Profile of squippy

Well you know, I have an opinion on this issue, which I've expressed before for whatever little it is worth, but I didn't bother laying it out precisely because that's all it is, and you know what they say about opinions being like arseholes.

All I'm getting at is that concerns about what some players I don't know, who like a game I don't give a shit about, might think of you, is like going to a molly-dropping rave and worrying about what the goths will think of your dress sense.

* yes there are, although I don't know links to them off hand

* yes, depending on the units. You do NOT want to rush up to pioneers though; they are equipped with SMG's that are best at very short range, and so you will be making your situation worse. But by contrast, if you have Soviet Conscripts, you do want to close as as tightly as you can on Grenadiers.

Additionally, while different units are best at different ranges, in addition combat between two units will be reolved faster the closer they are. Two units at long range in good over can plink away at each other for ages, while the same two units at point blank will decide the matter in a few seconds.

In addition, units that are close enough to each other ignore cover completely.

* different machine guns have different stats, including stats for suppression. This is intended to give different armies different flavour. The British MG has the worst suppression, but high damage and the longest range; the Axis MG42 has the best suppression, but mediocre stats otherwise. All of them are distinct.

You didn't show (prove) jack shit, you posted some ill informed op-ed that wouldn't even get a thumbs up from a part-time BuzzFeed editor. Your definition of "strategy" was about as lose as goose's butthole.

Lol. In fact, I quoted nothing, because I don't tend to make arguments based on a quick google. Nor did I need to, because this is not a particularly difficult concept. Your claim that some decisions are so simple as to no longer be considered strategic is self-evidently false; frex, the opening moves of chess are very well known but are none the less part of strategy. And this is even so if the player decided on it before the game began. That's the whole point of strategic thinking - putting together, and then implementing, a plan, not just reacting.

None of your bluster will dig you out of this hole.

You will never beat me in a debate, champ.

I already did.

You should double check the patch notes, friend. Faust is not doctrinal.

They won't be in the preview, as I understand things. However the discussion was abut the state of affairs prior, and why its a good idea (supposedly) to remove shrecks from volks.

I really don't see why reprogramming would be required. The AI is clearly capable of recrewing weapons, and of spawning squads, etc; nothing new needs to be added, as far as I can see. Not that I have any knowledge of the code or anything, I'm just going on general principle.

HT vet certainly needs to be reworked in general, and it would be even more necessary if any of these other functions made it in. All the HT vet is centred around the flamer upgrade IIRC, while non-upgraded HT's really want stuff like thicker armour, more HP, better speed and acceleration. But in this case the issue is how the vet stats are attached to the model; it might not be possible to completely distinguish between the upgraded and non-upgraded variety.