Do you guys ever look at the MAPS PLAYED stats? Here is a shot from The GrandMaster PageP.
PAGEP SITE
These move around a little week to week and usually AOD is 2nd most played map.
You clearly like large maps. This is a matter of taste. And that is why maps like these are included to give variety and try to cover all of the player styles.
Many people feel maps like these are a little too large. Forward retreats become OP. Any bad engagement means you are off the map for a long time, etc. But they do make MG play much less effective which can be a good thing.
In your opinion yes. Statistically, no.
HYPOCRITAL RESPONSE
I am the last person ever to ask people to qualify comments since I routinely call Relic morons  But the reasons I do this takes walls of text that many have read too many times.
But when you make statements about maps, it is best to qualify your reasons. Saying good or bad is meaningless and does not help anyone. Unless it makes you feel better. Then I guess that is something.
-cheers
EDIT:
If you look at PagePs sight you will also see that Vaux appears to favor OKW and USF. Again, because MGs become weaker on large wide open maps. And overall these two maps seem to be the most imbalanced by faction. |
|
Alliance of Defiance, Vaux Farm, Minsk Pocket, Crossing in the woods, and Elst Outskirts are BY FAR the top 5 maps in the game |
|
Why THAT reaction to bofors/AEC not becoming exclusive? |
I'm rank 17 currently (play USF only in competitive 3v3). Highest rank was 18 (position 16). I can tell you that I've lost to players that were in position 300 and won vs top 10 players (I only play random teams). I'd say that top 50 in 3v3 is around similar "skill".
After that 50-300 is a bit "weaker". By weaker I mean less concentration and more late retreats. 300-500 is another group a bit less involved in the game. I've never lost vs 500+ ranks. Even if my teammates get wrecked, I will manage to outplay the enemy on two VPs. They are like normal AIs. These people rush volks over no cover ground to get to your rifles (eg, they don't know volks beat rifles at long range).
Couple of times played vs 1000+ ranks. It's like playing vs Easy AI.
A+: 1-100
A: 100-300
B: 300-500
C: 500-1000
D: 1000+
F: Me thanks for the reply bro this is awesome info |
|
|
|
Obviously nothing is concrete here but is there some reference to what rank indicates roughly how strong of a player you are? ex: rank 12 is above average? |
|
for 2v2 I feel commando is best for aggressive play, it may feel better since you're a fan of USF. commando drop is a 5man unlike mobile assault and can drop in enemy territory with a reinforce outside of friendly territory. that should help you deal with at and support weapons alike.
for late game blobs 3 bolster INF with double brens will easily out gun most inf if youve preserved them and gotten them vet 3. Centaur has mobility issues but if kept in the backline the vet 1 ability is more than enough.
royal arty is amazing rn with the timing of Bren>AEC>Val with sextons+Val arty it clears up the issue of bad indirect.
I personally dont like sniper because its even slower than an MG start. its hard fighting on the backfoot as british so I personally dont like sniper but if you have success with it thats dope.
also I dont THINK the Comet is a true heavy tank so it doesnt have the armor to rush in like one.
morter pit is a huge commitment that I usually only reserve for playing royal arty because it requires a lot of defense to protect it from being rushed. at least in my opinion
sov brit is actually good. as brit you would wanna focus on more INF and let the sovi handle more of the support weapons. |
I still don't like it that much, though everyone says it's okay now. Too much RNG on the main gun still, it can be great or terrible.
And since Churchills can get shut down pretty quick depending on your opponents composition, sometimes I honestly think Centaurs + Fireflies is the best British tank combo.  |
to be honest I never built the centaur in a 1v1. I prefere generalist tanks instead of specialized ones.
But i think the point you raised is valid. one time i was playing Jeager infantry with ostheer and my opponent did rush a centaur to counter my heavy infantry play. It was very effective for him.
altought I would agree that skiping AEC might be good sometimes, I strongly recommend never skipping the AEC tech. this way if you are caught of guard with an axis LV you can call AEC fast enough. honestly lately ive been playing without aec and im only rank 7-8 but i can tell when I play better people, those people are the only time when playing without aec hurts cause they make sure an lv is there to harass by 5:30. i guess the less skilled or different playstyles got me gassed lol. though i try to do everything in my power to play without aec. i hate the unit. |
I think AEC comes early enough if you have average fuel control and offers a more mobile anti vehicles option. if i see double panzer 2 or triple 222 or if i smell a puma coming i get the AT to support the AEC.
one situation i feel when AT is better than AEC is against flak halftrack, since the flak HT needs to be immobile to fire, giving your AT the chance to return fire. have u ever you skipped the aec and rushing to centaur since it deals with blobs and LV, engineers heat grenades and at gun could hold you until then. |
Relic Entertainment
cblanco ★ 
보드카 중대 
VonManteuffel 
Heartless Jäger 
