1v1 OKW vs UKF: transition to blob countering

•  
  

  0

  VS

  AnAlternateWorld

  Leorique

  1v1 OKW vs UKF

  by: Antemurale map: Langreskaya

  1

  -

Hello everyone,

I've just come back from a month-long vacation, and decided to play some OKW. I had a bad start, losing Volks and the Kubel early-on, so I decided to switch to Panzerfusiliers. I
Late-game I brought out a JT to counter the Mortar Emplacement and his armor (especially the firefly).

I began to stabilize, and then he switched to blobbing, and though I had a Walking Stuka, I simply couldn't stop him.

Any advice would be welcome!

Also, just watch the last 30-min. It's an hour-long meatgrinder.

I'll be reviewing this. Starting from 30 minutes as requested. Thoughts posted shortly.

Largest problems this game was infantry preservation and unit selection. You lost a lot of squads because you didn't retreat them and eventually that lead to you being outnumbered and outgunned. You did well protecting your flanks with mines and infantry with snares late game which was good. You did float some munitions late game which could be used for additional mines.

JT and stuka are big red flags in 1v1s. Stukas rarely pay off and don't warrant 100 fuel for OKW, a faction that already has difficulty with fuel. JT is only effective against tanks and structures as you know, and that really hurt its effectiveness as you saw when he stopped making tanks and just made infantry. A KT instead of a JT would have been more effective. Once a JT is flanked its useless, something that the brits especially are very capable of. With emergency war speed as well as tulip rockets, taking down JTs is just a matter of bringing mine sweepers and coordination.

You brought in the JT to deal with the mortar pit and tanks, ISGs counter mortar pits since they outrange them and tanks can be dealt with rakatens and other tanks. A JP4 would've been just as suitable instead of the JT. If you went KT instead of JT you could've picked up a JP4 or panther to support later.

Overall you played smart, you just lost a lot of units for no reason. Late retreats, JT died to 1 RE squad with PIATS because you either ignored them or didn't notice. Just try and focus on improving your micro by keeping units active and retreating if you don't think you can win the fight. Losing manpower in a nonwinnable fight isn't worth the time.

Hi Atomicrockets, are you happy with feedback provided by ShadowLinkX37 or you need some strategist´s eye to look at ?

Largest problems this game was infantry preservation and unit selection. You lost a lot of squads because you didn't retreat them and eventually that lead to you being outnumbered and outgunned. You did well protecting your flanks with mines and infantry with snares late game which was good. You did float some munitions late game which could be used for additional mines.

JT and stuka are big red flags in 1v1s. Stukas rarely pay off and don't warrant 100 fuel for OKW, a faction that already has difficulty with fuel. JT is only effective against tanks and structures as you know, and that really hurt its effectiveness as you saw when he stopped making tanks and just made infantry. A KT instead of a JT would have been more effective. Once a JT is flanked its useless, something that the brits especially are very capable of. With emergency war speed as well as tulip rockets, taking down JTs is just a matter of bringing mine sweepers and coordination.

You brought in the JT to deal with the mortar pit and tanks, ISGs counter mortar pits since they outrange them and tanks can be dealt with rakatens and other tanks. A JP4 would've been just as suitable instead of the JT. If you went KT instead of JT you could've picked up a JP4 or panther to support later.

Overall you played smart, you just lost a lot of units for no reason. Late retreats, JT died to 1 RE squad with PIATS because you either ignored them or didn't notice. Just try and focus on improving your micro by keeping units active and retreating if you don't think you can win the fight. Losing manpower in a nonwinnable fight isn't worth the time.

Thanks ShadowLink!

I will continue to work on my unit preservation. I brought in a Stuka to break his HMG-AT wall, which it did quite effectively. However it just didn't have the impact I would have liked it to have in blob-countering. I let the JT die because I knew he had no tanks left, and wanted to open up the allocation for a KT, although I guess it was too late by then.

So, your suggestion would have been to get T2 down, double leIG to counter his static play, and pick up a JP4 as the first unit instead of a P4?

Hi Atomicrockets, are you happy with feedback provided by ShadowLinkX37 or you need some strategist´s eye to look at ?

Thanks Hector, I think I am quite satisfied with his feedback!

/closed

So, your suggestion would have been to get T2 down, double leIG to counter his static play, and pick up a JP4 as the first unit instead of a P4?

Double ISGs would have been fantastic however the JP4 alone may be been a bit much. In most games you should go for a p4 1st as OKW because it's the jack of all trades tank and can deal with most situations. So I believe your p4 pickup was fine, but because the KT lacks the range of tank destroyers it can be out ranged and with its slow speed kited. Which is why I suggest the JP4 if you believe it's needed, like if you're against double firefly. I don't think I've ever seen double FF in a 1v1 though. JP4 is also a better pickup if you don't have the time to reach the panther against heavily armored targets, specifically allied heavies such as KV series or churchill series. P4s have a 50% chance to pen a KV-8 at close range so it's really just a gamble whether or not you can deal damage to it.

TL : DR Double leig is great, even just 1 is perfectly ok to deal with a single mortar pit but if it's truly being an issue it can warrent a JP4. Most cases though a p4 is the choice for its versitality. Just be wary of certain issues with the p4 against some heavier armored targets.

Got it, thanks for the advice!