Profile of Krötentöten

Tried this myself... Can't say I noticed any difference, they never did hit anything at range ( same with the other sten) so if they do now it doesn't seem to really be noticeable... 50% added on to truly sucky accuracy is still sucky.

You sure it isn't just the RNG gods having a laugh?

Well if it does work the plan would be to give them double brens, as they are approx 40 % better you get 280 % bren on a squad with double bren, then add the 50 % acc from ambush on top and you have 420 % bren, seeing as commandos even get 25 % acc with vet vs is 20 % ut gets even better. Meaning that a 5 man double bren commando troop would effectivly be a 4.2 bren is troop. Making them quite insane.

All of this only applies ofc if they truly get a permanent 50 % ambush bonus.

Another question. If it does hold, does it stay even after a retreat? What if 4 models die and get replaced, do they still habe the buff or just the 1 remaining guy. All of this would need to be met otherwise to much effort for effect.

And now I am rank 11. From 16 down to 11 without having played a sinlge game. So yes. Obviously the people staying at a high rank are simply not playing/playing 1 game only hoping for a loopsided matchup.

I have played a lot of OKW lately. And when you face the brits as okw it's just a joke... I am not that great an OKW player atm due to me most of the time only having enough game time to focus on 1 army as you have to play a lot to reach the top 10 yet I won countless games I should have lost with my squads wiping left and right and I win. With the british I play a flawless game and still loose.

what impresses me most about this thread is that it took 15 (or so) posts before someone raised an issue with the lack of logic in the author's argument.

This piece of writing reminds me of the GRE essay part where you have to prove that the argument is flawed.

Back on the topic - you simply CANNOT attribute your fall in rank to the state of balance. The only conclusions that I got from reading your post is:

(1) you do not have a good understanding of how the rank system works
(2) you are contradicting yourself when implying that you do not care that much about your teammates because "that's how you get to a high rank" WHILE following up with a whole paragraph complaining about matchmaking flaws
(3) you dropping from 1 to 20 could also mean that 19 other people figured out how to use the Brits better

Not trying to be overly negative or critical or anything, but really man, your post is rife with logic flaws

)))

I will try to formulate this in a way to not sound like a jerk. You know why it took 15 posts for that? Because I actualy stated that me falling in rank is NOT the argument for flawed balance. It's meerely personal experience. I even explained it again in another post. I think you must have cind of skimmed through my post or I did not bring my point across as well as I thought.

I also dont see the contradiction as I simply said that I know matchmaking is flawed and often puts you in bad spots where chances of loosing are stacked against you but that to get into the top 10 you have to win those games all the same, or most of them. And that before the patch I was able to do so. Never loosing more than 2 games in a row.

I also then explain that maybe the matchmaking has become to extremly skewed as of late so you cant compensate it due to no good players wanting to do allies 2v2 atm.

And last that many of the top players play 1 game only atm i believe. As partialy prooved in the guy who went from rank 130 to 100 without playing a game. I myself went from 16 to 15 without playing. So no, i dont think 19 14 people figuered it out better. But that many of those 14 only played 1 game. Had luck with a decent matchup won it and thus retained there rank. Whereas i played 10 games and lost 8 of them.

And my argument is NOt based on my ecperience but on the facts about IS, aec, no snare and indirect fire that came up partialy in my post and more after.

There's much more to say but i'll leave it at that. Rest assured that i do understand the matchmaking quite well and i wished theyd change it so you could select an option of the like of "i dont care if you have to search an hour but give me a mate and opponents in max my rank range +-50

The AEC is definatly not Okisch for its cost and every unit needs to be evaluated based in its cost.

Also, on the simple issue of even volks vs IS which shouldn't even be a comparison as Volks are Infantry AT (with the best AT in the game which your heart jumps when you pick it up as allies mind you) not AI.

IS get 23 % less rec acc and 20% acc with vet 3. Volks get 2 times -10 rec. Acc. And 30 + 15 % acc with vet 5. Among other less important but noteworthy improvements over the IS.

So even god damn volks! Outscale them with vet now... whilst primarily beeing AT. If those volks manage to pick up a weapon. Say a dropped bren... you're in trouble as they shoot better with it then the IS.

This is volks ladies and gents... not obers or füssiliers (60% acc!!) Or falls.

And again... is dont even have a snare and require 2 upgrades. 3 if you count grenades which i consider a luxury i can never afford.

A better comparison would be IS and riflemen. Yet rifles have better vet, dont have 4 weapons with 2 upgrades thus allowing them to actualy safely double equip and dont require a tech to be 5 men. Oh and they have a snare...

IS is not what it should be atm. Its pretty simple.

Also... another topic but guys... the 222 in the hands of a good player is insane... its imcredibly cheap and has the best scouting range which is invaluable in games and funnily enough the best anti air..(i had one shoot down both US strafing planes in their very first pass). plus if well microed it can kite and fend of or even destroy any light vehicle up to a t70 amd stuart. All of that for 15 fuel 210 mp. When i used to play more wehr i was rank 7 and beat the AT nr 2 team with my mate and that thing was pivotal in our sucess. Its not meant to be an inf killer. But for its price its beyond incredibly versitile.

I went UP 30 places (~135 to ~104) due to not playing brits in the last few days. I'd imagine this is the result of me not tanking my win rate like the poor sods who are slogging it out. Dropped from top 50 in 2s and 3s to ~200 in both modes when the patch first hit. No surprise that Brits have been the least played faction in top 150 - those that play them are likely to drop out of that bracket pretty fast!

Thank you for giving a wonderful fact to atleast partialy prove my suspicion that those who remain high ranked as brits are so because they dont play them atm. I went as said in the OP from approx 7 to approx 13 wins per loss to 6 losses in a row for 1 win.