Profile of donofsandiego

snip

Thanks for the input. I've been learning a lot. I'll keep what you said in mind.

snip

You make a good point.

I'm going to try a T3 skip, in that case.

T1>Rifle>Scout Upg>Rifle>WSC>Bazooka>ISC>M3>AT Upgrade>M3>Ambulance>Riflemen>Grenades>BAR, maybe another bazooka squad, Advanced Logistics, etc.

Then Hellcats for MBT

I decided to come back to CoH 3 with a new goal in mind: attempt to play proficiently at the factions I like to play (DAK and US), without "crutching" on doctrinal infantry. I had a somewhat easy time as DAK, once some people gave me a few pointers, but US was a bit of a different story. Infantry Support Center was something that I could never get to work in 4v4 during the multiplayer beta, and so I wanted to see what I could do to make it work.

Let's be upfront about this:
It's difficult to play. It's not very aggressive until mid-late game, and it doesn't abuse the chaffee like everyone else is doing currently (it's included in the build, but the army composition doesn't revolve around them. Therefore, I think it's safe to classify this build as OFF META. ooo spooky

Additionally, I'm still working on it. Trying to see if I should fit in a riflemen here or there, but I did a pretty good job sticking to tight timing on my tech.

Outdated:
Show Spoiler

New Build:
https://www.coh2.org/topic/111554/4v4-us-infantry-support-company-build-non-doc/post/897620


Feel free to leave a reply with your opinion on the build. I am Show Spoiler always looking to improve my gameplay, and, as they say: two heads are better than one.

Vs. Randoms 4v4
-replay game_VS_elite_inf.rec

A 4v4 game where I demonstrate the panzergren build with DAK. Pgren>250>Pgren>Pgren>Tech x 2(Varies from here)>254>Marder>Grenade

From what I've heard, the build isn't very applicable to smaller gamemodes, so 1v1 and 2v2 players need not apply, but if you're playing DAK and you feel like you're getting stomped on, this build might be just the thing to make you feel worth a damn again.

Basically, what ends up happening is that I lose a bunch of early game engagements because I'm not able to properly flank the Brit MG (user error ofc), and I end up losing the VP for maybe 4-5 minutes. It was such a rough engagement that they even attempt to cap the ammunition point by my HQ, they get so cocky. I regroup, however, and with the 8 Rad, I push back out and take my VP. I then got a Marder, and a 254 after.

I'm successfully able to defend the VP against 2 ghurka squads, get multiple teamweapon steals, and I even force my opponent back to base. In addition, I'm able to defend the VP against two opponents attacking one after the other.

Sadly my teammates were struggling pretty hard south of me, so we lost the game. I tried to flank down into middle a couple times, to varying effect.

I know I'm not as high skill as some of y'all on here, but I feel like it would still be a fun watch. I'd be happy to hear what you have to say about it.

P.S. - oh yeah, I didn't even select a battlegroup. I've been trying to get proficient at playing DAK with the base roster, so that's the reason for that.

It's more than once that I've seen this on forums somewhere, but I cannot for the life of me understand why Europeans continue to call AI "IA".

Why are Europeans like this? Why? *I* am an intelligent adversary, *you* are an intelligent adversary, a goddamn cat can be an intelligent adversary if you're playing with it with a string. It's a f!@#$ing Artificial Intelligence. A robot. Not real. Artificial.

Maybe this made sense back when brits invented automated tiddlywinks machines that they could play against or some shit, but once multiplayer games were invented, "IA" stopped making sense.

I come across Intelligent Adversaries every 4v4 PvP game (some less than others). It's a terrible descriptor.

Is this just the Europeans' version of the Imperial measurement system?

How long until they realize "AI" (the metric system) is just better in every way?