Profile of CieZ

No decent German player would allow his sc to get at naded. of course they do more damage up close but conscripts fail hard to take out a sc from cover and at range. maxims with at support like guards or zis have a far better time at it.

Yes it can be difficult to get AT nades off on cars - but the threat is still denying them a lot of mobility/freedom. Plus if you're in green cover or a building with a Con squad the 222 won't do much damage to you at all. The threat of AT nades also deters 222 flanks on your weapon teams. If you spam 6 maxims the 221s/222s can wipe you all day with no real fear of dying - sure they might eat one ZiS shot, but then they just go repair.

It really isn't that difficult to see why not having Conscripts around is a bad thing. (Of course this only applies to 1v1 since in team games your ally can get Cons or Guard M3 - and mines tend to be more difficult to sweep in team games.

"he was a bad player" means in this game he was bad. Not a general rule. But to make it clear I'll rephrase - he played badly late game, thaat's why he lost. Early game he dominated with Maxim spam - something I think he uses very often to get his high win %


High win % generally means great player but doesn't always mean great player. It can mean they've found something cheesy and they're exploiting it.




And can anyone reply to to this?

"Going for Maxims means losing At grenades"
"But you get AT gun in the same building."


I don't think anyone can answer it but let me know.

Copy/pasting my answer from the other thread where you asked the same thing:

ZiS guns do not kill 221s/222s/251 in a single shot - it's actually really easy to avoid them and just run around the map killing everything else. AT grenades (or guard M3) are a lot more reliable because the engine damage means that they're probably not going to get away. (Especially if you combine an AT grenade with a ZiS, or a guard M3 which a more standard build can easily do)

Moreover the 222 does WAY more damage up close than at range - AT grenades force it to stay at range. You can just drive straight into a Maxim, vehicle block the retreat and wipe it extremely easily.

Basically without AT grenades the 222 gets to run around the map unchecked, while also bleeding you harder than if you had Conscripts around with AT nades - and god forbid it flanks your ZiS gun while you have nothing but 6x Maxims on the field - you just gave your opponent a free AT gun.

Additionally, without AT grenades your ZiS gun is going to be worthless against tanks. They'll be able to just drive straight at the gun and circle strafe it without fear.

Maxims are more vulnerable to mortar fire because of the way in which mortar mechanics work in this game. Basically what happens is the mortar shoots, at this point in time it places a marker on the squad that it is shooting at(or barrage circle). The shot then "scatters" away from that marker based on the distance traveled, vet, bulletins, etc. A deployed Maxim is stationary, meaning it will get hit a lot more often than say a Conscript squad that is walking around - and could easily walk outside the scatter AoE without even realizing that it is getting shot at, simply because Cons are almost always going to be on the move. You don't even have to use the barrage on the Maxim, you can just keep right clicking with your mortar selected, or attack ground where the maxim is meaning the maxim squad is going to have to relocate constantly. So yeah, long story short, all set-up teams are more vulnerable to indirect fire than normal infantry squads.

Awesome to see that this is already full! I was going to sign up but I guess I missed out.

Glad to hear that IpKai is willing to give us more slots next time around, and I'll have to be quicker about it.

GL to everyone!

Just out of curiosity, how much you have actually played coh1?

I didn't play enough vCoH to comment on the finer details of the game's mechanics or give any sort of constructive feedback regarding balance - but I'm not doing either of these things. I played and observed enough vCoH to recognize plenty of things that I prefer in CoH 2 - and one of these is the capping system. I'll also be the first to admit that vCoH did do some things better than CoH 2 does (namely early game combat before this most recent patch but now early game/mid game infantry combat is amazing) and the increased variety of upgrade choices - and Wehr vet was cool - but I like CoH 2 vet as well so I guess that's a tie.

Anyways, Soviet definitely have a lot more viable openings than Americans did - you don't have to be a vCoH pro to realize that. Ostheer is, unfortunately, pretty narrow in terms of openings in CoH 2.

In CoH2? Don't get me wrong, I play both CoH and CoH2 and I like them both. But this statement made me "lol".

I think you may have misunderstood me. I wasn't trying to say that CoH 2 requires the player to make more decisions than vCoH - I was making a general statement that when games require players to make more decisions, it almost always adds skill to the game.