Yeah, thats a pretty funny troll. 
The bulletin is quite good at lower levels of play, where you can just roflstomp with the ace.
But high levels, its too much of a giveaway (unless you WANT to bait like you point out).
|
Dont overlook Penals. Fight fire with fire, and penals come out way before they have G43, so you get to put then pain on them fast.
I go roughly 2 cons, then 3 penal, guards compliments penal nicley.
Use cons to reinforce penal where you can  |
|
Africa would be awesome, BUT think about the maps? How would they make open desert style warfare suit COH.. thats quite a barrier.
For that reason alone, the Pacific war might suit better, USA vs Japan.
And they can include island hopping with marines and boats as the next big feature |
|
Vet3 pak is a handy tool vs industry, it gets cloak, so ambushing T70s is a breeze, and you could even use the stun shot out of camo if you absolutley need to stop it from reversing out of range |
|
Where do you get that I want something buffed because its missing something?
I most certainly do not.
I was only explaining why it is potentially possible for an ability to cost less than it is actually worth, simply because part of its cost is losing access to a different type of strong unit or ability.
I.e. it is ok to get stronger cons at a cheap price, in light of missing out on heavy tanks.
Yeah from what you've said, it's a simple misunderstanding of English, maybe my phrase only works in this country, so sorry if that's confused it.
What you explain is exactly what that phrase means. I didn't mean anything else by it.
I'm not trying to be personal either, I know your trying to make a point, it's just the language in a lot of your posts is a little over inforcive, that's the only 'offensive bit'. |
|
Ad hominem? Arguing with me the meaning of ''missing out on something'' is ad hominem in itself.
Your example of the tool box is very exactly what I am describing by saying ''missing out of something''
If you've understood it to mean something else, that's why I said maybe its a language thing.
To put it very clearly, that statement simply means you cannot now have it, which is a simple matter of fact.
Why are you always so keen to jump rather aggressively on anyone you disagree with, over rather small and insignificant things like the meaning of a figure of speach.
You have some good points, but it's your manner, at times that gets people's backs up. |
|
Nullist, are you insane dude?
If I chose one doc without say Shocks, I cannot call them in, say opponent then spams PGs I've missed my opportunity to call shocks.
Yes I am missing out on calling shocks.
No that does not mean I want everything at once. Simply the opposite, that I can't.
This is how the docs are balanced, put certain good stuff in, miss out on others.
In practise, the price of Ppsh may be appropriate because you are choosing not to have access to any heavy tank. (Basic example)
If ''missing out on something'' does not make sence to you maybe it's a language thing , nothing to get upset about. |
|
Even if something is really good though (in a doctrine), it doesn't nesecarily have to cost a certain amount.
Examples:
radio intercept, totally free.
Pak camo, totally free.
The pak one in particular is a huge buff in damage, but it's free. You could say that's imba, but it's not because its balanced within the doctrine, what you get and what your missing out on.
|
|
Yeah because all those saved munis = a lot of molotovs, which should be thrown constantly if your spamming cons.
There still can be reward, but its more micro and harder to pull. So thats quite good.
Rather than turning each con squad pretty much into shocks. |
|
I just think guards wont overperform vs infantry when their alternative is Shocks and you have access to penals, which really have quite high DPS. |
0
Charlie Dont Surf
Relic Entertainment
cblanco ★ 
보드카 중대 
VonManteuffel 
Heartless Jäger 
