If I understand correctly you retreated 12 squads at the same time?
and 33% of them where cut down? and you don't find that too much?
I tested 1 squad 10 times...
Not at all. I retreated them in pairs, 4x2 squads, 1x1 squad, 1x3 squads.
Posts: 4630 | Subs: 2
If I understand correctly you retreated 12 squads at the same time?
and 33% of them where cut down? and you don't find that too much?
I tested 1 squad 10 times...
Posts: 677
You are entirely missing the point... Do not put your squads in a position where they will be cut down whilst retreating. Deal with the threat, then and only then move your squads into the desired position.
This doesn't just apply to bofors, it is a simple fundamental principle for the entire game...
Posts: 2693 | Subs: 1
Well thats the point of the AA emplacement isn't it?... tell that to okw 2cm flak
Posts: 677
Not at all. I retreated them in pairs, 4x2 squads, 1x1 squad, 1x3 squads.
Posts: 589
So are you, what you are saying is do not attempt flanks if you opponent has built Bofors near a retreat route until you have killed the bofors.
Posts: 4630 | Subs: 2
That is a bit weird because in the picture you can see 8 units retreating at the same time,but never mind.
Anyway it seems that my placement was allot better since in my test the Gun was allot more deadlier...
Posts: 677
The OKW 2cm flak sucking is a completely different topic. I fully support buffs to make it more viable.
Posts: 4630 | Subs: 2
Posts: 677
...
Result? Bofors killed 20 models, Schwerer killed... 18.
Schwerer - building.
Bofors - unit.
Posts: 2693 | Subs: 1
This what you wrote not me, you brought the role of AA emplacement into the topic so don't try to avoid it...
Imo squad wiping of retreating infantries is not their role, plain and simple. If in your opinion it is, you should be asking for other AA emplacements to be able to do it also...
Posts: 677
...
And you are right, wiping retreating infantry is not their role.
...
Posts: 2561
Posts: 589
All this, just so you don't have to accept that you made a mistake and it wasn't the game that unfairly caused your units to get wiped.
Posts: 2693 | Subs: 1
It seem that we are actually making some progress. If it is not they role they shouldn't be that good at it (better than most units), and thus I see no reason why you object to change that will only make them worse at a role that their better than their supposed to.
Unless you argument is that having a unit retreat in path that will bring in range of bofors is extremely bad play and it should be severely punished...
Posts: 871
Posts: 665
It's not a problem with the emplacement, they should just fix the retreating system so units will be taking the safest route to the base instead of the shortest (something that should have been done on release)
Posts: 230
Permanently BannedPosts: 403
What exactly is the point of this thread (is it to convince your self it isn't your fault you lost the squad?)
Posts: 677
...is it to convince your self it isn't your fault you lost the squad?
...
Called it. He still wont admit hes wrong.
...
All this, just so you don't have to accept that you made a mistake and it wasn't the game that unfairly caused your units to get wiped. That is exactly what you deserved for retreating your units through an dedicated anti infantry emplacement.
Posts: 677
It is not better at killing retreating infantry. It's just good at killing infantry, PERIOD.
There is no modifier that makes them any better at killing retreating infantry. If you are retreating infantry through it's range you deserve to be punished.
In fact, you are intentionally asking to give it a negative modifiers that no other unit has.
37 | |||||
807 | |||||
134 | |||||
102 | |||||
31 | |||||
18 | |||||
10 | |||||
7 | |||||
4 | |||||
2 |