|
AM I the only one who would never ever want to play with Italians? |
|
i had a much higher blood pressure dealing with a wall of at guns, double snipers, pershing and vetrifles as PE in coh1 |
|
about 1500 brave soldiers gave their lives in this gruesome forest of death...
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
no heavies(!), a lot of back and forth gameplay and nailbiting final.
had to build multiple AA halftracks and used toggle AA mode a lot to fight against close air support doctrine
|
|
would have liked that in coh1 with snipers:
and i mean a limit of 0 |
|
honor for the title |
|
i don't want to see the bren carrier ever again.... ever |
|
i hate f2p, it s the scum of the video game industry.
but if you want coh2 to look like warcraft3 from 2003, keep on, you re doing good. |
|
i dont want to see british
i dont like desert maps
i dont want more factions
inspite i would like WFA to be removed
i would like to see more eastern front maps and campaigns.
and i want vcoh2 back |
Well, ladder play isn't tournament play. There were a lot of top 50 players who wouldn't last beyond the second or third round of a tournament.
4ES was strong enough that Marinez made it to the front page of the American leaderboard using it on a profile named 4ES. People knew it was coming and still couldn't beat it. He also had decent tournament success with the strategy, and it was adapted a number of times with minor changes to improve its viability. It was a difficult strategy to use, but extremely difficult to beat when used correctly.
WSC openings were rare, yes, but fast WSC follow-ups after 3 rifles were common on maps like Semois and Argentan, and late-game WSC transitions were essential in many situations. It's not all about openings you know; one of the major boons to CoH1's strategic variety was the fact that every tier was viable in a number of different situations thanks to upgrades, purchased veterancy, and the fact that the tiers were well-composed. You frequently saw players backteching to WSC after Motor Pool, or Wehrmacht T2 after a T3 rush, simply because those tiers offered units that were vital in certain situations.
Moving on, fast grenades were actually an amazingly effective opener at all levels of play; KoreanArmy's entire American strategy revolved around this opening, and he had notable tournament success. Even if you don't deal damage with the grenades, you force your opponent to reposition MGs, which negates a large amount of manpower investment, and it also lets you follow up with a triage and transition into the midgame a lot easier than BARs.
As for snipers, nobody with any clue about what they're doing has relied on countersniping to kill snipers for at least 2 years now. There are far better ways to deal with snipers than by flipping a coin and hoping for the best.
I don't care if you prefer CoH2, or think it's a better game. At the end of the day that's entirely subjective, and nobody can tell you what you do and don't like. But if you're going to spout bullshit, at least have a sliver of a clue of what you're talking about.
Regardless, you've pushed us off-topic. Let's not derail this thread any further.
the stuff you described was used by A FEW people on A FEW occasions. the "not top 50 and tourney player" guys used the same standard build orders over and over again (list above). because they were reliable, easier to perform and therefore gave people the best chance to win. |
The OF faction metagames were always relatively stale, which is a big reason why most people disliked them relative to the vanilla factions. Brits consistently had the worst meta in CoH1, and they also had zero global upgrades, a trait shared, interestingly enough, with every faction in CoH2. Aside from that, your post is fairly misleading Donnie, but you were never a serious 1v1 player so I can understand the confusion.
Outside of the darkness that was the Piospam phase, the vanilla matchup enjoyed a very interesting and diverse metagame for much of the game's life (at least from 2.301 onward, which is when I started playing). Americans had standard 4 rifle starts into BARs, grenades, or M8, 5 rifle BARs into Tank Depot, 4ES and its many variations, weird WSC openings like the ones Seb loved on Semois, and most importantly a wide variety of lategame options, since every tier was viable depending on the map and situation. And this was the faction with less options in the matchup.
The options available to Wehrmacht players were too numerous to list, but the most exciting thing about Wehrmacht play in CoH1 was the fact that every top player had his own unique Wehrmacht style, and they were all equally viable. It wasn't just openings either; things like tech progression and vet timings varied greatly between the top tournament contenders, to the point where you could identify players based solely on their gameplay.
This isn't a CoH1 thread, but it bugs me when I see misinformation thrown around. CoH2 doesn't need to be CoH1 to be successful, but if CoH1 did something right, it was giving different styles and strategies relatively equal viability at a high level of play.
i was top 50 1v1 with vanilla factions and top 20 with OF factions.
-4ES was only used when it came out and after that almost never when people found the counters (mostly snipers, like always)
-wsc was unreliable and easily counterable by snipers and pumas. that s why it was rarely used
-early nades were useless vs better players
what i remember is clicking snipers nervously around house corners, missing countersnipes and m8 running away with 5% health although the pak was well positioned and hit 2 or even 3 times. the RNG here was far worse because it had a much bigger impact.
|
0
Relic Entertainment
cblanco ★ 
보드카 중대 
VonManteuffel 
Heartless Jäger 
