Profile of Vaz

Lets make it simple - stuart is really powerfull, not impossible to beat, not super OP and not a godly 5 dimensional creature like the usf mortar, but definitely a must go in every 1v1 match.

And the mortar, well, the mortar is just OP as hell.

Ok, that's a more sensible assessment and thank you for specifying the game mode it best applies to

Don't forget vet3 terminator riflemen with double LMGs

Grens are pretty bad ass with their lmg at vet3. It's pretty common for me to lose 3 or 4 entities from a single mid-long burst. It's kind of hard to fight that, just as it is with the vet3 dual lmg rifles. Obers aren't too nice at higher vet either. Actually the only LMG's I haven't seen be a max vet nightmare are the British ones.

I'm going to go with good, there are some things I would like to see them improve on, but considering the age of this game and they are still supporting it, that is more than other developers would commit to.

I think you're mostly talking about 1v1. What kind of level are you at? You facing average joes, noobs, or the more sophisticated players closer to the top?

If the mortar is your problem and you don't want to use a grw, maybe consider grens and sniper? It's hard to tell because we don't know the timings of these engagements you're referring to.

Maybe post some replays highlighting your performance?

Grens are better than riflemen if you can keep them mid to long range. If you let them get close, espcially if they have bars, then you will lose. Fortunately you have a mobile tool to encourage the range you want, mg42. Just keep it behind your main force, outside of mortar range. If the rifles come too close, they get suppressed by the MG. If they stay back, they lose at range. The only thing that becomes a problem at that point is the mortar, but you can move around a little to dodge the mortar. If you outnumber him, then you can just engage the rifles with one squad and move another squad to attack the mortar at the same time. Can't be in 2 places at once.

The Stuart is pretty easy to deal with. You just save up the munitions for a teller mine and place it smartly. It's going to blow up if it runs over the mine. If it doesn't run over the mine on it's own, just encourage it with bait, like a 222 or sniper. Get a pak for backup in case he magically avoids the mine. When people try to escape from pushing too deep into enemy territory, it's common to just reverse back to base, without any kind of special avoidance, so the mine will get tripped. Panzer grenadiers with shreks might also do well if you're good at surprise attacks.

The Coliope is a bit more difficult and I think the best advice I can give is not something unique to OST, but to dealing with indirect fire period. You need to know what your opponent is trying to knock out and mitigate that. Usually this is going to be your main infantry, so the solution is to spread them out at rest and do your best to keep them out of view until you're ready to use them. If you know the enemy has just seen your force and you hear the noise for the rockets, change your trajectory. You need to do something unexpected. Usually the prescence of the caliope is going to mean you aren't going to see many tanks, so this goes back to your replay because we don't know what you're spending an equal amount of fuel on.

To solve my problems, I typically use a mental strategy I call attacking myself. I just look at what I have and figure out how if I was my opponent that I would attack myself. Then start closing up vulnerabilities. It's very defensive, so like most people you may not like it.

If you are getting flanked a lot, consider placing mines along common flank routes. This will make it challenging for poor planners to attack you from flanks. It doesn't matter that they can see the signs, if they don't bring a minesqeeper, they won't get through with much health. Also, you can place those MG bunkers on your flanks, instead of on the fronts where they will meet heavy fire.

Link to some replays so people can give you more accurate advice.

This is not a waste, this is something they should have been doing for a long time now. With this form they can begin building a proper database and actually organize this information to prioritize what the community really feels is bother them.

This is like the difference between having a crowd clap for choices (where whatever gets the loudest clapping wins) and actual votes where the votes are counted and given a numerical number.

The way things work now is absolute fucking chaos. If balance bothers someone, they go to whatever forum and bitch, hoping to gain the support of others. This results in opinions spread over multiple forums, multiple forum topics within each forum, and often the same people visiting each one.

Tell me, how the hell is it humanely possible to go after things objectively in this manner without bias? Sometimes there are things that are just obvious and have unanimous support. Other times, it's hard to see.

Making this database will allow Relic to organize this data properly and formally to address the needs of the community. This intelligent use of data is something I want more of from Relic and other game developers, who already need strong data programming skills to make their product to begin with.

I wish I could cite an example but I have read comments from relic in the past, where they would reference a data store of aggregate community statistics.

What I don't understand about the replay file is how it removes the luck from the game. If in a replay a sherman shoots at a panther, it doesn't always penetrate. So the replay file has to be able to tell the game that in a particular engagement, the round did indeed penetrate. So every time the replay file is played that shot always penetrates. Same for small arms fire accuracy and where arty shells landed. These things have to be done exactly as they occured or the replay file has no integrity, rendering it useless and corrupting the outcome.