So you live in an alternate reality?
in what patch did volks loose to cons at long range?
How trash are you to let rifles and cons get into close range?
honestly.
Every issue u post on these forums are not l2p issues.
They are retard issues
I actually live in reality, unlike you where in your head Volks are the best early, mid and late game infantry. Anyways, it's clear that you don't quite understand this game, or you're just ignoring facts due to Allied bias. It's a fact that Rifles win at any engagement versus Volks; you're literally the only one arguing that they're better than Rifles. Conscripts is a toss up, but 9 out of 10 times, they'll win the engagement.
My playercard speaks for itself, it's not a L2P issue. You also mostly play 4v4's as well, so might I suggest that you play some 1v1's and 2v2's? You'll find that Volks are the worst main infantry unit in the game, when it comes to infantry versus infantry. The only thing that's keeping Volks alive is because of their Panzershreks. Take them away and Volks are effectively useless. |
I didnt say they were out classed. But they are better infantry for many reasons.
And those reasons were debunked by several users in this thread. They're not better infantry if we're talking about early-mid game, but they do become good during late game once they reach vet 4/5. Even when they achieve maximum veterancy, their anti-infantry damage output isn't that impressive.
I'd trade Volks for either Rifles or Conscripts because at least I know that my infantry has a chance to win an engagement on their own. With Volks it doesn't matter if you engage at long, medium or short range; you're going to lose the engagement. |
If you let them lose. L2 use cover and support your infantry.
Lol, no. You'll find that most people agree that Volks are outclassed by both Rifles and Conscripts. When playing the US faction, all you have to do is walk up to the Volks and force retreat. If They didn't have shreks, no one would be building Volks because the ONLY thing they have going for them is their shreks. |
|
Ratchet, do you even play CoH2? Volks are outclassed from the very beginning until mid game. Rifles absolutely destroy Volks as well as Conscripts. Honestly, I don't think you even play the game judging by your "opinions" which are factually wrong. |
You seem unwilling - or unable -to differentiate between realism and authenticity. (and also,you are unhistorical). Normally , I am unwilling to engage like this,frankly, bcs if I debate, I do not want my opponent to argue that I hide behind my badge,, or whatever nonsense. But, there is so much wrong here, again,that I feel I have to take off my staff hat and help you. Therefore, if you wish to resist stubbornly but politely, sobeit. Other staff can moderate us, for as long as I can be bothered to stay in the discussion.
I know the difference between realism and authenticity, so there's no need for a lecture there. As for your claim that i'm unhistorical, I demand that you retract that statement. Everything I've said in this thread is backed up by historians, educated civil servants(Teachers) and even officers and soldiers themselves who fought in WW2. My grandfather served in WW2 and fought against the Italians, and he said they were cowards who were afraid of a good fight.
Italy did not initially have the worst military in WWII in the way you describe: quite arguably, that description might have fallen on the French or the British in May 1940.
Wrong, they did have the worst military. Look up the "Italian invasion of France" on wikipedia or click this link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_invasion_of_France
The Italians couldn't decisively defeat the French Army despite outnumbering them severely(300 thousand Italians vs 50 thousand French troops of the Republic) AND Germany attacking France at the same time. This was in 1940(Early in the war) and everything Italy had was inferior to everyone else's equipment; both Germany and France had much better equipment than Italy.
I don't mean in just equipment
See above. Italy did have equipment that was greatly inferior to their enemies and allies. Most of their artillery were pieces that were secured during 1918 during their war with Hungary. I'm sorry but I refuse to believe the Italians had good equipment and were well supplied when they relied on WW1 artillery.
but outdated thinking, when facing the re-energised Wehrmacht. The French and the British had large armies, but their Commanders' mindset was apparently stuck in WWI (in no small means, through the drastic demobilisation after WW1)
Considering that outdated thinking, tactics and etc stopped the 300 thousand strong Italian Army invasion, what does that say about the Italians? They were stuck in the Medieval ages regarding tactics.
Italy had made its own gains in East Africa - and it took people like Slim and Wingate to dislodge them -and they were effective operators,as the history of the British 14th army confirms.
Source? Italy's gains in Africa were solely because of German equipment, men and officers. Of course you don't mention that the Italian command in Africa crumbled almost as soon as it began.
Oh please: this is what I mean by being unhistorical.
At a simplistic level, watch for the nth time "the Bridge over the River Kwai" - it gives you a taste - only a taste- of how the Allied armies had to reinvent themselves, by jungle training. Or you might watch "Merrills Marauders" - again only a taste, of how an US task force operated in the Burmese jungle.
But however you see it from Western eyes, there is little doubt (in my mind) that the Japanese Imperial Army was a formidable foe for the Allies whom they faced: the Japanese were committed 100% (Bushido) - and you ignored their soldiers at your peril. e.g.the Phillippines; Singapore; Borneo; Indonesia; The French East Indies (Vietnam); Burma; Guadacanal; New Guinea; the Solomon islands; Saipan; Tarawa; Iwo Jima; Okinawa...
Again, taken out of context. I never said Japan had a bad Army, quite the contrary actually. I said that Japan was recognised mainly because of their astounding naval and air force, along with their artillery arm; never before has an Asian country stepped into the World ring like Japan did, and they defeated several Western nations even before WW2. People were more impressed that an Asian country had such a formidable(And one of the best) Navy, and not their Army.
Much like the British who were recognised for having the best Navy in the World, but that doesn't mean their Army was poor; it just means that their naval power was much greater than their land force power. |
I'll quote man:
- being the worst military in WW2, i can agree, i don't think the worst but everyone knows that they lost in almost every theater of war they fought.
At least we can agree on this. CoH2 deserves factions that actually fought in WW2 and were skilled; Italy lost almost every battle even when they outnumbered their opposition, so they shouldn't be in CoH2. If Relic does decide to make an Italian faction, i'm going to start a petition demanding that they cancel it.
Italy never used old german weapons, i don't know why you should say this because it isn't true.
Yes, it is true. Italy mostly used German weapons, vehicles and etc. While they did have their own weapons like the Caracno, most of the Italian Army's equipment was supplied by the Germans. In fact, the only reason Italy lasted as long as it did was because of German men, women and German equipment.
Most of the italian soldiers would rather retreat from a fight isn't true. This happened during Operation Compass and never more.But the main reason is, we have only infantry, they have many heavy tanks and we have only light tanks and little AT guns, if you want to die you're welcome, what would you have done? For retreating i think you are talking about Greece, ok you're right that the italian army retreated to Albanian borders and some kilometers behind it but the legend says that the Greek army had less troops then the italian ones, this is right only for the beginning of the invasion and the push during Operation Marita, but if you look at the numbers when the greek army counterattacked the italian soldiers had half men that greek army had. I'm sure you will say: the germans destroyed the greeks in weeks: first of all, the greek army sent 330.000 soldiersin Albania, while the germans fought against 100.000 greek soldiers and the germans used tanks better because they weren't fighting on the mouintains and the bulk of the greek army was fighting the italians. After this episodes, the italians never surrendered on large scale, in El Alamein there were many italian prisoners because there were few vehicles, many had been destroyed by british aircrafts or were seized by the germans.
No, it is true. Masses of Italian troops either surrendered or just ran from battle, because they were poorly trained, had incompetent officers and outdated equipment and tactics. The only time Italian soldiers didn't run from a battle was during their invasion of the British Somaliland, and even then the British only lost 50 troops compared to Italy's 500+.
Anyways, I don't care what the Greeks did since we're talking about the Italian Army. History showed that Italians couldn't fight which perplexes me since Italians are the supposed descendants of the Roman Empire, who had the greatest military in the world.
You forget that Italy was famous primarily for their Navy, at the beginning of the war italy had 100 submarines. The Air Force became stronger after 1941, before it wasn't well developed, for the artillery there's Flak88mm's brother, the Cannone da 90/53, difference? The Flak had 88mm, the italian gun 90mm.
They weren't famous for their Navy because most of their ships were old and they had very few modern ships(No aircraft carriers as well). Even Japan had a much better Navy than the Italians, which is surprising because Italy had much more resources and financial support than the Japanese. |
|
Italy can't be added because they had the worst military in WW2. They used mostly old German weapons, vehicles and etc and most Italian soldiers would rather retreat from a fight, than actually fight the battle. Even Japan had better tanks, weapons and soldiers than Italy, and Japan wasn't even recognised for their Army, but rather for their astounding Navy, artillery and Air Force.
Italy won't be added and you can quote me on that. |
|
Lol at the people who are against an Imperial Japanese Army faction because it isn't realistic. Keep in mind, CoH2 isn't a simulator and we've had many outlandish/stylish units that spits on historical authenticity.
In CoH1 we had the Knights Cross Holders and a US sniper. For CoH2 we have Russians and Americans double teaming the Germans in Russia, or in France. Anything can happen as long as the units, vehicles and etc are from WW2. |
|
I think they're balanced. If they manage to close the distance, they absolutely kill any infantry. Whenever I play Axis in CoH2, I always dread Assault Engineers because if they close in, I have to retreat my troops or they get squad wiped. |
|
Almost time for me to sleep. Anyways, that's what I meant when I said "currency system"; a system that's pretty much like Dota 2's. Really, there's no patent on the economy model Valve uses for Dota 2, so why doesn't Relic just use Dota 2's model? The game has potential to earn a substantial revenue just by selling skins, unit, weapon models and etc. I've spent $80+ in Dota 2 because the content they put out I feel is worth it; Relic just needs to make quality unit models/skins, vehicle skins and etc and people will buy it, as long as it doesn't affect gameplay. |
Canada
Relic Entertainment
보드카 중대 
