PE isn't meant to have Support weapons. Multiple PE units can function in a support role the Inf HT suppresses really good now. I'm sure both of you would agree PE just has to be played differently. I just don't think that 3 AC's for the same population of 2 Puma's is really appropriate. 6 population on a bullet resistant infantry eater of super speed doesn't seem right.
Infantry HT cannot function in the same roles as a MG. MG has long range, can be garrisoned so a direct assault by infantry is nearly impossible.
an infantry HT would get owned by a single squad of any AT infantry.
Yeah, not to mention what an atg can do to halftracks.
I always felt like pe is the first to go down when you launch a well coordinated attack. They can't defend. Their best bet is to out micro and out perform the opposition, rather than counter them per definition.
They depend so heavilly on vehicles, its their big advantage as it is their biggest flaw. Once you focus on killing their vehicles with combined at, while you mg and supporting infantry proceed to advance and engage, then the pe player has to fall back, and that turns out to a game of cat and mouse. PE cant hold territory, theyre like nomads unfortunately.
One of the reasons why i think eir has nothing to do with vcoh linear gameplay is that what normally can work for pe there cant here.
To get back on topic and to add up apart from what baine said about rangers, i think the deal with kch is but a fraction of a big change in eir. Long range weps > Assault ones.
Can you really trust your assault troops charging into a blob of infantry that will kill you before you even engage ?
