Soviet 2v2 Randoms and Tier 1

For the umpteenth time, in 2v2 random with a Soviet teammate who declared they were going for Guards into T34-85s and built Tier 1 with no AT, did I lose.
I am so sick of players in 2v2 going for Tier 1 and getting no reliable AT.
They don't cap points because snipers are expensive and they don't build many infantry, then they think Guards are going to hold back quick Flak HT or Luchs...
And they don't, they can't beat infantry and they can't beat vehicles, they ARE NOT A REPLACEMENT FOR THE ZIS.

Every game it is the same, they build 2 cons a M3 and a sniper and proceed to do minimal damage to either Volk swarm or Gren swarm.
Then they panic when quick Luch or Flak HT comes out and spam the attack here pointer and cry to me for help .
If we manage to hold on and they get Guards out, then P4 or Panther plus Volk/Ober blob or LMG Gren blob rapes their shitty Guards and they complain to me about how I am a noob.

2v2 Soviet players STOP BUILDING TIER 1! It stinks, it is expensive, doesn't give you good blob control(Maxim) or AT(Zis) and most of you suck at controlling the M3 and snipers and lose them to Volk/Gren blob. The meta has changed, Tier 1 is no longer a very viable stall until T34/85 call-ins. BUILD TIER 2 FOR SOVIETS!
I guarantee your play will improve and your teammate will hate you slightly less.
/Rant

my personal recommendation to those players, if they want to go into T-34-85s is to get both T1 and T2 (which is a pretty strong build). It won't hurt your teching to T-34s and it makes you extremely strong, with both Snipers, AT guns and the like at your disposal, you can hold up most threats with those 2 buildings...

Ye. T1 T2 snipers into ZiS into 85s gg, 120 to punish aggressive truck placement when facing OKW. Filthy strong build in both 1v1 and 2v2.

Honestly t1 is really troublesome for the axis player. Don't find T2 nearly as threatening.

@op watch some cpt. Molo replays, he literally is the guy that 'mastered' this strategy and is pretty effective with it.

It's good when player using it is competent and works as team with you.

Sadly most players just go T1, don't support maxims/Zis when they get doubled because they are off somewhere in the corner or retreated at base and then call other player noob.

They have proof as well, because they killed more units than teamate and it's pointless pointing out to them that they are a noob in fact and reason for sudden loss of support weapons and loss of map control...

Pointless discussion, builds are situational so as tiers, depending on map and who Allies playing against (double okw, double wehr, in case of mixes even their position is important). On huge maps m3 flamers could do wonders, on open maps doubling one side with snipers is always good idea, on close ones conscripts into whatever decent choice. Its really depends on your luck with ally and his understanding of game flow and not tier he choose.

Also this patch maxims are terrible, rifle grenades bring maxim from full health to 1-2 members, and it would be lucky to retreat after that.

i guess penals might be redundant due to riflemen, but i think t1 to t4 is still a good strat in ope maps like moscow outskirts and rails and metal.

Well it's the biggest cheese tactic T1+Guards+T2+ISU (or T34/85)

Yeah you'd think after getting raped by luch's and FLak HT's that they'd think "Hmm,maybe if i tech Tier 2 WITH TIER 1 i Might have a balanced effective fighting force! that WONT get countered by flak vehicles!"


Moral of the story: Dont play random 2v2 unless you're mentally prepared to take the L on your playercard because of your teammate. There's really no other sensible solution.

Honestly t1 is really troublesome for the axis player. Don't find T2 nearly as threatening.

@op watch some cpt. Molo replays, he literally is the guy that 'mastered' this strategy and is pretty effective with it.

Except cpt molo is terrible. His build order isn't even optimized after like 3000 games of doing the exact same thing and his micro is trash tier. If you want good m3 play you have to watch omgpop or sib. Cata was pretty good with m3s too but no longer plays.

Except cpt molo is terrible. His build order isn't even optimized after like 3000 games of doing the exact same thing and his micro is trash tier. If you want good m3 play you have to watch omgpop or sib. Cata was pretty good with m3s too but no longer plays.

Plz Ciez... Cpt Molo is higher ranked than you. Two #1s isnt "terrible" and "trash tier". But its kind of funny that he has over 3000 games and does the same strat every game. Maybe he isnt a player, it could be that hes a machine.

So on topic: Only T1 seems to be doable if you are a machine.

T1 in the hands of a player with half brain is uncounterable, oshteer has absolutely nothing that can kill snipers, okw has the lunchs but it's a very risky choice between guards and 30 muni mines everywhere, plus usually you either do t1 + t2 yourself or your mate will have to support you with AT guns (even an airdropped AT from the airborne doc will do wonders)and nothing will stop you, seriously, the soviet snipers aren't support, they win you games single handedly, without even touching the subject of M3s absolutely raping OKW, infact when I play axis if the soviet went T1 I have to send a gren squad over to the OKW or he's really fucked.

I'd rather see players go t1 instead of t2 maxim when I'm playing allies

Except cpt molo is terrible. His build order isn't even optimized after like 3000 games of doing the exact same thing and his micro is trash tier. If you want good m3 play you have to watch omgpop or sib. Cata was pretty good with m3s too but no longer plays.

Therefore I wrote "mastered", because I have the same thoughts as you on him. It's really cheesy but effective.

Plz Ciez... Cpt Molo is higher ranked than you. Two #1s isnt "terrible" and "trash tier". But its kind of funny that he has over 3000 games and does the same strat every game. Maybe he isnt a player, it could be that hes a machine.

So on topic: Only T1 seems to be doable if you are a machine.

He's ranked higher than me in random team games because guess what... I don't queue random team games.

If he's so good, and better than me (since you know his ladder rank, which we all know is the be-all end-all of determining player skill) then please explain why I mop the floor with him literally every time I play against him in 1v1 and 2v2?

He hasn't won, let alone even participated in a single tournament. The dude is a bad mannered, one trick pony that can't even execute his own strat properly. I'm not trying to be elitist or egotistical, I don't even consider myself to be a true top player... I'm probably like top 30-40 1v1 which isn't all that impressive in my opinion (although I have been top 10 ranked, but ladder rank doesn't mean shit). But the simple fact is that cpt. molo is garbage. Quote your ladder stats all you want, but he's not better than me. Not even close.

Edit: double post.

Should i prepare some popcorn?

-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.

T1: usage depends hugely on map. Wether you go heavy clowncar or sniper also depends on faction.

For example: i prefer not to go double sniper if double OKW. Theres double counters in Flak HT and quick Luch.

i think people need to realize that going t1+t2 does not mean you have to go for doctrinal tanks.

may times, i went t1 for penals because they deal with houses well + a solid combat unit imo. i was planning to go for t4 but we needed AT bad and i only had enough fuel to put up the t4. so i went for t2 and Zis, so i could control the early pumas/ aa halftrack etc etc.

I'd rather see players go t1 instead of t2 maxim when I'm playing allies

I would really like to know why though? From the games I have played players seem to have a hard time microing T1 units in a meaningful way. Plus the early cap power lost can be really brutal for Allies.

I could see this strategy working for a dedicated teammate with headsets, but I just find it beyond awful for random games(yes I know randoms are a mixed bag, but T1 randoms are REALLY bad).

I find that the amount of effort to be put into making T1 "work" isn't worth it and the ease of losing because of it is too high.

At least with a maxim spammer he can get a Zis gun to slow down armor.
I don't need my random teammates to be pros, all I ask is that they at least delay and keep throwing stuff into the fight to tie down enemies and not have everything wiped from the field so I am fighting 2 opponents by myself.

I would really like to know why though? From the games I have played players seem to have a hard time microing T1 units in a meaningful way. Plus the early cap power lost can be really brutal for Allies.

I could see this strategy working for a dedicated teammate with headsets, but I just find it beyond awful for random games(yes I know randoms are a mixed bag, but T1 randoms are REALLY bad).

I find that the amount of effort to be put into making T1 "work" isn't worth it and the ease of losing because of it is too high.

At least with a maxim spammer he can get a Zis gun to slow down armor.
I don't need my random teammates to be pros, all I ask is that they at least delay and keep throwing stuff into the fight to tie down enemies and not have everything wiped from the field so I am fighting 2 opponents by myself.

I think you've basically answered the question for yourself. A well played T1 Soviet opening will almost always inflict more damage on the opponent than a well played T2 Soviet opening (although T2 is still strong). But a poorly played T1 opening will just feed vet/waste resources, while a poorly played T2 opening can at least suppress some stuff and deter tanks.

T1 also requires more coordination because you need Cons/Rifles to protect Snipers so that they can be properly utilized, plus the T1 player has to have much better awareness of what timings vehicles/tanks will hit to make sure he has mines/AT nades in place to protect his snipers. Plus losing a sniper is much more punishing than losing the crew on a maxim.