kit.

2.) Discussions on Nerfing T3 Tanks. This one is self explanatory. A lot of people in the community are crying out for a nerf to the core tanks. However, if we do this and tanks can be crushed by anti-vehicle again, tanks will literally be unplayable again, just like in early versions of the game, and as we now see with Johnson and Forge. Tanks shouldn't function on the level of the Colossus and Grizzly, they should function across the board on the level of Isabel's scorpions.

But how do we deal with tank spam, then? The answer to this one is pretty simple. Buff air! It needs it. If air has a much heavier damage modifier against tanks, the game will be a lot more balanced. Air would still take losses from tanks, of course, because of anti-air vehicles. However, it should still come out on top unless there is a heavy dedication to anti-air. This would bring the game close to it's rock-paper-scissors roots and make it a lot better all around.

Hopefully this provided at least a bit of insight into my thinkings on the anti-vehicle and vehicle interaction scene. In conclusion, the answer isn't to buff anti vehicle any more, or make it any more effective against all vehicles. Heavy units need to come out on top for them to have any reason to be built. Tanks are in a pretty good spot as is (although a canister shell nerf in damage against other vehicles is much needed). I hope somebody from the dev team comes across this.

Feel free to argue in the comments, I'd love to address some of the more common arguments.
While I understand your point, and think it has some valid points and merit, It's far too easy to build anti air out of the same building while tank spamming. This is the major issue. I do agree air needs a buff(maybe just slight cost/build time reduction), but anti-vehicle is there for a reason. No one should be able to spam T3 tanks, and not have a counter for anti vehicle units. There could be the addition of an upgrade to T3 anti vehicle or something? Just thinking out loud.
SWAT 79 wrote:
Great post, I agree with a lot of what you said. The only thing I'll add, is that killing Cyclops seems much easier than Hunters. There should be some more balancing, either a slight nerf to Hunters or a slight buff to cyclops. I think Grizzlies need a buff, and air should be more effective against ground.

Otherwise I think things are pretty on point.
Aren't Cyclops faster and cheaper than Hunters?

I ask out of curiosity, I genuinely don't know.
Not sure about price, but I am sure they're faster. The thing is, they're not fast enough to Kite, so the speed advantage is kind of a moot point. They also cost 150 Power, which can really slow the push for T3.
I've noticed over the last few weeks that anti-vehicle infantry has been a popular topic of discussion. I figured I'd throw in my two cents on the unit type and how it should interact with other units.

Now, a lot of players keep saying "Anti-vehicle infantry is anti-vehicle, and therefore it should beat all vehicles, no questions asked." That line of thought makes sense. I mean, anti-vehicle is in the name. Why would it not kill vehicles? All vehicles should die to it.

The problem is, that line of thought is fundamentally flawed. Anti-vehicle infantry should indeed beat vehicles- but not all vehicles. It makes perfect sense for T2 anti-vehicle infantry to kill T2 vehicles, and scouts. However, when it can kill (not just kill, but STOMP) T3 heavy vehicles, we run into some problems.

Tech 3 vehicles are VERY expensive and time intensive units. Anti-vehicle is not. When a cheap, easy to mass unit can stomp a heavy unit that takes a huge recourse and time investment, why would you build that heavy unit? The answer is simple: you wouldn't. We saw this in the earliest versions of the game. Literally NOBODY would even consider building a vehicle building for anything but locusts, because vehicles are so easy to counter. When Wraiths and Scorpions were buffed to the point they can handle anti-vehicle infantry, people actually began to play vehicles. To keep the game balanced, there needs to be SOME unit type that can kill infantry, and all infantry, effectively. If the mainline tech 3 units are shut down by cheap tech 2 units, there's literally no reason to go to tech 3 outside of a bigger army population.

In the current state of the game, that is worked out well. When you hit endgame, the Scorpion and Wraith can both handle anti-vehicle infantry units. That makes it worth it to build vehicles. When you dedicate that amount of recourses into a unit (upgrading to T3, upgrading that unit, and buying that unit), you get some sort of payout. This makes turtles worth it, it makes techning worth it, and more. Otherwise, there's no reason to play the game defensively.

Now, why is this important? There two main reasons. 1.) Johnson and Forge. In the current state of the game, The Sarges are borderline unplayable. The reason for this boils down to one main reason- their core, specialty units are vehicles, and their supposedly "heavy" vehicles don't stand a CHANCE against anti-vehicle infantry. You don't start to dominate when you finally pump out your colossuses (or colossi? Who knows) or grizzlies. Instead, your opponent just needs to build 6 or so Hunters or Cyclopses and you're extraordinarily expensive tanks are dead. Nobody plays forge, and nobody plays Johnson (outside of those just screwing around), because they have no lategame answer to mass-infantry that works with their leader kit.

2.) Discussions on Nerfing T3 Tanks. This one is self explanatory. A lot of people in the community are crying out for a nerf to the core tanks. However, if we do this and tanks can be crushed by anti-vehicle again, tanks will literally be unplayable again, just like in early versions of the game, and as we now see with Johnson and Forge. Tanks shouldn't function on the level of the Colossus and Grizzly, they should function across the board on the level of Isabel's scorpions.

But how do we deal with tank spam, then? The answer to this one is pretty simple. Buff air! It needs it. If air has a much heavier damage modifier against tanks, the game will be a lot more balanced. Air would still take losses from tanks, of course, because of anti-air vehicles. However, it should still come out on top unless there is a heavy dedication to anti-air. This would bring the game close to it's rock-paper-scissors roots and make it a lot better all around.

Hopefully this provided at least a bit of insight into my thinkings on the anti-vehicle and vehicle interaction scene. In conclusion, the answer isn't to buff anti vehicle any more, or make it any more effective against all vehicles. Heavy units need to come out on top for them to have any reason to be built. Tanks are in a pretty good spot as is (although a canister shell nerf in damage against other vehicles is much needed). I hope somebody from the dev team comes across this.

Feel free to argue in the comments, I'd love to address some of the more common arguments.
This is excellent. I really see no down fall at all to any of this. It would really take as step closer to making the game very balanced.
Very strong points indeed. I'm not too deep in the high-level leagues, but the role of anti-vehicle infantry seem to play their roles respectively.
My only complaint with your suggestion is that of buffing air units damage to vehicles. Wouldn't this undermine some of the player's attempts to help anti-air units' current situation?
Honestly, anti-air is very functional in it's current state. I'm advocating for more damage to T3 heavy tanks, not Anti-air. That would, admittedly, break the game.
Ah, now I see. It would encourage Ensemble's envisioned gameplay of rock-paper-scissors and force the spammers to diversify their armies. I wholeheartedly approve!
Archaic wrote:
-snip-
While I understand your point, and think it has some valid points and merit, It's far too easy to build anti air out of the same building while tank spamming. This is the major issue. I do agree air needs a buff(maybe just slight cost/build time reduction), but anti-vehicle is there for a reason. No one should be able to spam T3 tanks, and not have a counter for anti vehicle units. There could be the addition of an upgrade to T3 anti vehicle or something? Just thinking out loud.
I agree that it's easy to build anti-air, but in the current game anti-air fills more of a soft counter role, as I feel anti-vehicle should. Anti air will lose to air if not upgraded and not supported by an army to take the hits. If air was made more effective against tanks, it would be much harder for scorpion-wolverine compositions to operate as the bullet sponges that soaked hits for the wolverines (scorpions) would no longer be as spongy. It would force a bit more diversification.
  1. 1
  2. ...
  3. ...
  4. 2