Profile of Cyanara

When high level players collide, things get very bloody...

I don't understand what the USF side needed cheering up about...

Yep .. isnt there a way to watch older replays ? A replay viewer or smth like that ?

Yeah, there's a couple of ways. There's a link in my signature below. The catch is that it's only useful if the multiplayer isn't changed, and the last patch changed plenty (there have been a number of minor patches in the past that made replays old while only changing minor singleplayer stuff).

All the rules for how units act are provided by the game itself. The replays files only contain movement and attack instructions for that game. When the rules change, those instructions stop making sense, unfortunately.

Need a Veto guide?
Here it is:
Play custom maps

Not really an option for people who want ranked automatches. That said, I would certainly be interested in seeing some of the better community maps being introduced to shake up the many dubious official maps. However, that is not something I can make happen, and not the topic at hand.

As per a suggestion in the Shoutbox, I thought I'd create a space where people could offer their current map veto recommendations for COH2 and provide some justification for those decisions. There never seem to be enough vetoes, personally, so I expect people will have varying suggestions.

Here are my suggestions for vetoing in 1v1:


USF
Map: Langreskaya
Reasons: Just a bit too open. Rifles can get mowed down at a distance by LMGs due to lack of cover for flanking. The games on this map always go so long that you'll probably have to deal with serious heavy armour as well (although Jacksons will have room to counter).

Map: Crossing in the Woods
Reasons: Much the same as above.

Map: Minsk Pocket
Reasons: Stalemate map. Very limited flanking opportunities. Substantial risk of late game Axis weaponry breaking through your lines easily.


OKW
Map: Stalingrad
Reasons: Allied infantry generally favour close range combat. Volks prefer range, and sturmpioneers are expensive, slow to build, and fast to die. There are also key points where infantry can garrison very solid buildings and OKW have no effective means of countering beyond overwhelming numbers or infiltration grenades.

Map: La Gleize Breakout
Reasons: This map is filled with garrisonable buildings at key areas. OKW have to rush the buildings first, or use infiltration grenades to stand a chance.

Map: Semoskiy Winter
Reasons: As with the other two, the buildings on this map can be frustrating to clear. There are also two cut-off points denying you precious ammunition constantly. I went with the snow one because snow sucks. That said, sturms aren't slowed down by it at all, so if you have to choose then this one might actually be better in some circumstances.


Wehrmacht (Ostheer)
Map: Stalingrad
Reasons: A very tight map. Grenadiers are easily rushed and MG42s lose their wide arc of fire. Assault grenadiers can be useful, but that limits your doctrine choices.

Map: Kholodny Ferma Winter
Reasons: Only one side of the map is worth holding and grenadiers are easily rushed there, or focused into mined chokepoints. Deep snow everywhere can mean your squads get wiped frequently as well.

Map: Semoskiy Winter
Reasons: Hard to hold ammunition points, and much harder to hold a vital fuel point compared to the non-winter version.


Soviets
Map: Crossing in the Woods
Reasons: Open map. Hard to flank or use molotovs.

Map: Langreskaya
Reasons: Open map. Hard to flank or use molotovs. Also practically guaranteed to last long enough for German players to get out heavy armour.

Map: Minsk Pocket
Reasons: Relatively open map. Favours long range weapons in the middle. Flanks are limited and games usually lead to boring stalemates thanks to far-back VPs and lack of cover. Optional veto, really. Soviets are probably the most flexible faction.