Red Army Artillery build

So I tried this in a team game the other night and it seemed to work quite well, and I wanted to get other people's opinion/help on the strategy.

The only units I build are Maxim HMGs, Katyusha's, 120mm Howitzers, and AT guns. I may build another engineer if needing howitzers built quickly.

Usually this build works better in team games, and what I do is try to have 2 maxims each at 2 VPs and any enemy that comes into sight will get barraged with massive amounts of firepower. At guns are placed at each point to protect against tanks and used for minor barrages if needed.

I really enjoy this build as it works in how I like to play. I'm more of a support player, and anybody who could help me on this would be awesome

Also, is there currently any Soviet commander build in the Steam Store that has the ML 120mm Howitzer and 120mm HM Squad?

I tend to have good luck with capturing enemy tanks with this strategy too lol. Not sure how though.

Edit: 2-1 and 3 Panthers in each of the 3 games captured.

sounds like pro-Scheld strat MVGame

I'm a total noob and have no idea what any of that means lol

Team games are generally looked down upon by a lot of players because they are less about "strategy" and more about "massive unbalanced clusterfucks." So in general, you're not going to see much of an uptake when you talk seriously about something other than a 1v1, because frankly, the game doesn't take those matchups seriously. They were a joke in the original Company of Heroes and they're a joke in this game.

One reason for that is that they lead to the kind of behavior favored by players who are really bad at the fundamentals of CoH, namely, they lead to people who sit back and arty spam in the way you described in your post. Company of Heroes is so not about arty spam that it's not even funny. What makes the game great is the dynamic, back and forth nature of the battles, which are full of cover usage, flanking, careful positioning, and so on. Artillery just consists of clicking near your opponent and hoping they're too stupid or distracted to get out of the way by running forward or hitting the retreat button. It has no chance of winning in a 1v1 because you'll cede most of the map to your opponent by focusing on defensive, immobile units rather than offensive, helpful units, and even in larger games it often works much better on terrible maps full of horrible chokepoints that retard assaults.

This is what The Scheldt was in Company of Heroes: a map that lots of people liked to play because it was just a terrible slog to attack your opponent so it just turned into stupid shell-lobbing contests. Anyone who mentions enjoying The Scheldt, or arty spam, or playing as a "support player" as you put in your original post, outs themselves as someone who might not even understand how to play a 1v1, let alone do very well in it. To a lot of people, someone who sits around lobbing artillery at the opponent really isn't playing Company of Heroes 2 - they're not engaging with the dynamic back and forth of the game, they're just waiting to get lucky with artillery strikes.

It's a boring way to play, it's a way of playing that doesn't require the skillset that makes for good players and interesting matches, and it fails to capture most of what makes Company of Heroes a unique RTS compared to something like Strategic Commander or Wargame Airland Battle, games that incorporate large amounts of artillery more organically into their design in ways that encourage good players, and not just people who want to sit back and play without really playing, to use it.

So, Thrill was pretty much making fun of you. To make this arty thing work you probably have to play at least a 3v3, because even in a 2v2 you'll probably cripple your teammate if you can't cap enough of the map, and 3v3s are just jokes, from a strategy perspective. So coming into a strategy forum and talking about your strategy for a 3v3 is kind of silly. My strategy for 3v3s since the original Company of Heroes has been "do basically anything" because I've never fought a 3v3 against opponents who knew how to play.

Well, I certainly appreciate your long detailed description downing me, and how I play. I never played coh multiplayer, and this is really the first online rts game I've gotten into. So I apologize for not knowing this was such a horrible way to play. I do enjoy the "back and forth" action, or whatever you put it. I'm new to this whole thing, and I was simply asking about how I played a FEW games. Not how I play every single game.

By the way, in the 3 games I played it was a 2v2 and I alone controlled all 3 points.

I mean, that's great, but 2v2 is still not really a 1v1. If it worked in a 2v2 it was probably against horrible players - arty spam is really not a viable tactic against people who know what they are doing.

Well, I don't try to "spam". I mean all I do is try to hold the points lol. If that means calling in all my artillery on a point the opponent is trying to capture and prevent them from doing so. Isn't that what I'm supposed to do? Defend the VPs?

The only units I build are Maxim HMGs, Katyusha's, 120mm Howitzers, and AT guns. I may build another engineer if needing howitzers built quickly.

If this isn't arty spam then nobody has ever arty spammed.

Tycho get off his back his dude. I think when we are new a lot of us played like this. I know I most definitely did when I started CoH1 o.O

I've actually executed this style of play a few times in 1v1 myself. Got out a couple of engineers, 2 Maxim machine guns and that really allows you to push around an opponent once they are on the field.

I then tend to pop out 1-2 Guard squads and continue on to t4 where I'll utilize katuysha, su80 and 120mm mortars where appropriate. It isn't to bad on maps where there are decent amounts of buildings that you can leap frog around and use to have good vision of the map. Generally though these strats are better used for 2v2 sicne there are holes that are more easy for the Ostheer player to open up in a 1v1 game. Keep working at it though dude!

If it holds VPs to allow for a victory then what's so bad about it? Lol I can understand completely about it not being a good strategy for 1v1. I just don't see how I'm getting put down for this, but you see tons of people use clown cars+sniper or flamers and that's perfectly okay lol. Just my opinion. Thank you though Stephen, recently I have changed this up a bit to where I only have 1 howitzer, and I put out some su-85s and guard troops.

It seems I need to play more 1v1 games though since it seems thats where ill improve lol.

If it holds VPs to allow for a victory then what's so bad about it? Lol I can understand completely about it not being a good strategy for 1v1. I just don't see how I'm getting put down for this, but you see tons of people use clown cars+sniper or flamers and that's perfectly okay lol. Just my opinion. Thank you though Stephen, recently I have changed this up a bit to where I only have 1 howitzer, and I put out some su-85s and guard troops.

It seems I need to play more 1v1 games though since it seems thats where ill improve lol.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with it in a team game! It will work against bad players and maybe even against good players. Go back and read my first post - I was just trying to explain why you're not going to get a lot of serious discussion about team game arty spam strats on these forums.

Sadly works in 2v2 games since the other player can pick up the slack with infantry + SU85s.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with it in a team game! It will work against bad players and maybe even against good players. Go back and read my first post - I was just trying to explain why you're not going to get a lot of serious discussion about team game arty spam strats on these forums.

Sorry but i have to completely disagree with you as far as arty is useless in 1v1. I will give you The 120mm is to much for 1v1 but arty can be effective in 1v1 by beating the enemy down by attrition. I usually run a similar strat in 1v1.


maxim x3-4, 120mm mortar x3, maybe secondary engineer, AT x1-2,Guards 2-3x SU85 x1-2, maybe a katyusha or 2, then late game i switch to t34 meds.

This is a 3 phase tactic that switches mid/end game, The trick to this strat is proper mg placement early on, don't let any units die, and let your enemy think hes got you. And when i say dont let any units die, i mean you cant afford to loose any units, keeping your hand on the retreat key is key .


Phase 1(attrition):
I start by always taking a flank VP(near gas), set up MGs, i might put one mid map just to slow movement. MINES!!! you probably aren't using much munitions in this strat so i mine the shit out of choke points to secure the flanks of your units from early flame halftracks and later panzers. then 120 mortars, if i get a halftrack rush ill retreat all, let the point cap, then push the either flank VP depending on how the game is going. By then i usually have AT gun, the mortars make quick work of any infantry in buildings. Set up shop and beat the enemy down by attrition. They will think they are winning and just bleed my VP down. After a su85 ill usually run a guard unit or two just to harass/scout the back lines or something. Also building a fuel point early game is important. After the VP is secure ill have my engineers mine the shit out of any choke points leading to my main in case of panzer rush, keeping a infantry unit of some kind to scout is important.


Phase 2(Push):
timing is important, you want to make sure you've bleed off some of the enemy panzers or push when they are in retreat. After i have a su85 or some katyusha ill start to push mid map, set my mgs between their main and mid map(i want them to die for the pop), then maybe kill off a mortar or two. I should have enough fuel because of all the infantry now and hopefully i bleed the enemy fuel down if they pushed panzers on me. Then comes the t34 mediums, the katyusha will decimate any grenadier AT, the su85 with the t34 can easily take a panther + any AT i have left.


Phase 3(Assault) -
After i push mid map i set up a light defense, more mines. My tanks will re secure my previous VP, i usually keep a mg or two back to lock down infantry. katyusha +120mm will destroy any infantry. Here is a key part, if they push the VP with my tanks, i only use enough katyusha to scare them off, no need for them to know everything i got, i usually try to hide my t34 if possible. I want them to push mid VP. When they do i rush main with the tanks, screen with the katyusha and incendiary barrage, any left over mortars, mgs, AT push from mid map. If they destroy any of my tanks, i usually have a ton of fuel for more.


Pros -

120mm Mortars easily counter enemy mortar
easy to keep a VP locked down

semi-cons -

Must micro manage MG placement
Must identify choke points for mines


Cons -

Early mortars before your 120mm can be a problem.
Halftrack mortar can be tricky to take out, guards help with that.
A panzer rush on the other side of the map can be a threat, good to keep scouts or something over there, trip wires can work well.
a tiger can be problematic, usually i do a slight rush, ram with a t34 then secure and repair. Mines, mines, mines

Tycho i think it's pushing the boat out saying Team games require no strategy. If that was true why did the random players just clusterfuck and win 2v2 Tornies / 2v2 AT Ladder in COH1?

There's absolutely nothing wrong with it in a team game! It will work against bad players and maybe even against good players. Go back and read my first post - I was just trying to explain why you're not going to get a lot of serious discussion about team game arty spam strats on these forums.

Now im not saying its a win all strategy, it is hard to do if you can't place early on, but it can work.

Team games do require strategy, but the higher the number of players, the higher the imbalances get. A strategy that once had you push with a single unit can now have you pushing with two, or three of them (and many times the game is balanced only to have 1 of those in the field at that time). Any strategy you make is going to go to hell by late mid-game, which is when heavy tanks and strong call in abilities arrive. It does become a clusterfuck.

Tycho's advice may have come a little bit harsh, but it is nonetheless true: Your strat doesn't hold a lot of ground, because you leave your opponent alone in the teching war. When a good team's PIV spam arrives, your ATG's will not be enough to stop them, and your teammate alone cannot build enough SU-85's to counter the horde.

Ostheer, in 2v2, almost always builds those Panzer IV's. Then once your vulnerable artillery is gone, you will not have vet conscripts, and you will concede territories to your opponent while you "catch up" in the tank war.

Like they said: it can work. I've seen it work, they've used it against me successfully more than once. Most of the time though, its just a waiting game until the Ostheer steamrolls an indirect fire strategy.

Re: 3v3 and up team games...

I've never really understood the hate. Yes, the current 1v1 imbalances get magnified, but I don't think imbalance is exactly the problem. The same game as in 2v2 gets played out, with some of the heavier call-ins you wouldn't see in 1v1s. I hear this over and over, and no one ever wants to specify details. So, two Elefants are imbalanced? Constant strafing run sure is, I'll agree. But two Elefants are countered by 4 T-34s and 4 SU-85s. There's just more of everything.

The biggest problem is the games are just lame, the COH2 maps don't really lend themselves to flanking and all the COH goodness. A lot of people just haven't played enough 4v4s in a serious manner to see how patterns and metagames evolved, and how some of us enjoyed playing with the imbalances to see if we could beat them. Ie., when last I played Montargis in COH it went down this way:
1) Axis can't get the fuel in the middle cuz of sniper + mortar.
2) Brit goes and parks on ammo hill, can't be stopped AT ALL.
3) Obvious win for Allies with all the res, but as we're playing annihilation, Axis has a chance of victory with uber-micro.
4) Thus the last metagame was "get the fuel if you can so we can still tech", and holding the Brit off when he came down from ammo hill was accomplished with tons of schwimwagons and snipers. Those players would then call in storms and Stuhs to weaken the Brit blob and hold off early armor.
5) What usually happened was enough arty, airborne blobs, and M10 kill packs would break defenses and end the game. However, if unit preservation and micro was superior on the Axis side, this wouldn't happen before T4 and better equipment came out.
6) But...especially if the Brit went down with some firestorm, Stuhs, etc, the game would change. Suddenly Axis has access to ammo, which could be used to get the fuel back...
7) And sometimes this would go on for a good hour or so if skill levels were basically balanced.

So I fail to see why this is less interesting or less skillful than other game types, in fact, I find 4v4 to be incredibly fascinating because, when skill levels are equal, it comes down to great teamwork, and equally great micro. The same stuff is all there. It's a lot of blobbing, sure, but it's necessary as any lone unit could be killed off by running into multiple enemy units. If you think of blobs in 4v4 as individual units in 1v1, it might be a little more interesting.

So far 4v4 is really meh in COH2...It really comes down to army composition, not even tactics or micro. It seems worse to me, because games are decided very quickly by who holds the fuel. Lack of annihilation mode compounds this. You sort of need annihilation mode in 4v4 so superior micro and teamwork can win out without the pressure of a VP game being decided in 10 minutes because one side held the fuel for 5 minutes.

And again aside from strafe, what imbalances are we talking about?

I play as strategic as possible in team games. I play with as much seriousness. Yet in 3v3's, be it the maps or something else, I just can't figure out what the hell is going on.

Too much crap going on. Too much figurative flak being thrown around. So much, in fact, that strategy goes down the drain.

Rhzev Frontline, winter. 3v3. We hold the early game well, we actually took both of the fuels. We lost one of them, for a very short time, and you know what happened?

3 ZiS ATG's, 3 SU-85's, 4 T-34/86's and a god damn ISU-152. My teammates tried a well executed pinzer maneuver, and I drove in from the middle to assault them.

I had 3 panzer 4's with smoke dischargers, 2 mortar halftracks to destroy the ZiS crews and a Tiger. My teammate also sent an Elephant to help me in that side.

Everything got annihilated in SECONDS. No strategy, no clever thinking or tricks. Just straight on massacre. The Tiger alone got killed by the ISu-152. Two shots, two stuns (bad luck I guess), the rest was just eaten up by the SU-85's. The Panzer 4's were up next.

Unless mortar halftracks could shoot 50kg bombs, they didn't do crap against the ZiS (even with incendiary barrages).

Rhzev Frontline, winter. 3v3. We hold the early game well, we actually took both of the fuels. We lost one of them, for a very short time, and you know what happened?

Haha, I had a game exactly like this two days ago. Two of us went Elefant against the Su-85 spam, but they were countered mostly by the ISUs equally far across the map. Every time we ran a squad up to cap the middle VP ISUs insta-gibbed the squad.

Despite my new interest in smoke, it was not I who won the game...It was in fact a random my bud and I picked up, who after 25 minutes of mostly stalemate and the VPs ticking down, had the bright idea of using officer arty to smoke the middle VP. Thus we were able to cap it safely, and then we moved up the Elefants and moved some infantry further up to spot (yeah you can use recon, but I think once LOS is lost when the plane moves the Elefant will instantly pick another target, or no target). Once one of the ISUs went down we were able to make short work of the OTHER ISU and Su-85s guarding the last VP, and that was GG...

But yeah, 3v3s and 4v4s are mostly chaos...Actually the 3v3s are more crazy because the 4v4 maps are so Vire River-ish without having a river, especially City 17. It's the team that manages to surf the chaos and be effective that wins...