Profile of MochaBear831

Avatar Area

Offline Unknown SteamID unknown
Posts: 2

General Information

Show Latest Posts


Thread: USF New meta17 Jan 2019, 15:08 PM Jump back to quoted post17 Jan 2019, 11:11 AMEsxile If you're more an early aggressive kind of player, Lieutenant. If you´re more defensive kind of player, Captain. Else, it is difficult to tell you what you need to do from what you say. The only hint you give is that you struggle around mid game which let me suppose you have hard time to manage your medium tanks micro. Well if it is the case, you need to train more on this particular aspect. About commanders, mechanized Commander requires you to be aggressive, here again it depends of you. Airborne is a good compromise between aggressive and defensive play. The early Pathfinder can provide you a lot if you understand it well how it works in term of damage output and vision. Infantry Commander is probably the best commander atm for defensive play, the one I use when I don't know exactly how to manage the game, if I see particular commanders and fear the use of specific abilities that counter well Airborne. So here we go, are you more of a defensive or offensive player, or maybe both but it depends of the map or faction you're facing, or the position on the map or whatever... When you know that, you can pick your officer and commander and develop your strategy. i am typically a more aggressive player, because i feel like you have to be when playing as the allies vs the Germans. i subscribed to the believe that not giving the Germans room to breathe ever, helps keep them from massing tanks and inf blobs etc. sorry i didn't put a lot of details because i wanted to avoid falling into the pitfall of just complaining. typically i use rangers as a good shield assault force because of there beefy ness. if i have vehicle problems i tend to play airborne or mechanized , airborne because the bazookas vet well with paras and mechanized for the up gunned Sherman. over all i tend to shy away from Armour as the u.s because it feels like my inf response along with at guns is much more reliable to dealing the damper safely than a Sherman or Jackson which feels like a glass cannon. In: US Forces Strategies
Thread: USF New meta16 Jan 2019, 21:43 PM Hey simple question or questions. I will keep this short so i am not ranting to much. What is the new meta regarding USF for 1v1, or 2v2, and 3v3's? i am very confused especially wit the newest patch i feel like the us doesn't have any killing power by the end of mid game. i could be playing them wrong or maybe im not starting out correctly. i am in the 600's for 2v2's and 1000's for 3v3's. any tips would be nice. getting back into the game after this patch has been difficult. i meando people start capt now since they switc hthe abilities. which commanders give yo uthe most bang for buck. etc etc. In: US Forces Strategies

Thread: USF New meta17 Jan 2019, 15:08 PM

17 Jan 2019, 11:11 AMEsxile

If you're more an early aggressive kind of player, Lieutenant.
If you´re more defensive kind of player, Captain.

Else, it is difficult to tell you what you need to do from what you say. The only hint you give is that you struggle around mid game which let me suppose you have hard time to manage your medium tanks micro. Well if it is the case, you need to train more on this particular aspect.

About commanders, mechanized Commander requires you to be aggressive, here again it depends of you. Airborne is a good compromise between aggressive and defensive play. The early Pathfinder can provide you a lot if you understand it well how it works in term of damage output and vision. Infantry Commander is probably the best commander atm for defensive play, the one I use when I don't know exactly how to manage the game, if I see particular commanders and fear the use of specific abilities that counter well Airborne.

So here we go, are you more of a defensive or offensive player, or maybe both but it depends of the map or faction you're facing, or the position on the map or whatever...
When you know that, you can pick your officer and commander and develop your strategy.

i am typically a more aggressive player, because i feel like you have to be when playing as the allies vs the Germans. i subscribed to the believe that not giving the Germans room to breathe ever, helps keep them from massing tanks and inf blobs etc. sorry i didn't put a lot of details because i wanted to avoid falling into the pitfall of just complaining. typically i use rangers as a good shield assault force because of there beefy ness. if i have vehicle problems i tend to play airborne or mechanized , airborne because the bazookas vet well with paras and mechanized for the up gunned Sherman. over all i tend to shy away from Armour as the u.s because it feels like my inf response along with at guns is much more reliable to dealing the damper safely than a Sherman or Jackson which feels like a glass cannon.

In: US Forces Strategies

Thread: USF New meta16 Jan 2019, 21:43 PM

Hey simple question or questions. I will keep this short so i am not ranting to much. What is the new meta regarding USF for 1v1, or 2v2, and 3v3's? i am very confused especially wit the newest patch i feel like the us doesn't have any killing power by the end of mid game. i could be playing them wrong or maybe im not starting out correctly. i am in the 600's for 2v2's and 1000's for 3v3's. any tips would be nice. getting back into the game after this patch has been difficult. i meando people start capt now since they switc hthe abilities. which commanders give yo uthe most bang for buck. etc etc.

In: US Forces Strategies