PG with shreks are not supposed to walk accross the map alpha striking whatever vehicle gets into max range. They are not supposed to be uber aggresive, unless you combine with a smoke screen or something to get them in close.
They are supposed to defend paks and MGs from getting flanked by lights and mediums, they dont need accuracy at long range to fullfill that role.
Finally somebody that gets it. In this sea of Buff Axis, Axis UP, Allies OP finally some common sense. Pretty much every allied tank except churchill and doctrinal heavies is scared off by 1 PG wielding shrecks. Even if your sherman is on HEAT and manages to scare off PGs, it will be in need of good repairs. Throw in one gren squad and you have a dead vehicle. |
Hence, I am the expert at identification of them and my authority on the subject is unquestionable.
In the sea of low quality posts and constant crying...this gave me a good laugh. Thanks |
Essen: Decent idea but cutoffs are too safe and fuels are exactly between teams.
General Mud: Well made
Steppes: No real cutoff play because fuels are between the teams and the fuel south/VPs north split is annoying.
Lienne: Awful
La Gleize: Best fuel/cutoff play by far.
Ettelbruck: Extremely safe fuels which is bad.
Angermuende: Fuels are way too safe and the cutoffs are so far away from your base that you either commit your whole force to take them or you don't touch them. Way too hard to harrass.
Red Ball: Fuel points between teams = 0 cutoff play and just bash your head against the wall.
Across the Rhine: Good positions, wish there was more cutoff play. I'd personally replace the muni points with regular cutoff points.
Oka River: Weird map in general
Whiteball: Very hard to get cutoff play and the fuels are between the teams so all the action is there.
Hamburg: Again, if you focus the whole game on a single point you can't have cutoff play.
Hill 400: Lots of cutoff play which makes the map better than it really is.
Rzhev: Very safe fuel but excellent cutoff positions which allow for either hard attacks on fuel or medium difficulty attacks on cutoffs.
Agreed.
A couple of things: Redball is a good/bad map. It's well designed but the 3 "lanes" are cancerous since you can easily make a defensive wall and if you don't have arty to push it back, it becomes a slow game of probing. Redball needs a medium redesign. Whiteball is great.
Also, a lot of depressions and elevations should be removed from maps (Steppes, hill 400...). They just mess with the game in general. A shot will either phase through ground and hit, or it will hit the Moon or it will just hit the ground 1cm in front of the cannon. 3v3 needs a brainstorm session. |
|
A lot of people need a WHAAAMBULANCE here. |
|
First list, agreed. Steppes can work as a 3v3 map especially since you can pull off sneaky flanks due to the wideness of the map. Same as Lienne and Mud. These can work as 3v3.
Fields of Winnekendonk is a great map. Much fun on it, especially since the heavies roll out and bushes get trimmed.
Port of Hamburg and Angermunde are horrible maps due to lots of corridors and good map for arty-fest. Angermunde is just a straight up bad map with all the buildings and narrow corridors (Sturms own early game).
Rest I agree with. 3v3 needs a look at.
EDIT: Hamburg due to few corridors that make arty OP in most situations. |
OST riflenades only come after 40 fuel which is about 3 minutes into the game and becomes even longer when the fuel is contested, molotows come even later. And Sturmpios only work well against garrison when there is no or only one window on one side, otherwise you will likely lose or at the very best are forced into a bad trade. Many team maps have garrisons or cover positions near the fuel point (and if not many mainlines can build it). If you manage to contest it for even two to three minutes, that's 14-21 fuel your opponent does not have. And if you manage to get the income of that for one of those minutes, you gain another 7 fuel, giving you an effective 21-28 fuel surplus over your opponents.
The tactic is not as popular in 1v1 because it is easier to just ignore your own fuel point and take cut offs from your opponent to deny his resources and even it out again. Relative income is the whole reason why cutoffs exist: because you can cause a lot of resource damage by only neutralizing them and keeping them neutralized. You don't need to get the income from that point to gain an advantage.
I do not understand your points about absolute income. If you manage get ahead of your opponent for 50 fuel, munitions or whatever, you will get your tank/mine/upgrade earlier and manifest the lead. You do not get an advantage by having an high absolute income, you get it by having a higher income than your opponent.
There is truth and logic in what you're saying - no doubt about it. I'm saying it's from my experience that capping points and not rushing something (focusing on opportunity and flanking and retaking with flanks) usually led me to easier wins than playing the usual rush this and that and hold it. Also, I always ban maps that have lots of garrisons so winnekendonk and maps like that are my preference (redball, whiteball, mud... wide open maps).
Just some food for thought if you believe me and my experience. |
|
OKW sturms can drive out rifleman squads in garrison and Volks molly too (since it burns it's much better than one nade that can easily be dodged if paying attention). OST has the long range no fuse nade that can easily drive you out. Especially since 50% of audio cues do not play (GRANADE!) or less. I've lost many a unit due to no audio being played on nade use (or playing with Asians/US and having 3 sec latency). Soviets can easily drive out with molly too. US and UK don't really have anything to drive out effectively. Still, absolute income in early game can dictate the rest of the game, especially munitions. Most players tend to ignore munition points and then flame OKW OP! OST OP! when they can easily nade and molly your positoins, while you can't (or they just leave like it happened last 5 games in a row, 2 wins -- 3 loses --> 5 abandones, rank 100 xD).
I'd argue that absolute income matters at each stage of the game. And that's how I usually play USF. 3 Rifles fight while echelon caps what it can. I usually win games where I have munitions income early on cause it allows rifles to equip bars to fight medium range since they lose long range (green cover vs green cover directional) to everything except CQC units and no MG42 grens (that's where MG42 comes into play as a counter).
I don't know, I have noticed a trend that if I win early game and have a lot of capped positions, it's easier to transition into next stages. This is of course 3v3. 1v1 is vastly different. 2v2 a bit less but still different. |
|
I have noticed in 3v3 around rank 100 that people on my team tend to rush the fuel point closest to us without even capping the points behind it. Why?
Why would someone play defensively around the fuel point when even after capturing it, you get no fuel due to it being cut off. Also people tend not to be bothered with capping in general (VPs or ordinary) in high rank team games. One person in team will always end the game with around 2-5 captures and maybe higher damage output while one will end up with 20+ captures and lower damage.
I have also noticed that I usually lose games where stuff like that occurs. People ignore ordinary points, rush fuel and camp on it while the enemy lets you have your point and just circles around you, or your teammates just focus all their forces on the fuel point, farm damage and low manpower bleed but you end up with 0 munitions and even less fuel and 0 VPs (I'm usually the one with 20+ captures in teamgames).
Why is that the general notion in high rank team games? |
|
The missing abilities, both action and movement (attack, retreat...) bugs cost me plenty a unit in competitive. You'd click T for them to retreat only to notice the unit is blank xD. I don't think it's a fixable bug for the community. I think that's something that only direct source code access people can do. |
They are not a "last resort", they are useless. They are supposed to be supplemental, but they just end up to be a burden in your build since the upgrade turns a decent AI unit into something not worth using vs infantry and vehicles. They don't fit into any build, they don't diversify the game. And they are also no "last resort" as you say, because for 300+ MP you can just get a proper AT gun.
Well, I've had plenty a 3+ model wipes against sturmpios with 1 shreck. Usually late game my minesweeper vet3 echelons behind cover can't deal (4+1) with sturms rushing the cover with shreck and 3 automatic rifles. You have to retreat. And I've had (seldom) that stock vet3 echelons lose vs sturmpios with shreck (3+1). I have effectively used shreck sturms as small squads to capture loose points (close to nobody defending it). Shreck usually ensured that I don't get chased off by some light tank or sth. I don't think that sturms need any early game nerfs. They are toxic to play against as USF early but later on as an elite repair unit that can stand it's ground, it's good.
I think the power of sturms lie in the ability to chase off any assaulting infantry early on. IMHO, I've always used and seen it successfully used as a squad to help out OST set up MG in teamgames. I'd sent sturmpios with ally pioneers to a fuel point and secure it for the MG to come and set up and then go help another VP (so we control ~60% of map). Sure they drop off in direct combat usefulness later on but they were never intended as a spearhead, direct combat unit. They repair well, can stand their ground and can be upgraded with shreck, can swap out minesweeper, can wipe a squad in a couple of seconds flanking.
Sturms are supporting unit. They are intended to support and they do that job perfectly. |
Relic Entertainment
