Profile of turbotortoise

Love to hear the logic behind that. Hard data that shows how often factions win and lose obviously doesn't reflect their relative overall strength - right?

Despite the immense amount of hard work by Paid_Player that goes into producing these infographics, the fact of the matter is that what is displayed are just simple counting metrics, nothing more. Having an in depth discussion with him and minds much brighter than my own over this, the main take away was: although numbers don't lie, people do. I think people have jumped onto the "I'm being quantitative, therefore my argument has more validity train" without actually properly thinking through what these numbers represent, and without recognizing that these "statistics" belay the actual nature of situational, unit, and player behavior. Furthermore, only measuring 250 players doesn't give a very representative sample of anything, not to mention it fails to represent players playing within the same bracket. A lot of the ladder is top250 bodying those in the 500--1200 range, which is... suffice to say, a disparate skill gap, and really should not be used objectively as evidence of balance.

To address the topic at hand, I would tend to stay away from the UKF and the Wehrmacht until you have learned some core tactical theory, ie. fire and maneuver and unit preservation, since mistakes are exacerbated and one slip up can lose you games, and your sanity. Once you have a better understanding of the "phases of the game" unit timing , map control (these are especially important if you would like to play as the relatively static UKF) and pressing you should sit down and ask yourself how you like to play, what is your general posture and strategy? Which units and situations do you excel with?

As a general rule of thumb, with the USF, you can be overwhelming and press high up the map like a demon, and so long as you preserve your units, maintain the pressure across as broad a front as possible, and time your teching correctly you should have success. The OKW are flexible, but require you to "read" your opponent and then make the correct decision to adapt to your situation at hand. The Soviets are similar but reward executing a plan more so than the OKW where you can freestyle a little more, I would consider the Soviets to be fairly rigid in their stratagem.

Also, PanzerGeneralForever makes a very strong point. Given the congested map design in team games, defensive factions get a natural force multiplier that they would not have had in a 1v1-- an arena that can be very difficult considering more mobile factions will run them off the map.

I've put about 12 hours into a campaign and haven't been particularly impressed. It's something I've been meaning to articulate.

*space reserved for future thoughts*

x

My arguments:

The bofors is far too strong and is spoiling gameplay.

You cannot "flank" a bofors in the traditional sense of getting to its blindspot as it has 360 degree facing.

There is no cost-effective alternative.


Lastly, You need to play against it to understand. Throwing out opinions from an ivory tower is pointless. Try a few games and then come talk about flanking a bofors.

This isn't an argument, you're making absolute statements without actually having anything substantive, or even remotely "thesis-y" to which I can actually "learn to what extent [you are] right/wrong".

The only thing argumentative is your questioning of the experience that I base my statements on, something I have already defended. I don't wish to waste my time reiterating, so you may take it or continue to question it, but that's not the thrust of this argument. If you have any personal gripes, perhaps PM is a better forum for that.

So again, unless you have something further to add. I don't think we have anything more to discuss Bulgakov, our disagreement is stalwart.

I like that the Tiger lost some of it's tank hunting capability. This gives commanders a bit more of a pause when deciding whether T4 or even the rarely seen Elefant would be a better option.

If you haven't been playing against this, then you lack understanding.

It's not like flanking an MG that has to unpack and set up. It spins around rapidly. Essentially its blindside exists for such a short period (the time it takes to destroy the first attacking unit) that it can't be considered a blindside in the usual sense (as in with MGs)

And even if you do get its health down low, they can hit brace.

You also have to factor in their other units supporting the bofors.


I don't understand why you can refute my claim so glibly with "smoke and flank" when you haven't been going up against this unit repeatedly and when so many other players are saying the same thing as me. Try it. Try a few games vs Brits with the emplacement commander. I'll be delighted to see a replay of you "flanking a bofors".

Bulgakov, does a geologist not understand stone whilst dwelling in a home constructed of timber?

I've played long enough, (I'm sure you recall that emplacements both used to be worse, as well as useless) parsed the arguments both over time, and in this thread, seen and supported enough attacks as well as buttressed countless defenses upon emplacements to have a very holistic understanding of the scenario.

Surely you can agree that in any defensive scenario, emplacement or not, it is always harder to repel an assault that is coming in from multiple directions. Think of it this way, barring playing on say... Kholodny/Minsk-- maps with very constrictive natural choke points. If you cannot assault a Bofors from multiple directions, odds are, it's constructed in a rear position that isn't a significant threat in the first place. Why would one ever decide to human wave a hard point like that, when you don't have to? I do like your addition of smoke to provide a shot blocker though; however, I'm not sure it would work given the barrage ability, and besides, if I have indirect fire, I would rather pepper the position itself, or try and snipe repairing squads...

It's clear our disagreement runs deeper than the issue at hand, perhaps a dialectic divide in tactical approach, or something else. Unless you have something more to add I'm concerned this will simply denigrate into personal attacks, speaking about my own behaviour. So, I will otherwise take my leave.