Camping

So every time I watch SNF I feel the game is extremely campy. Was it always like that and my perception changed, or is the current meta about camping, and the other player to try to camp even more to win?

No flanking, not cutoff, few mg reposition, just put each unit at the best place for it and leave it there, and then wait for sniper and extremely passive tank play to drain manpower.

Maybe it's due to the custom maps?

Is WM T1 too strong that is is actually not flankable anymore?

Why not US players getting mortar in such stale games? Too bad vs snipers?

Are players in SNF all so good that there is just too few mistakes to exploit thus camping and waiting for it? Or too afraid to make said mistakes and camping to not do it?

Well whenever I flank usually FTFL pops 0_o and the engagement ends very badly. I do get alot of mortars in my game to counter this but never see top level players utilise this.

Well whenever I flank usually FTFL pops 0_o and the engagement ends very badly. I do get alot of mortars in my game to counter this but never see top level players utilise this.

snipers and mortars can't run away from snipers.

I think the main reason (from personal experience) is recently most players go Defensive doctrine with heavier T1. FTFL counters flanks unless they are perfect, and since Snipers are included in almost every opening now the early mortar is punished really hard.

The 2 "new" maps. Who actually played more than 50 games on them ?

It ties in to snipers being to strong IMO. Only need to lose 2 guys and your mortar might be gone.

The games yesterday were extremely slow and campy. It might be because of the custom maps though. Either because they are not as well designed as the retail maps, they are not played as much as the retail maps (so people don't feel safe in their abilities to flank and lack full knowledge of how the maps look) or a combination of the two.

I think MG play has definitely changed since the start of the patch. A lot of players are quite content to stick it in a strong building and leave it there, camp the local area and wait for tech or a big retreat.

I think it's the buff we gave to MG42s and volks in 2.602 that caused this stall situation. If you add ftfl US players tend to play more passively waiting for artillery instead of attempting a big flanking mavouver, WM players play more passively waiting for pumas/tanks.


And snipers are too important in this patch. If you lose it you basically have to make it again in the next 3-4 minutes or you will lose the game.

1) WM t1 in good hands is very hard to flank, its a gamble. Harder to push WM away (heavy t1, ftfl), and easier FOR WM to get back (snipers, stuh)

2) Stuh as a separate point. US players are no longer eager to go bars and flank since they know how extremely fast stuh can hit the field and they are in danger of having, at best, a motor pool finished when that happens.

3) Custom maps like someone mentioned, naturally everyone will play cautious, especially as US.

Good points by Guderian.

It's because of the risks associated with flanking, Hitting one mine with the wrong squad can end up ruining the whole flank, and a failed flank - whatever the cause - ends up costing lots of manpower.

Even as we reached the end of the last patch WM was beginning to dominate earlier and earlier. So I do not believe it's because of the volks and mg change, both of which I don't find that significant.

At the same time it's now much more viable for US to tech now. Pak nerf and firestorm nerf to howi (no longer one shotting it) makes lategame US much more viable. Snipers have, for both sides, gotten easier and more efficient to use now that they don't run for cover. The stuh comes earlier and the American player may risk getting a stuh up his ass if he overly commits to anti infantry.

The result is that it's much more risky for the US to attack in the early game, compared to when he's gotten a little bit of tech, and that US lategame is pretty much on par with WM.

Most people will play safer on maps they haven't played before, but I actually believe that the layouts on them encourage continous manpower skirmishes rather than camping. The cutoffs aren't as important to hold as on normal maps (Langres, Ango cutoff and Semois bridge), especially not on Bois.

To sum up I think it's because the level of play has gotten better than ever before. This in turn has made it riskier to commit to an attack into uncharted territory (early game flanks are an attack into unknown). With balance changes to tech, it's now much more viable to get tech rather than try to end it early; good play atm is getting the tech advantage while losing as little manpower as possible.

yer, wht he said^^

It also depends on the players, if I'm involved, I don't mind stalling and slowing down the game at all ^^

Awesome thread

Aimstrong beat me. Going for Sniper and teching is more safe than early flank. If you early flanks fail it might be gg for you.


Since you only have a couple of games in SNF, people don't like taking risks.

Seb should show em how it's done? WHO'S WITH ME?

http://www.coh2.org/news/859/snf-s4-third-quali-sign-ups-now-open

I don't think I could show anything but how bad I probably am at the moment. Isn't it full already either way?

I think anybody that signed up right now and checks in will play. The waitlist is very short and we've been getting the standard 40% noshows.

Quite a lot of known names though so i fear (i'm waitlisted) the percentage will be lower.