Veterans of HW1 will notice that the infantry and air in HW2 seems a little over the top. I wanted to come up with a logical and reasoned argument why, so we can see what the community thinks and so maybe we can fix it.
I want to ask the question: How many of your games (win or lose) were determined solely by infantry and/or air units? Although I am only rank 27 currently, around 80% of my games involve no vehicles beyond scouts at all. The % is even higher if I only look at games with higher ranked players. I appreciate that vehicles (particularly Forge’s Grizzly tanks) were used noticeably more than other unit types in HW1, but the extent to which vehicles feel underwhelming in comparison to infantry/air in HW2 is beyond comprehension.
But WHY?
Raid specialisation in leader powers provide significant movement speed increase to infantry, vastly improving their mobility compared to vehicles (relative to HW1) - Although timing windows of getting non-scout vehicles is roughly the same in HW1 and HW2, the increased movement speed from above, the abundance of mini-bases and the lack of neutrals defending base points heavily favours rush tactics. (Not that this is a bad thing, but it results in that time delay to get to hogs/tanks or banished equivalent much more noticeable compared to HW1, making vehicles less viable) - The dual-resource requirements of higher tech units result in the need to split valuable base slots between the resource structures, punishing those going for higher tech units (e.g. tanks). Thus the amount of throughput available in terms of unit production is much higher for low tech units which don’t require reactors to be built. - Abundance of damaging leader-powers causes far more damage by killing 1-2 tanks than 3-4 squads of marines - Lack of mobility leader powers for vehicles (excluding Forge pelican and Shipmaster teleport) further cripples the mobility of vehicles, particularly in comparison to air units or the now upgraded fast infantry - Vehicles (particularly tanks) have noticeably less health than in HW1 and a few grenade throws from a couple squads of marines can usually deal with an isolated tank. This was not the case in HW1 unless the tank was not upgraded and the infantry was ODST/Medic. - Lack of damage from AA vehicles. The wolverine was a core member of a vehicle-based strategy in HW1. In HW2 they are incredibly underwhelming. Once air units amass sufficiently no amount of AA seems to be able to deal with them, this was definitely not the case in HW1. - Lack of upgrades for vehicles (in comparison to infantry). Marines in HW2 have 2 upgrades, half the UNSC vehicles have no upgrades (discounting the general vehicle level 1/2/3 as infantry and air also have access to the same upgrades and this post looks to compare vehicles to infantry and air.). This allows a large number of marines to be built in the early game and then upgrades to be applied later on to improve the effectiveness of the units. - All maps include capturable power nodes which require 2+ marines or 3+ grunts to capture (although with upgrades scouts can also capture) however for a player attempting a vehicle strategy, they must spend a number of supplies bolstering their infantry in the early game to secure these map resources, further delaying when vehicles are able to be built. (Again, not that this new mechanic of capturable generators is a bad thing, I quite like the focus on map control and rewarding a player for achieving it. Although maybe not on every single map … )Possible solutions which stick with a faster meta? (I am by no means qualified to consider the effect on the entire meta but some changes that could be introduced to offset the current imbalance could include:)
Reduce energy requirements to increase base tech level (increasing speed at which vehicles can be built) - Reduce tech level requirements of vehicles down by 1 and reduce effectiveness of vehicles slighty, then introduce additional upgrades to increase unit effectiveness (thus allowing tanks to be built earlier but not be overpowered in the early game) - Increase tank health - Increase AA damage, or provide an upgrade for a AoE attack/ability (Although I LOVE the banished AA ‘jump’ ability) - Reduce infantry and air speed, delaying the time before the base hit begins - More mobility upgrades or leader powers for vehicles. - Give Cutter his MAC blast back - Increase vehicle effectiveness vs infantry unitsI love many of the new mechanics (faster meta, power nodes rewarding map control, stealth, varied leader powers, an abundance of unit abilities) but the game feels like 1/3 of its content (vehicles) are so bad right now they just aren’t being used. In a rock-paper-scissors meta this is catastrophic as much of the strategy is predicting and countering your opponents units. If they get infantry at the moment, your only option is to base rush with air or to respond with infantry, as vehicles (within the timeframe of an infantry strategy) are just too weak or there are too few units which can easily be dealt with by a leader power.
TL;DR
In summary the faster meta in HW2, which results from raid leader powers, accessible mini bases, and low-cost basic units; coupled with the lackluster health of high cost - long build time units and the lack of AA damage and mobility leader powers makes vehicles, in general, an unsuitable unit type. Disproportionately so when considered alongside both infantry and air. The viability of all unit types is vital in a simple rock - paper - scissors archetype RTS and must be addressed for the long-term survival of the title.
Tanks need to be Tech 2, this is VITAL for the health of the game. And then the tank’s upgrades can be tech 3, but having them be tech 3 completely cuts them out of the game. The only tech 3 units used are sort of support like blisterbacks and vultures, you get 2 or 3 to complement.
Also light vehicles need to be Tech 1! There’s absolutely no reason why they’re tech 2, specially with such a punishing tech 2 requirement (1000 power lol) by the time the enemy has amassed an infantry army your 2 to 3 Marauders are worthless.
There can be no counter play when the counter units are 1 tech higher than the unit they’re supposed to counter.
The new nerf to scout vehicles being weak against core infantry further puts a nail in the vehicle coffin. 10 choppers CANNOT deal with 10 grenade marines, it’s simply impossible.
I agree with most of this post, the only “tank” I ever build is Locusts, and that’s only if the enemy is going and a heavy anti-infantry build, otherwise I go with hunters. Wraith just isn’t worth the cost or the time to produce, and basic tanks like the Marauders just take too long to build to combat the swarm of infantry units confronting them. Good post my man
I agree with almost everything here. It seems like the flow of maps is skewed because of the uniform placement of power nodes on every map. It’s always a circular-ish pattern in the middle. Why don’t some maps have power nodes in easily defendable positions? Why do all maps seem to have about the same number of them? Take a few of them away, it’s not good to have almost the same number of nodes on every map. It defeats the purpose of having different maps.
Also tanks really need to be tech 2, but keep the upgrades on tech 3. I love Kodiaks and their use of high ground but I wish they had the old cobra upgrade where they get an additional armor upgrade when locked down, maybe in tech 3. Wolverines need a slight buff, but not necessarily to their anti-air power. They used to shoot grenades at ground targets but now they don’t do anything (I think).
I haven’t played enough banished to make comments on their units, but I am extremely worried about the rock-paper-scissors metagame when there are no vampires. To me, the fact that covenant have both a mainline air unit and an anti-air unit both from the same production facility made air lead extremely important, but now it just seems like we amass banshees or vehicles without much need for scouting. The game would be more interactive if they reintroduced vampires. It also seems really stupid that air is meant to kill vehicles and vehicles are meant to kill infantry, but both UNSC AND Banished have an anti-vehicle infantry (why is cyclops so good?) and an anti-air vehicle. This throws too much of a wrench into the counter strategy.
I believe that deleting the reaver and adding in Vampires again would create a much more DYNAMIC scene where establishing air lead is once again something of importance, but not the straight race to the top. Vampires get you air lead, but barely damage ground units. It forces strategic balancing of an air army.
Warthogs are still pretty good I have seen some successful “Rushes” with them and Kodiaks work of you have them in the right spot.
I wish you would account the leader upgrade Acc.Assembly(on Isabel and Forge) and that other one that gives scorpions shields (even tho its on Isabel the WORST leader in this game)
Other than that I agree with you on a lot of your points.
Infantry? I felt they were a bit lackluster… IMO.
As soon as you run into the enemy team with a army full of ground troops they get obliterated, unlike in HW1 when you could just spam ODST troops.
Which by the way, sucks that they’ve taken them out as an upgrade to units. (Or any individual unit upgrades like HW1)
I’m a low tier player, I only just got the game, but I haven’t yet seen a game (out of my few) where anyone has used Infantry over Land or Air vehicles.
Each to their own, but I’ve never encountered an overwhelming Infantry force, so I have limited input in this.
But, Professor Anders, with her sentinels and all that carry on… Damn. Air is a bit strong, if you bring in a damn Condor…
> 2535459815902443;7:
> Infantry? I felt they were a bit lackluster… IMO.
> As soon as you run into the enemy team with a army full of ground troops they get obliterated, unlike in HW1 when you could just spam ODST troops.
> Which by the way, sucks that they’ve taken them out as an upgrade to units. (Or any individual unit upgrades like HW1)
>
> I’m a low tier player, I only just got the game, but I haven’t yet seen a game (out of my few) where anyone has used Infantry over Land or Air vehicles.
> Each to their own, but I’ve never encountered an overwhelming Infantry force, so I have limited input in this.
>
> But, Professor Anders, with her sentinels and all that carry on… Damn. Air is a bit strong, if you bring in a damn Condor…
I think the thing you have to remember is that the quantity of infantry you can get out by a decent rush time, say 4 minutes, compared to the number of hogs or tanks or whatever else is insane. With mini-bases it is easy to achieve 12+ grenade throw marines by 4 minutes. Typically the second power upgrade (required for hogs etc) can be clicked on at 2:30 if the build is rushing for it. That means at 3:00 the upgrade is complete and then it’s not until around 4 minutes you start getting your first hog out. Now compare 1 hog to 12 grenade throw marines which can instantly kill your hog and then the garage and suddenly the game is over. And because marines cost only supply, and the rushing player has captured all the power nodes in the meantime, they are actually ahead on power generation than you, meaning they get second power and access to the crippling cyclops as quick as you get hogs. We’re not comparing 80-120 pop of infantry vs vehicles/air, (although I am still certain infantry is better in the lategame), we’re comparing how each strategy performs in a real game. Which means rushing and all the other stuff I mentioned.
Maybe in your games, everyone waits until they have an 80 population army and then the game begins at 15 minutes or whatever, but that will never be the case for higher tier players because you can already win the game by 8 minutes against that kind of strategy with no issues.
Totally agree on the Anders front, but maybe the issue is not the sentinels but the fact that the main counter unit (wolverine, for example, is too weak against them).
In comparison to infantry, I completely agree, but not when considered alongside vehicles. And yes, I know the rock-paper-scissors balance means that air are strong vs vehicles, but the only specialised AA unit for the UNSC is the wolverine, which is incapable of dealing with air.
> 2533274852578016;8:
> > 2535459815902443;7:
> > Infantry? I felt they were a bit lackluster… IMO.
> > As soon as you run into the enemy team with a army full of ground troops they get obliterated, unlike in HW1 when you could just spam ODST troops.
> > Which by the way, sucks that they’ve taken them out as an upgrade to units. (Or any individual unit upgrades like HW1)
> >
> > I’m a low tier player, I only just got the game, but I haven’t yet seen a game (out of my few) where anyone has used Infantry over Land or Air vehicles.
> > Each to their own, but I’ve never encountered an overwhelming Infantry force, so I have limited input in this.
> >
> > But, Professor Anders, with her sentinels and all that carry on… Damn. Air is a bit strong, if you bring in a damn Condor…
>
> I think the thing you have to remember is that the quantity of infantry you can get out by a decent rush time, say 4 minutes, compared to the number of hogs or tanks or whatever else is insane. With mini-bases it is easy to achieve 12+ grenade throw marines by 4 minutes. Typically the second power upgrade (required for hogs etc) can be clicked on at 2:30 if the build is rushing for it. That means at 3:00 the upgrade is complete and then it’s not until around 4 minutes you start getting your first hog out. Now compare 1 hog to 12 grenade throw marines which can instantly kill your hog and then the garage and suddenly the game is over. And because marines cost only supply, and the rushing player has captured all the power nodes in the meantime, they are actually ahead on power generation than you, meaning they get second power and access to the crippling cyclops as quick as you get hogs. We’re not comparing 80-120 pop of infantry vs vehicles/air, (although I am still certain infantry is better in the lategame), we’re comparing how each strategy performs in a real game. Which means rushing and all the other stuff I mentioned.
>
> Maybe in your games, everyone waits until they have an 80 population army and then the game begins at 15 minutes or whatever, but that will never be the case for higher tier players because you can already win the game by 8 minutes against that kind of strategy with no issues.
>
> Totally agree on the Anders front, but maybe the issue is not the sentinels but the fact that the main counter unit (wolverine, for example, is too weak against them).
i honestly think that infantry should be left alone for a bit…like ive said in other post everyone can make them…when banished gets buffed it will be better…infantry just seems like it was ment to run the early game and be used to get map control…then you transition into whatever you need for mid-late game if it makes it that far…there are just way to many people that expect people not to attack unil everyone has full 120 pop, full upgrades…if you dont have at least 40-60 pop by around 5 min your probably in trouble…really if you were to nerf infantry into the ground they will have no place in mid to late game…and countering air in the current meta would be impossible
This game doesn’t have as much variation as halo wars 1. Last night me and my friends played and every game was a marine rush by the other team. It was interesting… we won some and we lost some the ones we lost the only way to survive was if we built a marine army as well. I’m starting to think that marines should go back to being built from the barracks and they need to decrease the tech requirements for the vehicles and just lock the upgrades behind the tech wall.
> 2533274851915620;11:
> i honestly think that infantry should be left alone for a bit…like ive said in other post everyone can make them…when banished gets buffed it will be better…infantry just seems like it was ment to run the early game and be used to get map control…then you transition into whatever you need for mid-late game if it makes it that far…there are just way to many people that expect people not to attack unil everyone has full 120 pop, full upgrades…if you dont have at least 40-60 pop by around 5 min your probably in trouble…really if you were to nerf infantry into the ground they will have no place in mid to late game…and countering air in the current meta would be impossible
Infantry is not fine and CA already announced they’re working on cyclops/hunters nerfs.
In the current state s player does not need to transition to anything else because mixed infantry is already unbeatable.
<mark>This post has been edited by a moderator. Please refrain from making non-constructive posts.</mark> *Original post. Click at your own discretion.
> 2533274852578016;9:
> > 2535471149170617;5:
> > Air is fine. That is all
>
> In comparison to infantry, I completely agree, but not when considered alongside vehicles. And yes, I know the rock-paper-scissors balance means that air are strong vs vehicles, but the only specialised AA unit for the UNSC is the wolverine, which is incapable of dealing with air.
So you buff anti-air…which is coming with the next patch.
> 2533274852578016;1:
> Veterans of HW1 will notice that the infantry and air in HW2 seems a little over the top. I wanted to come up with a logical and reasoned argument why, so we can see what the community thinks and so maybe we can fix it.
>
> I want to ask the question: How many of your games (win or lose) were determined solely by infantry and/or air units? Although I am only rank 27 currently, around 80% of my games involve no vehicles beyond scouts at all. The % is even higher if I only look at games with higher ranked players. I appreciate that vehicles (particularly Forge’s Grizzly tanks) were used noticeably more than other unit types in HW1, but the extent to which vehicles feel underwhelming in comparison to infantry/air in HW2 is beyond comprehension.
>
> But WHY?
> - Raid specialisation in leader powers provide significant movement speed increase to infantry, vastly improving their mobility compared to vehicles (relative to HW1) - Although timing windows of getting non-scout vehicles is roughly the same in HW1 and HW2, the increased movement speed from above, the abundance of mini-bases and the lack of neutrals defending base points heavily favours rush tactics. (Not that this is a bad thing, but it results in that time delay to get to hogs/tanks or banished equivalent much more noticeable compared to HW1, making vehicles less viable) - The dual-resource requirements of higher tech units result in the need to split valuable base slots between the resource structures, punishing those going for higher tech units (e.g. tanks). Thus the amount of throughput available in terms of unit production is much higher for low tech units which don’t require reactors to be built. - Abundance of damaging leader-powers causes far more damage by killing 1-2 tanks than 3-4 squads of marines - Lack of mobility leader powers for vehicles (excluding Forge pelican and Shipmaster teleport) further cripples the mobility of vehicles, particularly in comparison to air units or the now upgraded fast infantry - Vehicles (particularly tanks) have noticeably less health than in HW1 and a few grenade throws from a couple squads of marines can usually deal with an isolated tank. This was not the case in HW1 unless the tank was not upgraded and the infantry was ODST/Medic. - Lack of damage from AA vehicles. The wolverine was a core member of a vehicle-based strategy in HW1. In HW2 they are incredibly underwhelming. Once air units amass sufficiently no amount of AA seems to be able to deal with them, this was definitely not the case in HW1. - Lack of upgrades for vehicles (in comparison to infantry). Marines in HW2 have 2 upgrades, half the UNSC vehicles have no upgrades (discounting the general vehicle level 1/2/3 as infantry and air also have access to the same upgrades and this post looks to compare vehicles to infantry and air.). This allows a large number of marines to be built in the early game and then upgrades to be applied later on to improve the effectiveness of the units. - All maps include capturable power nodes which require 2+ marines or 3+ grunts to capture (although with upgrades scouts can also capture) however for a player attempting a vehicle strategy, they must spend a number of supplies bolstering their infantry in the early game to secure these map resources, further delaying when vehicles are able to be built. (Again, not that this new mechanic of capturable generators is a bad thing, I quite like the focus on map control and rewarding a player for achieving it. Although maybe not on every single map … )Possible solutions which stick with a faster meta? (I am by no means qualified to consider the effect on the entire meta but some changes that could be introduced to offset the current imbalance could include:)
> - Reduce energy requirements to increase base tech level (increasing speed at which vehicles can be built) - Reduce tech level requirements of vehicles down by 1 and reduce effectiveness of vehicles slighty, then introduce additional upgrades to increase unit effectiveness (thus allowing tanks to be built earlier but not be overpowered in the early game) - Increase tank health - Increase AA damage, or provide an upgrade for a AoE attack/ability (Although I LOVE the banished AA ‘jump’ ability) - Reduce infantry and air speed, delaying the time before the base hit begins - More mobility upgrades or leader powers for vehicles. - Give Cutter his MAC blast back - Increase vehicle effectiveness vs infantry unitsI love many of the new mechanics (faster meta, power nodes rewarding map control, stealth, varied leader powers, an abundance of unit abilities) but the game feels like 1/3 of its content (vehicles) are so bad right now they just aren’t being used. In a rock-paper-scissors meta this is catastrophic as much of the strategy is predicting and countering your opponents units. If they get infantry at the moment, your only option is to base rush with air or to respond with infantry, as vehicles (within the timeframe of an infantry strategy) are just too weak or there are too few units which can easily be dealt with by a leader power.
>
> TL;DRIn summary the faster meta in HW2, which results from raid leader powers, accessible mini bases, and low-cost basic units; coupled with the lackluster health of high cost - long build time units and the lack of AA damage and mobility leader powers makes vehicles, in general, an unsuitable unit type. Disproportionately so when considered alongside both infantry and air. The viability of all unit types is vital in a simple rock - paper - scissors archetype RTS and must be addressed for the long-term survival of the title.
the problem u ppl have is u think that tanks is the way to go when it comes to rts look at all cnc games it was tank spam and look at sc2 everything is usefull even in the late game thats how it has to be if they nerf infantry to much it will only be tank vs tank battles and thats not even fun air, infantry and vehicles has to be good throughout the game tanks cant be too powerful cuz infantry focused build needs to have a chance to beat them as air can vs infantry putting infantry usefullness only in early game will make this game boring and sure cyclops needs a bit of nerf but keep also in mind they are expensive too… and make sentinel build in airpads and not HQ
Anyone who is doubting how weak vehicles are (the natural counter to infantry according to the Rock-Paper-Scissors balancing of Halo Wars) is welcome to add me and 1v1 me. I will exclusively use infantry and I guarantee any vehicle-based strategy (or vehicle majority mix) will lose. Further, I say that the only way to beat the strategy is to counter it with infantry of your own or rush base with air units while making good use of hero powers. This is not because I am a good player (although I do have an ~80% winrate with 150+ games played of solo/team war), but because the current unit balance means the main unit which is supposed to counter infantry (hog/tank or banished equivalent) simply cannot do that job.
I think anyone who is thinking infantry are underwhelming have not been playing against opponents who know what they are doing. Understandably so however, considering how recent the functional release of the game was. But it is important that we don’t alter the balance of the game without fully understanding the situation. I feel I have presented a fairly logical argument in the OP, assuming the game balance was roughly even in HW1, the changes in the game for HW2 heavily favour infantry over vehicles. Again, not that this is a bad thing as such, but to the extent to which it is currently at, the rock-paper-scissors balancing simply does not work when vehicles are unable to deal with infantry.
