If RNG decided games there would be some random nobody in the SNF games today, instead of the ladder leaders
Couple of days ago I cornered Ostwin (need another 2 AT gun rounds for kill) with squad of Cons and Rifles and Zis.
Oorah with cons on it and thew AT nade losing 3 models (no eng damage) and flanked with Guards. I was putting Zis in position and then came at it with Guards to button it. (lost 2 man on approach.
Ostwin buttoned down and At gun in medium range 
Not so. My Zis missed Ostwin to the left, shooting barrel I was standing next to killing 2 of my vet 1 Guards and releasing Ostwin from button. Second shot from Zis missed again and Ostwin wiped out remaining 2 Guards as I was retreating and Ostwin was running away.
Now, I should have lost 3 Con models and 2 Guard models in exchange for Ostwin thanks to well played trap, instead i had Guards squad wiped, 3 con models killed and vetted up enemy Ostwin.
I won that game because my enemy wasn't that good, but vs someone better that would be huge mountain to climb back.
So RNG does decide games, sometimes in drastic fashion sometimes in series of little engagements. Not always against me, but I remember my misfortune better |
OK, I get your point. And the good example of what you are saying is the way the germans almostalways stomp the late game right and center of City 17.
Yup, exactly |
|
Its not so much units that I miss, rather its the variety of ways you could use them. Combined with Doctrines, there was so many ways to play, win and lose a game.
Like budwise said, I miss strategic depth more than anything else.
Therefore, its more me disliking way the units are now than missing old ones. Specifically superweapons (Elephant, KV8, etc) |
Long story short, penal battalions are supposed to be the unit that fights german infantry head on in this game. It makes little sense from a historical standpoint, but there it is.
Penal troops were some of the best and fiercest infantry Soviet Union had (particularly in early years of war)
The picture everyone seems to have are of crying cowardly deserters who were made to fight.
This is thanks to Western cold war propaganda and post war Communist propaganda.
In reality, Penal squads were composed of criminals, political prisoners and tough people who weren't shiny example of communist idea of citizen. Still extremely partriotic, when it comes to fighting invaders.
Tho, no army wants to turn to prisoners and criminals, when it comes to who is better fighter between them and conscript peasants, you decide.
Even tho being penal squads, they received extraordinary number of medals (considering that no one wanted to acknowledge or recognize their efforts, for obvious reasons)
Just wanted to say that, from historical view, there is nothing wrong with Penals being elite Soviet inf. After all, they were spearheading attacks and did some extraordinary things during the course of the war. |
- first eng cap
-con cap
-retreat eng
-build t1
-build m3
-put eng in m3 and harass (as aggressive as you can, fix m3 with eng)
-build Penal (flame upgrade if possible)
-switch with eng in m3 (you should probably be facing Pfaust by this time or soon, so pay attention)
-build second penal
-Now if you go with shocks, build 1-2 more cons with at nade upgrade
- or guards wit extra Penal
Thats the best I can do. Still gonna struggle, but at least wont get blown of the map.....
P.S. concentrate on ammo point at start, and make sure you are not dealing vs gren spam with this 
good luck |
|
Agree with most, I prefered infantry, mortar mechanics of VCOH by far.
And I really really dislike this fast paced paper/rock/scissors unit play. Huge impact RNG can have on the game and by far, the most, all the arty/Call in abilities and shit flying everywhere
As far as Su85 somewhat agree. On some maps its OP, on others its a rubbish bin (due to line of sight, and terrible vehicle pathing)
seems AT guns are good for everything (sniping units, counter-sniping sniper, being used as artillery) except being effective vs vehicles. Go figure
But in general, Yeah I agree. |
it's been asked since beta, I've lost hope for this.
Yup |
|
Rage is a word that is slapped on for slightest reaction by any player during the game.
For example: 'I hate this map' 'Soviets are OP'
Or one player saying to another one: 'LOL noob' and getting response FU will be considered as act of rage.
That is majority of 'rage' accusations. Just a fashionable word to use.
Second type of accusing people of ragging:
'The Rage' is perception One has of his opponent after the loss, and has more to do with his own glorification and narcissistic view of how it was his actions that caused someone else to rage, then someone raging in reality. (someone leaving the game, hasn't just left. They rage quit, etc)
If you don't see to many people 'ragging' that means you do not have narcissistic disorder...
People who actually do rage, do not type. They break their keyboard, monitor and punch holes in the wall..
So no, there isn't much ragging going on around |
When the game is obviously finished, for example at 10vp or base is destoyed, that's fine, I do this myself. but when you just lost a battle and not the war in the middle of the game, it's annoying.
Yup, thats when I say it. Just before ticker runs out. Not if I am destroying someone's base. Only if ticker is down to 5-10 and I hold all 3, or there is no reasonable chance of me losing 1 of my 2 vp's
But apparently its rude
Tho, I can't recall instance when someone responded with FU or wtf is your problem.
Sometimes I even type, after I lose very close and intense game 'GG noob  '
I usually get response yeah 'GG, that was close' or something similar. with a little bit of chat on: where the game was won/lost and almost had me there
Usually nasty players, start verbal bash way before the end of the game. |
Youve misunderstood the netiquette...
If you say GG when you are winning, and not about to concede, its basicaly like telling your opponent "Ive won, fuck off already".
Its completely the opposite of what youve understood.
Its a way for the loser to compliment the winner and to backout of the game as a gentleman, without simply pulling the plug or quitting the match.
GG basically amounts to saying: "I am about to concede, because I can see you outplayed me. I am conceeding but wanted to thank you for the match and for the experience, before I do so".
NEVER say GG before your opponent does, unless you are about to concede. If he does, return the gesture, and it is then time for the opponent to concede, if there is no other ingame chat/discussion to be had.
This is the gentleman way.
In tennis, its the same as walking up to the net and offering your hand for a shake.
In chess, its like turning over your own King.
So you understand, its completely against the purpose, for the winner to do so first.
Yup, obviously.
I always thought that I was being polite |
Australia
Relic Entertainment
cblanco ★ 
보드카 중대 
VonManteuffel 
