Beginner tip

Jump back to quoted post20 Jan 2021, 13:01 PMturbotortoise

Not to be that guy, but your post prior to this boasted about how you like to keep your captain by your HQ to supervise, and if that means you aren't using them as a combat unit and then you're posting this I find that extremely hilarious.

Jump back to quoted post20 Jan 2021, 13:49 PMGrim

I usually let me CPT get down to 1/2 models then leave him at base to supervise.

Jump back to quoted post20 Jan 2021, 15:52 PMProtos Angelus

Dude, captain and his "on me" and smoke is indispensable in game. Literally just walk your riflemen first into an MG, quick suppression, On Me!, run behind the MG. It's super effective. How can anyone not use the captain!?

Jump back to quoted post20 Jan 2021, 15:52 PMProtos Angelus

Dude, captain and his "on me" and smoke is indispensable in game. Literally just walk your riflemen first into an MG, quick suppression, On Me!, run behind the MG. It's super effective. How can anyone not use the captain!?

Jump back to quoted post20 Jan 2021, 21:37 PMGrim

Tbh I sleep on that ability too much.

I just like being able to hammer out a Pak howi super fast.

Jump back to quoted post20 Jan 2021, 21:37 PMGrim

Tbh I sleep on that ability too much.

I just like being able to hammer out a Pak howi super fast.

Jump back to quoted post20 Jan 2021, 05:35 AMturbotortoise

Unit activity is actually a pretty advanced concept which requires a deep strategic understanding of different tactical positions lol.

How do you know when to take the territory and move up; which territory? enough to keep the pressure on, and squeeze them into a smaller space when do I do that -instead- of building obstacles, or should/can I do both? again, shape the terrain to your advantage if necessary If I fight off the enemy and they know where our support weapons are -- is that bad? yes, almost always Can I use that to set traps,sure set your trap, and still move your stuff. best of both worlds are they even thinking on that level? assume they are. if they're not, you havent lost anything If I see an MG will outflanking create weaknesses elsewhere in my line not if we're talking about an advance or run me into another trap? it might, but then you got outplayed or outspammed by MGs

I guess my point being: this game is hard and complex. Letting off steam in a thread is fine but doing so and then labeling it beginner tip is kind of weird.

Jump back to quoted post21 Jan 2021, 00:27 AMNigelBallsworth

Disagree. It is venting, but also a useful tip.

Jump back to quoted post20 Jan 2021, 15:56 PMJohnSmith

I agree, "On me!" is what I hate the most as an OST player. It's super effective. Always aim to get that captain out as quickly as possible if you play as OST.

Jump back to quoted post21 Jan 2021, 05:52 AMturbotortoise

you've missed my point:

giving out generic unsolicited strategic advice "learn how to move aggressively and dynamically." and rattling off a bunch of hypothetical positions and then what you think your ideal vision of the tactics to execute in said positions, divorced from an actual game state is maybe even worse for trying to improve than discussing theory: build orders and target tables. At least those are tangible.

Jump back to quoted post23 Jan 2021, 02:13 AMNigelBallsworth

I HAVEN'T missed your point; you've missed mine. Nor have I "rattled off" a bunch of hypothetical situations- on the contrary, the entire concept I'm talking about centers around being able to adapt to the game's dynamic.

You, on the other hand, are defending the validity of championing more "tangible" ideas like BO which are very much hypothetical situations based on a very specific set of circumstances that vary from game to game. Further, you're attacking me for discussing something you deem to be hypothetical, then go on to state that "discussing theory" is better ?

Finally, far from expressing my "ideal vision" of what tactics to execute in certain situations, what I'm describing should be applicable to most situations in most games.

Based on your posts replying to mine, I'm not even sure if you're serious anymore or if I'm being trolled.

Jump back to quoted post23 Jan 2021, 16:10 PMturbotortoise

You didn't name a single: map, faction or position. you are correct. that's the essence of promoting concepts that will serve you well in most situations. The best you did was allude to a vague game state, I assume in a 2v2, where your teammates "sit there the entire game", again correct, as indicated by the actual reference to teammates I'm sure even by your standards, an assumption on your part unless they are literally AFK, a gross generalization, what about that isn't hypothetical? you have repeatedly tried to insinuate that I'm NOT talking about hypotheticals, when in fact I am to document anything other than the hypothetical would be futile, which is my argument against your suggestion that it's more useful to study concrete build orders

To adapt is only to change your behaviour to a new set of conditions. agree To win is to make accurate adaptations. I'm sorry; I had assumed it was understood that most play to win. Silly me.

You suggest to players: "if you win an engagement, move." again, without posting an actual position or replay, what's for me to take what you say in absolutely poor faith? Perhaps your partner is "sitting there the entire game wondering why they're losing". when they have a Bofors, Mortar Pit and 17pdr on the opponents fuel and cutoff, or an otherwise advantageous position, arguably, if this is what they're doing, they're not helping us win. they're waiting to be hit with arty while you're busy winning an engagement against a fire pit and then moving up into a Schwerer? a possibility, yes. So ? I will then retreat, move other assets up, etc... the common denominator for which is movement and then you're telling them to move points and territory isn't taken by emplacements. it's taken by troops

Herein lies my problem: real adaptation with the goal of winning. fixed it for you means analyzing and making correct tactical choices, again, something I assumed most of us are interested in not oversimplfying oversimplifying, as you call it, allows the player to interpret the concept in the context of what is currently happening in their game. at this point in our dialogue, i thought I had made that clear: blindly moving, "aggressively" "dynamically" "adapatingly" or otherwise using a buzzword hmmmm...buzzword, or appropriate adjective?; what your post, if not just taken on it's face as rant I did in fact state that I was venting, could be deemed as advocating another assumption on your part.

Therefore:

I'm championing the discussion of theory, not in an ideas sense, or as random hypotheses but the actual established knowledge (what scientific theory actually is) over generalized -beginner tips- as a better way to engage in thinking about the game and improving this has a place in the evolution of a player, but not at the expense of what I'm talking about. This is not a zero sum equation, because from my own experience in coaching and playing, what one person believes "should be applicable to most situations in most games." is untrue just by the nature of the game you did see where I wrote "most" right ?. There are very very very few things that players should do as a default without thinking, including build orders this is true TO BE CLEAR. Discussion on theory are not great either, but they are far more constructive than whatever this is please reserve your condescension for whoever you're "coaching". you know very well what this is.

It takes posting replays, analysis and being vulnerable and open to criticism to improve, and if players are not going to do that-- which is rare, and I don't blame them-- It's hard. Then the next best thing are theoretical discussions, knowing that a Rifle's M1 does 1.675 dmg vs. Volks' K98 1.506 without cover modifiers at maximum range is useful, important knowledge which players can draw on in game instead of getting confused or distracted by thinking about vague things like "the forums said I should adapt, move and be dynamic" I see. So that I understand, it is LESS "confusing and distracting" to make rapid recollections about a massive list of numerical attributes than it is to remember to move advantageously. Got it.

Jump back to quoted post24 Jan 2021, 03:57 AMturbotortoise

Again, you've misunderstood me. I know full well you're talking about hypothetical positions: promoting concepts which you think will serve players well in most situations.

That's why I don't like what you're doing, A. you're not being very precise, or clear what that actually means, 'cos it's impossible, and B:

With maybe the ideas of unit activity and unit preservation/building vet aside (even still, some of the most interesting games I've seen in the ML4 have hinged around trading units, a stupidly high level concept, so even that's arguable) no such thing exists; every position needs to be evaluated within the context of it's specific game state, and if you're not, you're doing no better than random theroycrafters.

Because what does it mean to move "advantageously", "dynamically" "aggressively" without addressing why, when or again-- actual positions in the game? Without that you're just venting and that's not good enough if you actually want to help players improve.

So again, if it wasn't clear for the third post I think promoting those concepts divorced from that are, if not an effort in futility, possibly actively harmful for player development; whereas knowing that without harassing my opponents fuel/cutoff a T70 will arrive ~7 mins in most builds, therefore I should be prepared to meet that threat, is a small piece of learning that they can get from the forums, those discussions do serve a purpose, that crap does matter.

Please, can you put your red text away?