Posts: 783
SOV teching costs even more than ost teching... adding buildings into the equation hurts your argument even further...
Posts: 1979
The main issue is that non relevant builds were selected. Pgrens arrive early when a build is tailored for their early arrival. You do not list an x2 gren build when talking about pgren rush strats. You list the proper builds which are double pio double mg or osttruppen, neither of which were mentioned.
Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1
doesnt change the fact that soviet teching is still retardedly expensive when contrasted to any other faction manpower wise... which hurts the argument of SOV being able to control the map due to having more units...
Posts: 1979
Map control and total tech cost is not really related.
Soviet going for conscripts build can cap the map pretty fast.
Posts: 1273
Map control and total tech cost is not really related.
Soviet going for conscripts build can cap the map pretty fast.
Posts: 17914 | Subs: 8
Map control and total tech cost is not really related.
Maybe it's 'cause the Axis players aren't a bunch of forum crybabies, and they keep their cool and fight the uphill battle, unlike some of their "allied" counterparts.
Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1
incorrect... the soviet player may control the map initially but then will be weak at defending it since they are unable to tech to their lategame efficiently...
an ostheer player meanwhile can play the map control game with ostruppen and has the low teching costs to be able to defend it with lategame units efficiently...
Posts: 1979
That is actually my point so it was correct
Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1
your point is moot when it achieves nothing... the soviet player will never be able to defend it due to retarded teching costs
Posts: 1979
Conscripts behind sandbag can defend point adequately.
Posts: 17914 | Subs: 8
Conscripts behind sandbag can defend point adequately.
Maybe it's 'cause the Axis players aren't a bunch of forum crybabies, and they keep their cool and fight the uphill battle, unlike some of their "allied" counterparts.
Posts: 1273
Conscripts behind sandbag can defend point adequately.
Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1
you mean the sandbag that got nerfed?
thats odd... i thought u were on sanders side when he defended the sandbag nerf... i though u were with the idea that it was a "nerf to all factions".... are we finally understanding things with context?
sanders93 take note...
Posts: 17914 | Subs: 8
At least they still have unlike grenadier that do not.
The claim that adding 5 sec build-time to sandbag until vet 1, suddenly made conscripts unable to defend is simply silly.
Maybe it's 'cause the Axis players aren't a bunch of forum crybabies, and they keep their cool and fight the uphill battle, unlike some of their "allied" counterparts.
Posts: 1273
At least they still have unlike grenadier that do not.
Posts: 1979
At least they still have unlike grenadier that do not.
The claim that adding 5 sec build-time to sandbag until vet 1, suddenly made conscripts unable to defend is simply silly.
Posts: 783
doesnt change the fact that soviet teching is still retardedly expensive when contrasted to any other faction manpower wise... which hurts the argument of SOV being able to control the map due to having more units...
Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1
grens dont even need to put sandbags... unlike conscripts they dont need to close the distance vs the opponent... (unless its sections)
but it is a nerf nonetheless... therefore youve made the already shitty soviet earlygame even shittier
Posts: 1979
You are simply mistaken grenadier need heavy cover as much if not more than other infatry.
Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1
grenadiers dont need heavy cover since they can sit in X cover at long range and expect to trade well against all allied X cover infantry except sections...
conscripts need heavy cover since they need to close the distance or else they lose to all axis mainlines at medium-long range...
Relic Entertainment
cblanco ★ 
보드카 중대 
VonManteuffel 
Heartless Jäger 
