CoH2 is too late for Afrika Korps, your common units would be Panzer III's and short barrel Panzer IV's. It'd be better saved for an early-war themed CoH.
I know the problem, but the Afrika Korps could be a faction that fought both in Africa and Italy during 1941-1945.
I would buy the Afrika Korps DLC, as I bought the Brits DLC. |
|
I would like to see SAS-commander, that is not the commander for Swedish airways, but for the British special forces unit. No gliders and "push the button"-artillery, but real sneaky bastards behind the lines. |
|
I vote yes, and I was wrong. This belongs not to Ostheer, but to Africa Korps, with motorcycles and PAK 88.
I would vote for a third option, that is Africa Korps with Pz III. |
Like seriously, you gotta abuse hard (coz allies do). 5-6 volks shreck uberblob spam into 2-3 stukas into jt. isg spam with flare spam into luchs and situational puma/jp4 into cp or kt. Hard mhts, stug spam and hard pwerfer spam. paks 43 n other good stuff like command p4 and cp aura stacking, overall coordination.
Watched 3 games from 4, I was disappointed with axis play, very disappointed, mostly with build orders. Like Jadame said - allies were trying to use anything that gave them advantage and abuse it, and axis played like in regular mediocre game.
I agree with these guys. The axis has tools which players can (ab)use in 4vs4, but I didn't see much of these in the games that A_E casted. Maybe we see more of them in next games.
By the way, arranged teams should win 100% of the times against randoms in automatch, so I think that these tournaments are the only way to see how good an arranged team is and what is balanced or not balanced in 4vs4. So probably we see a drastic improvement in team tactics (especially for the axis) in 4vs4-tournaments in the future. |
|
I watched the games casted by A_E and I was surpriced of the Wehrmacht build order for both teams in the beginning of the games, because it looked to be much like the build order in 1vs1. Usually the grenadiers get wiped out quite easily in the 4v4 and the allies has the advantage on the light vehicles (AEC and T-70), so therefore the game could be little different if the build order would have been different. Maybe more MG-42 in the buildings instead of so many grenadiers, and more panzergrenadiers with schrecks to counter the early vehicles.
Of course the Americans have the Calliope and the Brits have the "Press the Button"-artillery that is quite good now. |
The problem in bigger maps and team games are that the time from early to late game comes much faster than 1v1 games. Caches in 1v1-2v2's are risky, in 3v3-4v4 are safe income. It should be interesting to rework the amount of std points from bigger maps, and / or limit the amount of caches that a map can have. That will make early and mid game much longer in team games, while remaining the same in 1v1 games.
I agree. The maps should be made so that the players in 4vs4 receives less fuel and ammo income. You don't need to have 2 fuel and 2 ammo points in 4vs4 games, because it generates a lot of fuel and ammo. Instead you can have only 1 fuel and 1 ammo point and place them in a highly contested area. And you can have less points where you can make caches.
For example in Lienne Forest you can remove the secure fuel points from the secure position in front of the base, and change them to ordinary capture points where you can build caches, and place just one fuel point in the middle sector, for example in the city in front of the most contested building where there are just a ordinary capture point. And also change the ammo point that is in front of the building in the middle sector on the left side of the map to a ordinary capture point. Like this! (I am sorry for the bad picture quality, but at least you can get the point). |
can you recognize anyone ? i see hitler and himmler , i dont know who the others are .
The picture is taken from a maneuver in St. Pölten in Austria in the spring 1939. We can see at least Hitler, Bormann, Himmler, Heydrich and Keitel. I think that also von Brauchitsch is on the picture. |
After the war, Leningrad are not rebuilt from nothing, like Stalingrad. So no, this did not happen.
Depends what definition you have of "turned Leningrad into ruins". For others, like me, the Germans did that, the metaphor do not require complete destruction, it only says that the Germans did a lot of destruction and made the life a lot of harder for the inhabitants. Pictures from the siege, for example: here, here, and here.
My point was to say that other cities in Western Europe would have surrendered in a similar situation, but Leningrad did not surrender. |
Most of them were civilians. The Nazis were good at it. Still, I do not understand why they could not just turn the town into ruins.
I think the Germans turned Leningrad into ruins. The difference to cities in other nations, was that the Russians didn't understand to surrender the city. I think other cities in other nations would have surrendered already in the winter 1941-2. But Leningrad was part of Sovjet Russia... |
Siege warfare is a doctrine- it's the belief that surrounding your enemy & cutting them off from all support (starving them out) is better than attacking a heavily fortified position.
Piecemeal attempts at surrounding Moscow would have been disastrous- the city would have attacked from within & without. They might have had an impact but it would have been like kicking Andre the giant in the nuts. You can't kill him- but after he gets off the floor you better run.
The siege of Leningrad was in a way very effective, because during that time a lot of Russians died and Germans could hold their losses at a minimum, which was not the case in Stalingrad where the Germans tried to capture the city. Just look at the statistics of the casualties during the siege of Leningrad.
If the Germans had succeeded in the same in Moscow and Stalingrad, that could have had an impact on the war. |
Finland
Relic Entertainment
cblanco ★ 
보드카 중대 
VonManteuffel 
Heartless Jäger 
