Use Grey Hounds... why?

[Guest]

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever

Login with username, password and session length

[Thtb-Ally]

Ênjoy my milk it takes long to get.

[TodlichPanther]

lmao, oh dear, i remember the days of the milkman....if only they had driven m8's.

[RikiRude]

Hah, nice job with that M8 last game, kiting around Stugs and such. I guess I should brush up on my M8 skills! 

I should of pulled it off map sooner, or backed it up rather then run it past a shreck squad. Vet 1 m8s are like fricken racecars.

[ThetaCommander]

The reason why Greyhound spam was so effective was that it basically nullifies a huge portion of your opponent's units. Infantry and anti-infantry become alot less useful when everything you're fighting requires AT. Along with Mobility, and the various buffs on the Armor tree makes Greyhound spam very difficult to overcome.

[Stuart750]

I don't use M8's anymore, I use standard halftracks, then when riflemen come to visit, they mate and such is born a .50 Cal!

[GuardsmanKRT]

The core of the problem is that the M8 is a good unit, albeit cost ineffective. Its pretty tricky to balance them because if the pop cap is to high then their effectiveness as unit has to be better to warrant it. If it becomes more effective than its general price has to go up.

Further more, if its not effective at its pop cap and is too expensive no one will purchase the unit, making the entire point of balancing it redundant. That should not be the point, I want to use M8.

Now thats basically just a simplified, less angry, version of my first post. Just wrote it because I wanted to state my stance on it clearly and with less mouth frothing.

In regards to what could be changed indeed the M8 could be removed from the mobility ability entirely and then have its pop cap reduced. The price could stay at where it is now and that would be fine. If that docent happen, which is more than likely, a price reduction in the upgrade costs for the m8 could also solve the problem. By increasing the efectiveness of the unit you make it more temping to field. You also create a priority target, much like a Sherman, for the enemy to focus on.

As for the M8's upgrades, I'll admit I'm biased. I'm an armored player, and spend all my munitions on upgrades for armor. It just bums me out that I have to spend 100 munitions and 20 fuel on side skirts. I would totally part with the 20 fuel, but the 100 munitions is the difference between an extra ATG or a 50 cal on a Sherman/M8.

I would like to put 50 cals on my M8s but they are fragile with out skirts, meaning to warrant the price of the 50 cal I need to add on an extra 100 munitions, totaling a single unit to 200 munitions. Not even ATGs cost that much, in fact I could field an extra ATG with AP rounds to kill tanks for that amount of munitions. And to think, I'm spending that on a piece of light armor.  I don't even buy that much in munitions on Shermans.

On a side note, I think that 50 cals are too expensive in general. Sure their great upgrades, but 110 munitions is a little pricey at least for the Sherman. In my dream world it would match Vcohs cost at 75 munitions. Then I could afford to put them on 4 Shermans, and still have a little left over for 2 M8s with skirts and 2 quads.

Well, what ever, I'm sure it will be changed. It's already gotten a base cost reduction after all. I'm just burning to see what IS changed after all.

[jackmccrack]

The Allied player must spend an exorbitant amount of resources on the M8 Greyhound just to be on par with the cost effective Puma.

Even without the upgun, a naked Puma is still a great unit. It kills infantry, dodges AT fire, and with the new patch targets AT guns over all other targets! The Puma is boss.

This isn't so with a naked M8, which is already more expensive than a naked Puma and about half as effective! It even takes damage from Volks rifles!

I don't like turning it into a comparison of the two armoured cars, but the M8 is just...bleh! It's only worthwhile upgrade is the 35muni mine, which I would gladly suicide if it meant disabling a Panther!

The only reason I have one in my company is so I don't feel like I'm wasting the "Mobility" CP trait and because it costs slightly less manpower than the Halftrack. But even then, it feels like a massive munitions sink! Well...at least it repairs fast.

[[AB]RikiRude]

The only thing a naked M8 is good for is chasing down HTs, pumas, and stugs pretty much.

[GuardsmanKRT]

Stugs can one shot naked M8s it has to hit rear armor though.  If you support that Stug with a single shreck gren squad it makes it a sizable risk to attack with a M8. Mainly because shrecks are very accurate at close range, and if used correctly in cover can prevent circle strafing of the Stug. If the hound cant hit back armor its not going to penetrate.

Half Tracks and un-guned Pumas are the natural prey of the Grey Hound in vCoH. An up-guned Puma can dish it out and usually wins angst a M8 though. Also, not sure about this, but I'm fairly sure you can kill a GreyHound with two un-guned pumas, if you use them well enough.

Heres a question for the Devs though, dose tungstens tipping effect M8s? I'm not too sure about that, huh, if it dose you could always make it not effect them and then use that to lower their cost/pop.

Hugs and such.

[zomgzombiescalliope]

Deleted on account of being wrong.

[jjwa]

Yay more of armor doctrine's abilities not affecting all listed units ^_^

I made my first Armour company today which I only played one game with so far. Could you please tell me which doctrines are not affecting which listed units? Thanks in advance.

[stumpster]

Tungsten Tipping hasn't affected M8's for awhile.

[jjwajjwa]

Tungsten Tipping hasn't affected M8's for awhile.

"Penetration value of all tanks increased by 20%."
M8 is not a tank, so that is not a case of an ability not working for something listed. Next Generation Vehicles is about "All vehicles" tho, so if the M8 wouldn't have the bonuses from that for example, that's a whole different thing...

[stumpster]

Was answering Guardsmen's question.

[ThetaCommander]

I'm pretty sure Next Generation Vehicles effect Greyhounds. I also think Next Generation Vehicles works the 57mm ATG since it is classified as a vehicle. However, due to the fact that both the ATG and M10 have a turn down timer, the cooldown wouldn't be affected as much.

Greyhounds are still viable. What I'd like to see is the Greyhound keeping its current price and even pop, but decreasing the cost of upgrades so if someone bought Greyhounds, they'll be the king of armor cars although significantly more expensive.

[jjwajjwa]

I'm afraid they can not lower the .50 cal upgrade much, because even tho it's on a different vehicle, it's the same as the one on the Sherman and making that one a lot cheaper is going to be bad for shreck squads (hmm, maybe to balance the 90 muni price out ). But if they could take down the munition cost of the Side Skirts upgrade significantly, I would start using M8s. The price of the unit itself I find okay, I just think it pretty much needs the side skirts for it to be an interesting units.

[GuardsmanKRT]

Side skirts double its health and make it able to take a pak38 shot with out going pop! They also, I think, decrease the damage from infantry based AT weapons.

[Prydefalcn]

All they do is double the M8's HP, making it roughly equivalent to the Puma in HP.

[Demonic Spoon]

Make the m8 come with skirts?

[GuardsmanKRT]

Or you could just cut the munitions cost from the m8s skirts.