Profile of SuperJew

I'm just looking it as someone who played quite a bit of Red Orchestra 2 and is a firearms enthusiast, at the onset of WWII, except perhaps for the US Army, most armies were equipped with bolt actions for standard issue firearms. In Red Orchestra 2, a semi-automatic rifle like a SVT-40 or a Gewehr-43 is a highly prized possession over a standard issue Mosin-Nagant or Kar98k

I'm thinking that an SVT-40 equipped Penal Squad even with minimal military training, or a Garand equipped US Rifle squad should be kicking some major Grenadier/VolksGrenadier butt. Perhaps it's due to Balance issues, of course when balance is absent you can always up the cost for the better performing unit and lower the popcap for the lesser performing unit. I kinda wish Relic had added this into the game when they made coh2.

It really doesnt make too much sense that a grenadier squad with 2 g43's and 2 kar98k's does as well as it does against a 6man SVT-40 Penal Battalion or 5 man US Rifle Squad, Garand was the Rifle that WOn the War after all.

Knowing what I know about Germany Infantry Combat in WWII, German doctrine of the time centered and revolved around the HMG's and LMG's (I theorize this is in part due to them having the best MG's of the entire war out of all the armies), the frontline infantry did a lot of carrying of ammo for the MG's as opposed to front line fighting whereas American doctrine of the time used MG's as a weapon to support the infantry. Due to this difference in battlefield doctrine, the Germans were capable of tying up large amounts of allied troops with significantly inferior numbers due to the sheer firepower of their machine guns and their battlefield doctrine revolving around the MG. This is part of how the Germans took only 20,000 casualties to the Allies 55,000 in the Battle of Mt. Cassino

(Off topic, for all the WWII enthusiasts, my Grandpa fought in Monte Cassino, I just visited him 2 weeks ago, he's still alive at the ripe age of 96, his wife too at 93)

I'm a bit surprised that people are having so much trouble with this thing because for me, unless it's too well supported, the bofors is a joke, not being cocky, it's just on the rounds that my PC doesn't lag out, I consistently kill them. I genuinely look forward to playing against brit opponents because I have their goose pretty well cooked unless they're some kind of coh expert.

Ok first I need to go into my opening build. This WILL NOT WORK in a 1v1 due to lack of infantry in the opening, I mainly play 3v3's and 4v4's and mooch off my teammates opening infantry/mg's.

So my opener is mortar/mortar/gren/gren/gren and send my opening units along with my teammates to one side of the map to overwhelm the enemy team on that side.

I've been doing this opening very consistently because more than half my games are against 4v4 teams with 2 brits on them at minimum. I suspect this would work in 2v2's and 3v3's if you coordinated with your teammate that you were opening with 2 mortars so he would know to protect them and keep the enemy from infiltrating your mortar squads while you got your grens together. Your main goal with a 2 mortar opening is keep your mortars constantly firing while never getting infiltrated by your enemy or receiving damage, I recently lost a round because I left my mortars out in the open as opposed to behind a hedgerow.

Basically the 2 mortar opening hard-counters the vickers, and is great to get the upper hand early on in the initial infantry battles, it's like dropping a grenade on the enemy troops every 4 seconds and makes their own cover work against them since if I'm not mistaken I think mortars may actually do more damage if the unit is in cover and it hits in the right spot.

After my 3rd gren, I'm at a minor crossroads. WIth the recent nerf to the reinforcing ability of the flame half-track, sometimes I do a small forward base with a forward heal bunker and forward reinforce bunker side by side in a safe spot behind a building or hedgerow to keep my armies on the field and maintain field presence and keep the pressure on the enemy throughout early-mid game.

The other thing I'll do is I'll get a flame half-track to bolster my Anti-Infantry. But if I need to start worrying about say early Armored cars, or tanks and such because my enemy is getting good fuel income and I know it, I bolster my Anti-tank abilities with 2 pgren schreck squads. Spending your munitions correctly is very crucial, I hold off on the Gren upgrades until last.

As for the Bofors that is popping up somewhere between my flame halftrack and 2nd Pgren squad, there are several non-doctrinal counters I have in mind that I use and one I just thought up after reading this thread, but they all revolve around the mortar for me seeing as how stug's, P4 and the Panther's maingun is more of a soft counter than a hard counter to a Bofors.

Assuming it's not supported by a mortar pit which complicates things since the mortar pit hard counters your mortars, you just keep rapid-fire dropping mortars on it until it dies from my pair of mortars. 1 mortar is not enough, but 2 will get the job done.

If you need further destructive power against the bofors because he's actively repairing it while you drop mortars on him while he braces the structure not I just thought of this clever strategy. You can drop some smoke rounds in front of the Bofors, so it will not be able to get a line of sight on your units, THEN You can send a flame pioneer and your flame halftrack up right after that and click attack-ground and together they will burn the bofors through the smoke that is blocking it from firing back at you. I haven't tested this, but I did successfully damage a bofors using attack-ground through a small hill that it could not see or fire through, so I think my smoke in front of it with the mortars would work.

You might also send the Pgrens in to get a few schreck shots off using attack ground and through the smoke, but be careful to not let them get squad wiped.

Anyways these are some of the ways I've been handling the bofors as of late, really hasn't caused much of a problem for me so I was wondering if there was a patch that came out between the start of this thread and now where bofors were much more invincible than they are currently.

BTW I hate the spearhead doctrine, I just don't like it so it's not even in my lineup and I like saving my muni's for more permanent weapons rather than one shot incendiary rounds that don't always kill what it is you're trying to kill.

I'm on a pretty good 4v4 AT I forget our win lose ratio, it's like 38 and 4, but we got our 4th loss tonight and I have a theory as to why it happened but I want confirmation from the COH2 community if we went about it all wrong. No I don't have a replay, but I can pretty much accurately describe what I think cost us the round.

So on your 4v4 and 3v3 maps, I think taking an approach to the map like it's say 3 1v1's or 2 2v2's is the wrong approach when you got 3 teammates. I do think that spreading out and defeating your opponent is a way to get a fast win in, but if you're trying to maintain a win streak, the better safe than sorry route is better, which is for the team to work together and support each other and focus one side of the map more than the other.

We were playing General Mud, the two OKW players went for left fuel, me and the other Wehrmacht player went for right fuel. Neither of our split up team got either fuel, and we eventually lost the round. I think that if this had happened on other maps, against a strong team we were facing, it would have played out similarly, whether it was Steppes, Hill 331, or say a 3v3 map like Pavlov's House, maybe even Oka River (usually I have one guy go country on Oka river as a matter of insurance incase the other two don't get the fuel/muni in the town).

Do you think when you're trying to maintain a win streak on a good 4v4 team, we should be heavily focusing just one half, or a connected 2/3's of the map, or do you think, as I think that spreading out our forces and taking as much territory as we can on our own is the best approach to a 4v4 team? For example on Steppes, 2 go Island, 1 go middle, and 1 go top for munitions, IMO would be spreading out our forces too much to take anything for sure.

I play a lot of random games, and sometimes my random teammates will get mad because I'll help the other side more than the side closer to my spawn simply because I want to guarantee we hold at least half the map rather than hold no advantage over splitting up into two separate 2v2's.

I'm not really the leader of our group as I have a more Beta male personality overall, which is why I didn't propose this idea prior to the round starting and letting everyone do their own thing that they wanted, my team chose to spread out and I went along with it.

There is only one Allied strategy that I lose to about 100% of the time for the past year or 2 and thats soviet sniper spam.

I don't really feel outplayed when he uses the one strategy that I really haven't found a direct hard counter for. I dunno, CAS and spam stuka strafe? Got me. I use to hear G43's were good at hard countering snipers, but apparently Relic changed that in a patch so they no longer did the long range damage required to kill snipers, not to mention my 3gren squads were equipped with G43's.

I think it might be better counters in perhaps a 1v1, but in a 3v3, factor in your teammate who's spamming mg's at guns and SU85's, makes it hard if not impossible without losing units, for infantry or tanks to get to killing range for his snipers.

If I recall correctly the Scheldt was one of the most popular 3v3 maps in COH1 thats why I propose bringing it back