So the story changes/develops.
But seriously, even though its a fair point that seven units probably should beat three units, there's something to be said about MGs being area denial tools. The scenario as described is the exact only time when two MGs should beat that many infantry squads.
What happened is that it took too long for them to get pinned that they were still able to deal enough damage to push off the MGs and an Ostwind. (And P4 now.) Those fourteen PTRS are no joke, if we are to assume they'd all managed to hold onto all of their PTRS.
But then again, just one infantry squad support of any kind to recrew an MG would've probably been enough to pin, even if the Ostwind and other MG had to run or was killed.
P4 wasn't "pushed off", it was just there... shooting shells... and doing jack fking squat. Not a single kill.
Ostwind got pushed off though due to PTRS.
It might just had been more bad luck. |
So seven of his squads managed to force one of your three back? Why did you have four units less and why should three of your units beat seven of his? What about doing some crazy stuff like having a squad screen for the mg's and a mortar in the area?
2 MG, an Ostwind (supposed anti infantry device) and a P4... (forgot to mention P4)
Please tell me what mortar to get as OKW )))))
|
The same way Rifles are a lot better than old ultimate Volks blob 
FRP is reason behind 3/4 of blobs.
Imgaine Ettlebruck Station. Would you blob straight into 2 HMGs if you knew you have to retreat whole way to the base? Nope. But if you do, you gonna lose whole map.
Now, if you know you don't have FRP which saves you from dumb moves, you gonna move careful, recon, etc etc becase you know that each mass retreat means 2-3mins out of game.
Sure, people will still blob even without FRP but then blobbing will be very punishing for them.
Oh no mate, ettelbruck is shock troop and 120mm mortar 
*Now replaced by roaming kill teams of commandos (I mean 3+) + ALO) and/ or 2-3 mortar pit... per player.. in anything above 2v2 xD |
Replay: https://www.coh2.org/replay/55860/for-review
Focusing specifically on my side, what could I have done to deal with that USSR player? I managed to take a building but didnt really got to hold onto it. He continued pushing my point, so while I held, I cannot really help my team mate on the other side.
My IGN was: Potato
(The 2 Obers were too little, too late. Maybe I should have used less flares and got them both MG-34?)
-----
Also, how to deal with that British emplacement/ sim city building start? A vickers in a building into quick mortar and quick bofor seems... rather difficult to counter. |
|
Not too sure what I could have done to win the game.
|
Fine. Even I will concede that 7 inf units in one place can be said to be a "blob". I will even allow that this is a particularly useful example because it illustrates a blob handling two of its counters.
I'm also not going to challenge or question any of details of your account of the incident. My concern arises with the claim that events like this happen frequently enough that they constitute a problem.
Fundamentally, my scepticism derives from the fact that this doesn't seem to appear in competitive play. Or indeed, even in streamed or recorded play, as far as I am aware. Of all the stuff I've seen, I've never seen anything like this. Hell I've definitely never seen anyone field 7 guards at the same time.
And related to that is a second concern: if this is such an effective technique that it is reliably and frequently used, as you and many others appear to claim, how come we don't see it in those competitive events? If this works, if it wins games, why don't we see it when real money is on the line?
If this kind of thing is frequently and reliably happening, then I would agree that it is a problem. Convince me that it is frequent and reliable.
In 1v1 comp, I would assume blobbing means instantly losing map control because you will have all your stuff taken all around the map.
I play mostly 2v2, so it might happen a lot more there than comps. It is also at a much lower level "than the pros", so games are longer because no one is good enough to get a quick win.
The real pain is when the blob builds up, get vetted, get increased dura, then start literally WALKING into the MG, and chopping the MG crew down before suppression xD |
In the game, a rifle can only shoot about 40 feet; thus of necessity, rifle units are going to be a lot more clumped up than they are in real life.
But it is not apparent to me that "we" really do see such "blobs" at all, given that some people seem to treat moving two units together as a "blob". It seems to be taken as a given by many, but I suspect there's quite a wide range of opinion as to what constitutes "blobbing". And explanation for why it is to be considered a Bad Thing is also pretty thin.
If you gave me some example of what you're specifically talking about, a replay or a vid or something, I might have a better idea. But to me, it looks like a position for which there is a great deal more peer-group support than actual evidence.
7 units, guards, dense enough for the unit cards to stack on top of each other. Roughly less than 2 person's space between the 42 men. While suppressed, the guard blob still has sufficient damage output to force me to pull an Ostwind back from full health. (Around 1 quarter or more health gone I think)
2 MG failed to hold them back, despite what IRL would have turned into the grinder.
Quoting a movie, but it makes sense " I wanna see plenty of beach between men. Five men is a juicy opportunity, one man's a waste of ammo".
At that rate of fire, you arent "sniping" individuals, you are shooting bullets into a beaten zone where a dense blob should perish. I am not saying 2, 3 squads together is a blob. I am saying when the entire USF clumps together in an ultra dense space and MGs failed to pin more than 1 squad, there is a problem.
|
No problem.
As the quantity of firepower available to the basic combatant increases, formations become more dispersed.
(This is the principle behind Heinlein's Starship Troopers, btw. The book, of course, not the movie.)
However, this is irrelevant to the topic, because more dispersed formations changed nothing strategically; all armies today still use concentrations of force, its just that those concentrations now take place over tens or hundreds of miles rather than yards.
There is a massive difference between concentration of force and the "blob" in game. As you said, the formations become dispersed as firepower increase.
The "blobs" we see are literally out of the Napoleonic wars. |
I think it's fascinating to see such a basic and reliable military principle as concentration of force being dismissed as "brainless tactics". Apparently, C21st gamers understand the military sciences far better than any historical general... or claim to, at any rate.
Yeah, then explain why we don't all fight in lines anymore.
|
How come Grenadier weapon upgrade is better than Bar or Bren despite costing the same munitions, how come Grens can get their LMG anywhere in territory but Allies have to go back to base, how come LMG is available as soon as you get BP1 but Allies have to pay fuel and MP for the unlock?
There are problems facing Grenadiers but this isn't one of them.
How come MG-42 is better? Because you can only get it on a grenadier squad. Not everyone and their mother can get a MG-42 unlike USF, UKF weapon rack.
How come Grens can get their LMG anywhere? Read above post, to limit it to grens only. If it is in the form of weapon racks, ALL units in Ost can get it. (which I dont mind )
How come LMG is available as soon as you get BP1? Because BP1 is expensive? Because it cost 40 fuel? Because T2 costs an additional 20 fuel and 200 MP? In terms of straight up tech cost, UKF is cheap. AT gun, etc locked behind a SINGLE 30 fuel upgrade to base HQ which means you also have an additional squad to cap? Ost needs to have an engineer BUILDING the damn thing.
--------
But yeah..... Ostheer got many problems, held together by a bunch of clutches.
|
umink
Mortiferum
Heureka
Relic Entertainment
보드카 중대 
Heartless Jäger 
