Great contribution.
The suggestion is so ridiculous it doesnt warrant more.
I could write a page on how stupid it is, but its self-evident to anyone with any sense why it is so.
Posts: 2425
Permanently BannedGreat contribution.
Posts: 928
You should waste more mp reinforcing damaged cons/grens units, thus delaying tech.
Players not spamming those units should tech as usually.
Posts: 971
You have obviously not played with vet 3 rifles.
And tech is mostly dependent on fuel, not mp.
Hope that may explain why nullist is a bit annoyed
Posts: 813 | Subs: 1
Posts: 2693 | Subs: 1
Well, it's not the same having 5 cons squads fighting with a reinforce cost of 20 mp/model than with 30 mp/model.
The mp bleed will be higher, thus you will be encouraged to make some resistant or defensive units instead of just spamming cheap but weak infantry.
But it is just an idea. Take it or leave it.
I just think that in CoH2 early game is way more profitable to spam cheap infantry than to try to play with some tactics and combined arms, and that is too boring.
Posts: 2742
Spamming player: Play aggressive, cap both fuels, ignore strong defensive positions, overwhelm isolated squads, trick defending player to over-extend by attacking and harassing from all sides, enter the late game with a solid unit/income advantage, crush combined army player with bigger army.
Combined arms player: Play conservatively, hold 1 fuel, maneuver support weapons to defend against incoming attacks, do not over extend, do a little harassment with pio/engineers, enter the late game on even footing, push out with superior composition.
Posts: 2693 | Subs: 1
These take into account heavy assumptions about map design.
19 | |||||
12 | |||||
80 | |||||
29 | |||||
18 | |||||
8 | |||||
8 | |||||
4 | |||||
2 | |||||
2 |