4v4 German team - 2 to each fuel, or gang up on one fuel?

I disagree with the common thinking that in the 4v4 team games that the best way to play 4v4 matches is two separate 2v2's.

I've asked this question before, and the answer I got was that it is better to split up two to each fuel.

I just played a match, redball express, and we split up two to each fuel. We were forced off of both fuels and quickly lost the match.

I think splitting up two to each fuel is bad thinking, and I'll explain why. THis is on maps like redball, Hill 331, Essen Steel Works, General Mud, Steppes.

First of all I should let it be known that I got teamed up with a guy with anger issues, on Steppes, his screen name was King to be exact, because I tripled up the middle fuel, as opposed to what he wanted me to do which was each of us split up 2 to each fuel.

First of all, if you're assuming your opponents are going to let you take both fuels, to me this is fundamentally bad thinking. Only a n00b team, is going to allow you to take both fuels. Any team with a decent amount of experience is going to be sure to hold at least one fuel, and if they don't you probably would have won the match anyways with such bad strategic thinking on their part. And if you lose your gambit of splitting up to each fuel, you've essentially forfeited the match with how important fuel is in the early game.

Allies have a stronger early game than Germans, that is well known. 2 Allied team members, can consistently overpower 2 german teammates together in the early game. To me it is better for the german team to concentrate on holding about 50% of the map early on, and teching up, before you start pressuring the other sides of the map.

Even if I had gone 2 to each fuel with the other guy, we may have lost our gambit and lost that fuel, and may not have even held center fuel since I wouldn't have been there to help on that one. We were in a much better position in the match to win the round (we ultimately did lose the match, but again King had anger issues and chose to take his anger out on verbally abusing me, as opposed to helping us hold the top 2/3's of the map)

In this redball match, I listened to King's (IMO poor) advice, and went ahead, 2 to each fuel. We wound up losing both fuels, the round was over in under 7 minutes.

I personally do not think, that 4v4 is meant to be played like two 2v2's that a lot of 4v4 players seem to believe. I think it is better to work as a team, rather than 2 separate teams isolated from each other throughout the match focusing on one fuel each. What does the coh2.org community think?

If you want to try out new team-strats, it is almost always better to find 3 friends that are willing to listen to you and queue up as a premade.

When dealing with randoms, your list of priorities is:
- Pray that you get people that can communicate with you
- Be diplomatic with those people; you only have a few seconds to convince them
- Whatever is decided, just go with the flow
- Try your best to win, so that you get better teammates next time

1. Regardless of which strategy is the optimal one (objectively, or subjectively), you should always do what the team has agreed to do. Antagonising your teammates will never get you anywhere. Why?

- As you pointed out, 4v4 is not 4x 1v1, nor 2x 2v2; it's a 4v4
- By antagonising your teammates (even if they are wrong), you are only adding toxicity, which makes the game more miserable for everyone

2. You need to understand that your teammates (if they are communicative at all), may be used to only doing 2x2 splitting strats. Being introduced to something new that contradicts previous knowledge is enough to make people feel defensive/nervous (e.g., look at the reaction to Despe's medic bunker placement video)

It looks like you have had a bit of time thinking for your opening strat. However, you have to consider that you are playing with randoms, and you only have 20-30 secs of time to affect their opinion. That won't always work.

Most people at the lower levels will have only tried 2x2 splitting. Since this is the only strategy they have tried, this is probably the only strategy that has won them games. You need to understand that people will be apprehensive towards going for something that contradicts past experience.

3. You need to understand that your strat is only valid for the opening phases (and only for some of the maps). You will need to adapt your strat at some point.

This means that once the enemy adapts, so must your team. Thus, to pull of your strat, you need to be able to coordinate with your team again, to shift the balance of power again.

For the reasons explained in #2, it may be difficult to convince people to follow your opening strat, in the first place. Convincing people to change the plan half-way through may even be more difficult than that.

4. In order for your scheme to work, you have 3 guys that triple-team (overpower) one fuel spot. However, you also have 1 guy that has to go solo against 2-3 enemies. Unless that one guy knows what he is supposed to do, they will be miserable/quit/blame you.

The guy that goes solo needs to clearly understand that:
- They are only there to delay the enemy team
- They can, and will be flanked mercilessly, thus they should always have an escape plan
- they need to play the attrition game in a way that minimizes the risk to their own units (rather than kill enemy troops)
- They will, eventually, be overwhelmed, and need to do their best to avoid giving support weapons to the enemy team

Most people aren't primed to play this role, unless they have done this before.

Thus, if you really want to convince your team to do a 3x1 split:
- Offer to be the guy that goes solo
- Ask everyone to triple-team the desired fuel point
- If the team refuses, you kow-tow and go for their strat
- Otherwise, you have the green light and you do your thing

If you want to try out new team-strats, it is almost always better to find 3 friends that are willing to listen to you and queue up as a premade.

When dealing with randoms, your list of priorities is:
- Pray that you get people that can communicate with you
- Be diplomatic with those people; you only have a few seconds to convince them
- Whatever is decided, just go with the flow
- Try your best to win, so that you get better teammates next time

1. Regardless of which strategy is the optimal one (objectively, or subjectively), you should always do what the team has agreed to do. Antagonising your teammates will never get you anywhere. Why?

- As you pointed out, 4v4 is not 4x 1v1, nor 2x 2v2; it's a 4v4
- By antagonising your teammates (even if they are wrong), you are only adding toxicity, which makes the game more miserable for everyone

2. You need to understand that your teammates (if they are communicative at all), may be used to only doing 2x2 splitting strats. Being introduced to something new that contradicts previous knowledge is enough to make people feel defensive/nervous (e.g., look at the reaction to Despe's medic bunker placement video)

It looks like you have had a bit of time thinking for your opening strat. However, you have to consider that you are playing with randoms, and you only have 20-30 secs of time to affect their opinion. That won't always work.

Most people at the lower levels will have only tried 2x2 splitting. Since this is the only strategy they have tried, this is probably the only strategy that has won them games. You need to understand that people will be apprehensive towards going for something that contradicts past experience.

3. You need to understand that your strat is only valid for the opening phases (and only for some of the maps). You will need to adapt your strat at some point.

This means that once the enemy adapts, so must your team. Thus, to pull of your strat, you need to be able to coordinate with your team again, to shift the balance of power again.

For the reasons explained in #2, it may be difficult to convince people to follow your opening strat, in the first place. Convincing people to change the plan half-way through may even be more difficult than that.

4. In order for your scheme to work, you have 3 guys that triple-team (overpower) one fuel spot. However, you also have 1 guy that has to go solo against 2-3 enemies. Unless that one guy knows what he is supposed to do, they will be miserable/quit/blame you.

The guy that goes solo needs to clearly understand that:
- They are only there to delay the enemy team
- They can, and will be flanked mercilessly, thus they should always have an escape plan
- they need to play the attrition game in a way that minimizes the risk to their own units (rather than kill enemy troops)
- They will, eventually, be overwhelmed, and need to do their best to avoid giving support weapons to the enemy team

Most people aren't primed to play this role, unless they have done this before.

Thus, if you really want to convince your team to do a 3x1 split:
- Offer to be the guy that goes solo
- Ask everyone to triple-team the desired fuel point
- If the team refuses, you kow-tow and go for their strat
- Otherwise, you have the green light and you do your thing

A lot of good literature here for many players to read. Also typically muni is more important early on rather fuel. Strategy should always be map and opponent dependent.

Split @ grab fuels @ who didn't grab their fuel go center @ wait for ele/jt

A lot of good literature here for many players to read. Also typically muni is more important early on rather fuel. Strategy should always be map and opponent dependent.

This is also correct. Make sure that no matter how you split, you never cede any part of the map uncontested.

Two normal territory points will yield you as much fuel income as a Fuel-point; and you also get munitions income from them too. Normal territory points are also faster to capture.

Thus, if the enemy team is bent on capping the fuel point, you don't have to engage them head-on. Just send some harassment units to decap the peripheral strategic points.

However, in order to be able to steer your team to this level of play, you need to know them from before the game. If they've only known you for 30 secs, why should they trust you?

Strategy should always be map and opponent dependent.

This.

Simply doing "lets go 4 one side" on not aproporiate map/without proper strat ajustements will end with your base being destroyed from side you surrendered/easy cut offs/bombardment by arty spam of doom to death.

Not to mention, once you know your opponent goes for this BS one trick strat as a team, its extremely easy to harass their "supply line" (bottom steppes road to fuel are best example, just stick hmg in building near enemy base exit), killing all retreats and slowing all reinforsements in pointless fights untill their main force would be forced to mass retreat under pressure of your teammates (usually middle player on steppes does that with deep flank against trippling bottom enemy teams). Mines and demos for bonus points and more lulz.

OFC, it doesnt work this way against allies