Profile of REforever

I should've waited for a daily deal but I was never one that understood patience. Ended up buying 3 copies of the WFA; 2 are for some mates and one is for an alt account, so I can test strats and play some games where people won't know who I am and try to throw just so I'll lose.

Paper Elite was the worst faction in vCOH. You had to work like hell to keep pace with your enemy and the main problem was that a weaker opponent could beat you.
It was looking allright, nice and shiny, but it was kinda' frustrating to play with it.

Yeah, you actually had to micro and learn the intricacies of the faction if you wanted to win; that's what made the faction unique and strong. The faction itself wasn't the problem, it was the player behind the faction; it was indeed possible to beat the best US and British players as Panzer Elite, but as you pointed out, you actually had work for that win.

"LAURENCE REES: So what lessons were we learning in North Africa?

ROBERT CITINO: Well, better intelligence. General Montgomery benefited from the Enigma Intelligence or Ultra Intelligence that was flowing into his headquarters, and soldiers in both the British and the American Army learnt that a German tank attack as impressive and as much, to use the current cliché, shock and awe as it contained was also something that could be countered with massed anti-tank guns, with steadier infantry formations, and with better fire control systems for the artillery. And certainly the British Army had learned those things by itself by Rommel’s last great throw of the dice at the end of 1942. Montgomery was then able to go on the offensive and actually destroy a German Army, something that the Western Allies had not been able to do up until this point. And Churchill’s famous saying that before Alamein we never had a victory and after Alamein we never had a defeat, still speaks volumes to my mind about armies having to learn how to win."

See they do praise Monty's expertise on using superior British Intelligence in order to counter the german blitzkrieg with superb defensive line, he also trained troops and built morale which is very important. No one said it was USA Equipement that defeated Rommel they just say that the landing 60 000 US troops sealed the deal. They mainly pick on Monty for having an inflated ego and taking credit for things he did not do or merit. By the way, the Australians and New Zealanders did not get along with Montgomery, they made a bing chunk of the colonial troops.

Rommel did not really screw it up in Africa, he was in a desperate position and gambled it all on the El Alamein offensive because he had no more supplies so he attempted a breaktrough (He failed, it happens). Then the Afrika Korps lost the initiative and was hunted down; that is how you lose wars. The same thing happened in Kursk on the eastern front, the Ostheer lost the initiative forever. Truly it was the German High Command that screwed up by not giving more strategic importance to the North African Theather, replacing Rommel would not have changed the outcome. I'm still glad the Axis lost in North Africa, I'm just noting that it was a formidable training ground for the US Army, the British Forces and the Free French at Bir Hakeim, in part because Rommel was a splendid enemy and thus teacher. Rommel's lack of victories in Normandy are also the consequence of the lack of initiative, the germans were on full defense at the operational and strategic level, if you're constantly taking punches then u can't win as you lack initative and can't punch back/riposte.

Regarding Guderian.

Lol, several historians in your link heavily implied that the only reason Montgomery won was because US troops were secured and en route. Your links aren't credible because they're extremely biased, and i'm surprised you don't see this yourself.

As for Montgomery, he was the most skilled General the Allies had except for maybe Guy Simonds and Harry Crerar, so if he defeated Rommel it was because of superior tactics. Honestly, I don't even know why you're complaining about the fact that I said Montgomery defeated Rommel and thus considered better; if Rommel was better, he would've defeated Montgomery. Napoleon Bonaparte was outnumbered in most of his battles but he won most of them despite that disadvantage. By saying Rommel was outnumbered, you're trying to shift blame away from him and you're even insulting all the great Generals in history who defeated opponents who had numerical superiority.

Australians and New Zealanders respected Montgomery because he was a front line General and was incredibly intelligent and skilled; he made sure that all of his troops were ready and he didn't believe in huge gambles. Rommel on the other hand was willing to sacrifice entire divisions on the whim, and that's why he lost and why British tactics were superior.

If Albert Kesselring or Erich von Manstein was in charge of the Afrika corps, their chances of achieving victory would be much higher compared to Rommel's.

Did you even bother to read and watch the sources I gave you? Nobody is bashing Monty on account of his British origin (2 of the interviewed hisorians are british) but Monty skill ultimately did not factor that much in the winning of the desert war. However declaring Rommel as the worst German General, well that's just ignorant, he's not overrated at all, Guderian is the one that's overated. What's next Friedrich der GroBe and Napoleon Bonaparte were the worst generals in history?

Yes, I read your sources and came to the conclusion they're wrong. They keep going on about how Montgomery didn't defeat Rommel because of his experience, skills and tactics but because of American equipment. Here's something to take into account, if anyone else but Montgomery was in given the task of defeating Rommel and pushing Germany out of Africa, would they have been able to accomplish that task? Montgomery when WW2 broke out had considerable battlefield experience and was highly respected among colonial troops; he was by no means inexperienced and inept. Rommel on the other hand didn't have much experience and wasn't respected by a lot of his troops(Italians and Germans).

Guderian was actually a skilled General, but I can't say the same about Rommel; he literally screwed Germany in Africa and I honestly believe someone else should've replaced him. Look no further than Normandy where he was stationed after his defeat in Africa; was he able to achieve victories there? No, not even close.

A few of your points are valid such as squad wipes from call in units like the IS2 and ISU, but are you seriously complaining about playing against good players? The only way you'll get better at this game is to play against people who are above your skill bracket.

Anyways, i'm going to add in teammates that throw harder than EG. I've had games where victory was assured(2 KT's, vet 5 Fusiliers and etc) but my teammate threw the game and I ended up paying the price for his folly.

The worst part is that some of my teammates who threw these games did so on purpose just so I would get a loss.