JaggedAppliance wrote:
So about balancing using the cost of HQs vs rebalancing units, I'll first say that taking one approach for T2 HQs does not mean that the same approach must be used for T3 HQs. The problems are separate, there is no logical reason that because in the past we increased the cost of T2 HQs to alter the balance between T1 and T2, that we must now take the same approach when altering T2 vs T3.

Second, alterations have already been made to the T3 HQ. Its buildtime was increased from 9400 → 11000. Also when the T2 HQ cost was increased it also increased the total cost of getting to T3 because ofc you must make a T2 HQ to get T3 HQ. Obviously these did essentially nothing to stop T3 rushing from being a favourite and powerful strategy of many players on a large number of maps.

We are not completely ruling out alterations to the T3 HQ, however we are sure that simply changing the T3 HQ will not have the desired effects, so we are committed to making changes to the T3 units. The fundamental problem in our eyes is that T3 units are too strong vs T2, so we will attempt to address this first. We may make subsequent alterations to the HQ but we are focused on the units the themselves atm and it is too early to say whether HQ changes will be necessary. Given that we find the problem to be the effectiveness of T3 tanks vs T2 tanks basically, altering the HQ is an imprecise way of dealing with this because it will affect the cost of getting T3 mobile arty to defeat ravagers, the cost of T3 engies for SAM launchers, or T3 Mobile anti-air. It's a blunt instrument.