Balance of power has shifted to Allies in 4v4AT (imo)

Jump back to quoted post2 May 2015, 15:52 PMGdot

Second I would argue squad size of base infantry, if a grenadier squad picks up an mg42, you're left with 1 model on your grens; if a script squad picks up a mg he can continue fighting with 3 models left and neither squad has to retreat. If a grenadier squad loses 1 model he takes a 25% decrease in dmg output - scripts take a 17% decrease dmg output. Scripts allow you to recrew a beat down maxim without retreating or the use of a halftrack; allowing you to continue fighting without investing in a mobile reinforcement unit.

Jump back to quoted post10 May 2015, 01:31 AMCorsin

And here comes the allied white knight of the conscript rambo dream.

Ratio means NOTHING as it is over multiple states of balance....

Streak means ALOT more since it is during current state of balance....


jesus...


yeah the allies are far better currently in everything in 2v2 and above... simply because of

1- Marked target
2- Jacksons....


Together they 3-4 shot tiger tanks.... (and obviously overrun other big tanks).

This has been an issue in 2v2s for some time, with the overwhelm of allied blob... Ive literally had games where ive killed 3x more allied units, yet they still make a comeback.

But now the issue has apparently overflowed into 3v3 and 4v4 too....


1v1 is fairly balanced. however OKW need some buffs for 1v1.

Jump back to quoted post10 May 2015, 07:53 AMSpecialka

Allies are so much better at everything that top 10 Axis players have HUGE streaks in 3v3 and 4v4.

Any more BS to add?

• aggressive infantry play supported by mgs/at guns/snipers in order to decap territory
  
• early light vehicles to maintain advantage or go straight to medium armor
  
• infantry screen and armor pushes, allowing further decapping
  
• indirect fire or offmap fire on OKW HQs
  
• medium tank armada swarms heavy tanks with infantry blobs and furthermore supported by IS2s or t-34/85s
  

Jump back to quoted post11 May 2015, 01:02 AMdeusender

You guys are 100% wrong about the current balance right now. I am shocked to see so many allied fanboys lacking objectivity. Now before you accuse me of being an axis fanboy, I'm currently ranked 11th in Allied 3v3 (name = Troll Master Water Mage, and I know the name is stupid, it was intentional). The best I have ever been on the axis side was 37th, and that was by playing our asses off. We easily got to rank #11 today without working too hard.

I agree with Alex on a lot of what he says. Ohme is wrong on a number of things: yes, in an ideal world, the Jagdtiger and the elephants do sync extremely well with the other axis teammates. But going for a jagdtiger is a massive opportunity cost, and is prohibitively expensive. The strategy to beat axis is quite simple:

• aggressive infantry play supported by mgs/at guns/snipers in order to decap territory
  
• early light vehicles to maintain advantage or go straight to medium armor
  
• infantry screen and armor pushes, allowing further decapping
  
• indirect fire or offmap fire on OKW HQs
  
• medium tank armada swarms heavy tanks with infantry blobs and furthermore supported by IS2s or t-34/85s
  

I prefer allies at the moment, and I fear that's because they're so damn powerful. M1919s, either on rifles or Airborne, are awesome. T34/85s with marked target, jacksons, IS2s, guards, reliable mines, the list goes on.

Jump back to quoted post1 May 2015, 09:30 AMSarantini

Does anyone play 3v3?

Jump back to quoted post11 May 2015, 01:39 AMJadame!

It matters, but all that is easy to counter.

Infantry? Kubels, mortars, infantry.

Medium vehicles? 222, fausts, shrecks, luchs.

Medium armor? At guns and jagdpanzer, king of at.

care to elaborate more? all the advantages listed also have chance to fail miserably in an un-ideal world.

Jump back to quoted post11 May 2015, 01:02 AMdeusender

Ohme is wrong on a number of things:

Jump back to quoted post11 May 2015, 02:38 AMAlexzandvar

Countering AT's supported by infantry with Kubels seems a tad dumb, as is legit suggesting OKW has a mortar. And the general description of just "infantry"

Jump back to quoted post11 May 2015, 02:38 AMAlexzandvar

And you can never in 3's get more Jadgpanzers than your enemy can get mediums, the math doesn't work out.

Jump back to quoted post11 May 2015, 02:38 AMAlexzandvar

In what alternate reality do you live in were Allies are not focused around aggressive play and Axis not on defensive play?

Jump back to quoted post11 May 2015, 03:06 AMJadame!

At gun is not countering kubels automatically nor it arrives anytime soon to counter them initially. What you want to hear form me? His post was about initial infantry pushes. Kubels destroy them. Thats all.

And later axis have all tools they need to deal with inf from triple snipers to mg-walls and heavy mortar builds or just lmg grens blobs. Amazing anti-inf strafe for 60 muni with laughable cool down on top of that. What else do you need? Brumbar?



And you still have your shreck blob to support them, so what? Jagdpanzer is not supposed to fight mediums, it supposed to support infantry.



OKW focused around inf-heavy aggressive play, Wehr is just turtling faction.

Jump back to quoted post11 May 2015, 02:38 AMAlexzandvar

...In what alternate reality do you live in were Allies are not focused around aggressive play and Axis not on defensive play?

Jump back to quoted post11 May 2015, 03:22 AMAlexzandvar

And seriously? The Kubel shuts you down? Did you forget HMG's for Soviets exist and can be made at the start of the game? Smoke?

Jump back to quoted post11 May 2015, 03:33 AMpigsoup

he's argument was that ohme's implication that JT or ELE synergising very well does not translate in the real game.

but all the things that he listed also have a good or even greater chance of failing in real game.

your question is as out of place as your mouth.

Jump back to quoted post11 May 2015, 03:36 AMQueenRatchet123

u are in no position to comment on how effective the kubel can be. seeing as I easily destroyed yours with 2 RE's

Jump back to quoted post11 May 2015, 03:40 AMAlexzandvar

How does me losing a 1's game have -any- relevance in a discussion about 3's?

Jump back to quoted post11 May 2015, 03:52 AMQueenRatchet123

I have seen u play. u are a rank 2000 player at best. u play a couple of 3's and get to top 100. mind u that u n0t only have a low amount of games, 3v3 is the least popular mode. making it easy to rank up in it.

losing a 1's game has huge relevance, it shows u don't know wat ur talking about. Gimme any faction against u. I couldnt lose. as I said, u are a rank 2000 player at best... so plz stop pretending to be at any decent level cus u got carried in a couple of 3's.

its starting to make u look silly, and it shows. ur previous comments of "low tiger ROF" and "snipers doing 80 damage against infantry" are just a couple of many that reveal that u have soo much to learn about this game.

u can start with learning basic micro, ur kubel suffered from it.

Jump back to quoted post11 May 2015, 04:11 AMAlexzandvar

It was my second 1's game ever dude, chill out dude. I play mostly AT's with people (because fuck randoms), who are fairly high ranked/good, and they let me play with them because they understand I can carry my weight.

Feel free to watch some of the dozens of replays Iv uploaded.

Jump back to quoted post11 May 2015, 04:33 AMQueenRatchet123

the "i've never player 1's" excuse is laughable.

I wont waste my time watching ur replaYS

I r3spect all players, just not ones that I know are not good and try to act as if they are.