Moved to Red Army Strategies at Turbo's request
Thanks Maj, you're the best.
allright,
so i get a 7 days ban when on another topic i noticed that the guy giving advice was not even top 300 but here this guy say that i am "dangerous" and "unproductive" and goes away with it ?
For obvious reason, i won't say anything directly on you and your skill but you should consider more my advise.
I have no say in the moderation, if you have a problem, PM one of our tireless mods, they do a thankless job keeping this community somewhat productive, so please be considerate.
Also I did consider what you said. I wasn't saying that your feedback was poor, I was however being critical of how you presented it and your argument structure. Surely you can understand the dangers of saying "do X and you'll win." CoH as in life is a little more complicated and nuanced than that, and if we want to avoid the nihilism that AAA suggests plagues us-- it is my suggestion that we look a bit deeper, be more mindful, and come up with real solutions to problems we can solve with the skills and tools we have.
x
Changed the color
And i'm not sure, what we can talk more on this thread tbh^^
Your replay is done and i guess alot allready spoke about soviets in 1vs1.
Lets hope the patch will come soon and then we have to look.
Atm in this patch brits, soviet are very ez to play to rank up and have fun^^.
Hiyah Sturm, I hardly get a chance to speak with you in any threads, so allow me to take the opportunity to say how much I appreciate your feedback and participation around this place.
I do however want to discuss midgame army composition, because it's something that plagues me in a lot of my games, not just in this one instance.
It is becoming more clear to me that I did not have enough units on the field to both harry my opponents resources as well as maintain a defensive front on my own resources. Your argument of "more because more" is simplistic on its face, the only clarification I request is the pragmatics of it, because I'm struggling to believe that maintaining 4 front line squads, 2 elite infantry squads and a smattering of support teams is sustainable.
If I may ask a favour, it's a quite an imposition, so I apologize and understand if you deny my request, but could you point to a replay where this is the case? I would love to see it in action, and don't have the time/motivation myself to try it at the moment.
---Had you known of the coming StuG Es I believe this is where you would've turned the match. Preping for the StuG Es with another SU-76 or side tech for zis guns.----
This is the part that confuses me. I feel although I was partially caught off by them, (I still had the Su76 and a ZiS almost immediately which wasn't enough) I feel I made the best decision with the resources I had at the time. Losing both naturally doesn't help, but I was also at risk of losing my headquarters if I didn't fight at all.
So I guess what I'm trying to say is. I feel given the mistakes up to the point, I made the best decision, therefore we have to examine what I did wrong prior. Can that be attributed to:
Floating resources earlier to that point which led to:
-losing a cut off multiple times
-lacking offensive pressure
which thereby limited my tech and my ability to deal with StuG's and a Tiger?
if that is the case, how many units is enough, and at what time do I need these units? After all manpower income isn't tied to territory anymore. I can't quite remember when my float got out of hand, perhaps a few minutes after the 'script squad? And therefore, was this (and I presume a cut off) actually the crucial point in this game, was the game for all intents and purposes actually over already and the StuG's / my counterattack before hand just a coup de grâce and delaying the inevitable?