Red Army Artillery build

i don't approve much of non combined arms army. but i can do wonders with early setup teams. i only bring the infantry later to deal with light cars and tanks. and gees some one here seems to be having a bad day, everyday....

I disagree that the team that can "surf the chaos" wins. Its so chaotic, that you simply can't fucking devise a true strategy. Sure, smoke might have worked that time, on that VP, but other times, it won't. It escalates to such a point to make the matches a long range slugfest (yuk).

Elephant vs ISU-152. The elephant has a "better" gun. Same range, better reload speed, slightly better penetration. The problem? ISU stuns too often. So it inevitably disables the Elephant often enough to kill it. Pray, too, that the ISU-152 is unsupported.

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.

One... your an idiot. two if he was using artillery effective then it is not a spam. its an effective use of resources. three... no strategy... are you kidding me. depending on your team it requires more. only a very effective player can counter two players going for his point with minimal backup from his team. adding new players increases the amount of critical thinking needed for this game. IMO one v one is gay. its just a race of cookie cutter strategies that someone else thought of to prove that you can do it better than him. I enjoy 2v2 and 3v3 much better than 1v1. I cant even play 4v4 because so much shit is going on that my brain cant handle it.

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).

Ha ha ha... I don't understand you guys. you are saying there is no strategy involved just because there are a lot of units and cookie cutter strategies don't generally work because the eb and flow of the battle can change in a heartbeat your basically saying there isn't strategy because you don't know what to do... There in lies the strategy. you don't always have the units to press on your side and you cant seem to get a foothold. I have an idea how about I send some extra units to my teammate so he can press harder forcing them to lose a fuel point or victory point. well that added a new front so the enemy you were fighting has to slacken some of his resources to stop the advance. meanwhile you have started your own advance to where you were trying to get to before. but your ally is buckling on the north front. 1v1 players start crying because their cookie cutter failed them. and their teammates couldn't save them 3v3 will excel because they are use to the extra units and fronts.
personal preference I guess but saying there is no strategy is completely absurd. there is just no text book cookie cutter. there is only the pros and cons of units on an ever-changing battlefield.

Now that im done ranting about idiots thinking no strategies involved id like to make a suggestion. Conscripts do a permanent slow down until fixed wile buttoning relies on line of sight and a timer so I would use at grenades instead. this also ensures that you can throw at and retreat so if you are quick enough you can arty damaged tank by predicting its retreat locations. and I would prefer the 85 over field guns. I don't have fond memories of them they seem to always fail me even if I get the jump on tanks not enough damage and penetration against heavier tanks.