Crazy, what we had so far in debates about the rushing, but without doing any professional discussion about that. I just read things like…
“Git good” - “Rushing is for noobs” - “learn to play” - etc…
Personally, I believe that in Halo Wars 2 it is much too easy to push/rush, compared to Halo Wars 1.
It`s a fact that
Chopper, - Hornets, - Marines, - Grunts, - Jackrabbitsjust cost Supply and no Energy - which is the main problem.
Sentinel spamwhich cost a really too low amount of Energy.
Also the Unit’s to counter that cost more or less a high number of Energy
Snipers - Reaver (225 Energy!!!) - Cyclops - Wolverines - Elite Ranger (which are nearly useless)But if you try to counter a Sentinel spam or Marine Army or a ton of Choppers and Jackrabbits - well… The probability of winning is almost nonexistent. You can say now, “so the people have to get better” - not everyone is a T-800 Terminator.
To spy on the enemy is equally pointless, because the counter units are too expensive and are not available quickly.Except both side want to attack fast.
Rushing should be harder again I mean, with that rushing now, we don``t really have a challenge because nearly everyone can do this. I love games where (I know I play Forge very often) no forge and no Anders take place. About 90% of the people with those leaders will rush you.
To make this game fair and fun for everyone…
All units must cost Energy!
Jackrabbits, - Choppers, - Hornets, - Grunts, - Marines, - Sentinels must cost very much more Energy and must get nerfed, they`re way to powerfull
Lets switch the sides If 343/CA will not listen, you probably have to rush too if you want to win. Personally I do not rush very much because its just not my gamestyl (if I want to rush etc I play other games).
Do not upgrade your main base - Build 4 Harverster/1 Supply UNSC Building - Build 1 Banished Energy Building/ 1 Reactor - Produce Marines/Grunts/Jackrabbits/Choppers - Attack your enemy - If he build a second base, destroy it - destroy all towers - destroy the enemy main base at your own discretion
I hope we all can have good discussion about it. I will update that main post from time to time.
well i personally hate rushing. i like it more to let big armies clash in epic fights. but i mean everyone has his own playstyle. some like rushing more, some like me like the slower games more. important is only that the balancing is in a way that you can Counter the rushing without having to build the very same Units.
i mean choppers and jackrabbits should be fast and cheap Scout Units and shouldnt dominate the early game. as Long as they give us sth against vehicles on T1 like hunters These rushes should be far less effective already. what i try currently is to go for fast T2 and get some hunters going, since i like the style of the alliance/banished alot more then the unsc.
in my opinion a Scout shouldnt be as strong as it is right now, but if you nerf it a playstyle would be destroyed for no reason. as Long as we get a form of counterplay by reducing 1 infantry unit from T2 requirement to T1 the game will be focused around adapting to your opponents strategy which is far more important for an RTS in my opinion then nerfing one unit after another. maybe we Need some overpowered Units like These Scouts, that would get totally wrecked by T1 hunters. but look at hunters how easy you kill them with the Basic infantry. as Long as we get a cycle going the game is all about adapting to your Opponent and not only Building 1 unit type.
since we dont have that right now in the beginning the early game is so stupid. you got Scouts and infantry and the Scouts wreck infantry. Counters start with T2. sure you can make a fast T2 but when you get rushed by the 3min mark even going for 2 power and 2 supply and making a fast tech isnt going to cut it mostly. since you have to w8 till T2 is finished to actually start producing Units that are worth a penny against the Scouts.
you could give the Scouts energy cost since its a damn vehicle (same would go for hornets and banshees f.e. as well) but i think keeping the energy cost at like 10(Scouts) 20 (hornets/banshees) would be more then enough. this would at least reduce the rate of them by a bit and even if they get spammed the Player cant Research as much which leads to a better decisionmaking involved when commiting to such a rush. but sth has to happen.
> 2535422322589475;2:
> well i personally hate rushing. i like it more to let big armies clash in epic fights. but i mean everyone has his own playstyle. some like rushing more, some like me like the slower games more. important is only that the balancing is in a way that you can Counter the rushing without having to build the very same Units.
>
> i mean choppers and jackrabbits should be fast and cheap Scout Units and shouldnt dominate the early game. as Long as they give us sth against vehicles on T1 like hunters These rushes should be far less effective already. what i try currently is to go for fast T2 and get some hunters going, since i like the style of the alliance/banished alot more then the unsc.
>
> in my opinion a Scout shouldnt be as strong as it is right now, but if you nerf it a playstyle would be destroyed for no reason. as Long as we get a form of counterplay by reducing 1 infantry unit from T2 requirement to T1 the game will be focused around adapting to your opponents strategy which is far more important for an RTS in my opinion then nerfing one unit after another. maybe we Need some overpowered Units like These Scouts, that would get totally wrecked by T1 hunters. but look at hunters how easy you kill them with the Basic infantry. as Long as we get a cycle going the game is all about adapting to your Opponent and not only Building 1 unit type.
>
> since we dont have that right now in the beginning the early game is so stupid. you got Scouts and infantry and the Scouts wreck infantry. Counters start with T2. sure you can make a fast T2 but when you get rushed by the 3min mark even going for 2 power and 2 supply and making a fast tech isnt going to cut it mostly. since you have to w8 till T2 is finished to actually start producing Units that are worth a penny against the Scouts.
>
> you could give the Scouts energy cost since its a damn vehicle (same would go for hornets and banshees f.e. as well) but i think keeping the energy cost at like 10(Scouts) 20 (hornets/banshees) would be more then enough. this would at least reduce the rate of them by a bit and even if they get spammed the Player cant Research as much which leads to a better decisionmaking involved when commiting to such a rush. but sth has to happen.
I really have to agree with your points - especially the Scout thing… It just really, lets say wired that a Scout acn kill a Base so easily - its not a tank at all!
its not a tank, but its still a vehicle and vehicles tend to consume energy. even infantry Units consume energy. just thinking about it logically, why does a hellbringer Needs energy but a vehicle does not?
in Addition the Scouts only seem like tanks since you lack the Counter to it early on. shoot with a rifle at hardened steel. only Logical that normal infantry shouldnt own the Scout Units, but having no counterunits to it is stupid.
my complaint is mostly the Thing with any vehicle/air unit that costs only supply right now. they use up energy, so they should cost energy. a Scout shouldnt cost 100 energy, but at least a tiny amount. for the sake of logic and every bit can be a huge amount when you spam them. but thats only part 1 of my complaint. part 2 is that i dont want to get forced into spamming Scouts as well just to survive. thats why i want the antivehicle infantry to be T1 instead of T2 (their cost is insane already anyway). hunters could easily have half energy costs. 200 energy is alot for how fast they die.