Profile of JHeartless

I usualy use only one veto in 1v1 or 2v2 - Crossing in the woods which I hate, cannot explain why; recently i figured it out I did a mistake and now I play it too. I think different, let me explain why:
I don't think it's a good idea for the player in you to restrain your knowledge to only 1-2 maps. You will be sick of them eventualy, and then when you will try to play other maps you will be owned by players weaker than you who just have experience on that map. Do not underestimate the map understanding phenomenon (given by the number of games you had on that map). It's important, as your skill and micro level are.

I'm not against the possibility to veto to any number of maps, I just don't think it's a good idea for those who are tempted to exclude them from their games.

What you dont like a campfest ISU/Ele friendly non flankable turtle fest backed up by indirect fire???? WHY NOT!?

LOL

I LOATHE crossing in the woods. Strangely I do pretty good on that map but I still hate the hell out of it.

And Stalingrad please delete tyvm.

I think 45 would be fair for current performance. Although grass is greener syndrome leaves me wanting area denial when I am not playing Ost so I would like a 60 Muni Smine field

Always want what you dont have...

I disagree on the point that soviet combined arms is weak. I find 2 cons, 2 maxims, into shocks, and 2 ATGs capable of dealing with almost any situation. You can adapt as you please, but soviet T1 and T2 are both extremely strong and effective. Maxims are really good as both support units and as an anti harassment unit. You can force a retreat on a lone capping infantry squad extremely easily by simply A-moving to it with your maxim.

-While simply spamming conscripts might be an easier strategy than going combined arms, I would contend that its not necessarily stronger. Maxims can force a retreat and win you an engagement from range, while conscripts are forced to close the gap. Often times multiple gren squads in green cover will shred you if you try to close the gap with several cons, but even a single maxim can turn the engagement in your favor. I think that conscripts ease of use and their flexibility make them a strong unit that is easily spammable, but there are certainly many other viable strategies as soviets.

-The zis is both a capable AT gun and the barrage is useful in so many different situations its worth the lower ROF imo.

-As for all the precision strike nonsense, I havn't wiped an ostheer weapon team with this ability in quite some time so I don't understand all the fuss about it.

I think conscripts might need something to make them ever so slightly less effective in combat to make up for their general ease of use and flexibility, but soviet support weapons (aside from the garbage mortar) are fine.

There is a difference between weak and not as strong. For example the T34 isnt weak. But its not as strong as an IS2.

I am saying soviet combined arms (at least in 1v1 in my experience) is not as strong as Spamming conscripts or sniper builds. When I say combined arms I mean support teams and I mean more than just two different units.

Two Zis are good but 1 Pak can do close to the same job at AT. 2 Maxims when 1 MG42 well microd can do the same thing (when it comes to blob control supporting grens).

Can Maxims be useful? Sure. Can Zis be useful? Well yeah its kind of neccassary and the only reason I build T2 to be honest.

Zis reload 4.425
Pak reload: Zis 2.7 to 3.1

Do i think barrage is useful? Yeah it can be. Maybe one in 10 games ill get 2-3 entity kills with it or free additional tank damage. Do I think it would as useful to saying having the reload down to say 3.5 to 4.1? Not in the least. Would changing it that little really be too much to ask? Would it make the Zis OP? No I think not.

Same goes with the Mortar

82 MM reload of 7.4
81 MM reload of 2.4

A 5 SECOND DIFFERENCE thats just INSANE. Is prec strike useful? Yeah I can spend muni and maybe get 2-3 entity kills for my trouble. Would I just get more kills with having a reload that gets the nicname "Turbo Mortar" for good reason? Yeah I would every game. Much much more valuable.

I mean if that difference in ability doesnt make you go GOOD LORD then you have to be the biggest fanboy on this forum.

Maxim is just personal preference. I want blob control but I cant have everything that I want. The issue with the maxim is dropping the stupid gun because you got hit and then the next guy dropping it etc and you wont be able to retreat.

So I am still of the opinion when I play as Ost and use support teams I get a much better result then when I use the Soviets. Outside of maybe Maxim spam.

You can't squad wipe a squad with precision strike just because the squad member are separated, damage-wise the shell can kill whether the guys are full health or not. For German support weapon, there are almost 3 members standing very close together, all you have to do to L2P your mouse more precise.

There is already an unfairness of squad members, more bullshit while Soviet capture German weapons and fill it with 6 men, and Ostheer can only fill Zis and Maxim with 4 men. The gimmick (crazy) abilities and the more squad member setting already compensating their inferior RoF, but when they vetted there is no much difference.

My 82mm / 81mm always reach vet 3 halfway before the games end, I find the best way to use mortar is do nothing with them, RNG god always favour the AI than your decision.

And yet as noted above grens and Pgrens are now designed to kill 6 models as fast as soviet squads kill 4. Fire and explosives are the only advantage and it's not that big. Again what your saying is dated.

81mm is a better mortar.

What brings this up is I had a match with an equal skilled player with the exact same unit composition 1 mortar 1 hmg 1 medium tank 1 at gun and two infantry squads. I was able to suppress one squad he suppressed two. My mortar got 0 kills his got 8 I hit his P4 with one shot before he could hid his pak hit my t34 twice. Even with no major mistakes between us his combined arms just clowned the shit out of mine. It wasn't even close performance wise. And it's further shown by preference. A wide selection of soviet units are rarely seen spamming one or two units is much more common because it's just more rewarding.

I mean I'll continue to spam units and most players will too until soviet support teams are more valuable but that makes for a boring meta.

@Ciez

I am sure if you had to pick between the 81 and 82 I am sure you would pick the 81 as well. I fail to see the balance. Yes prec strike is good. But it's lipstick on a pig. It would be akin to making the pak suck at AT compared to the Zis and saying TWP makes up for it. Maybe if prec strike ways vet 0 like barrage then the massive reload difference would make sense.

Totally disagree about the soviet mortar being worthless.

It works like this.

German mortar is much more effective as a "mortar" as in its accurate and it is reliable to get hits against other "set up" weapons and stationary infantry.

Soviet mortar is much more effective as a counter mortar. 1-on-1 soviet mortar nearly always beats german mortar, once soviet mortar reaches vet1 - forget it about. All german mortars are target practice.

Not to mention, mortar smoke fits better into soviet's overall "offensive" posture. Smoke is a much underused and very effective tool - especially for the soviets.

It's kinda like the german/soviet sniper relationship. German sniper is better as a "sniper" vs regular infantry, but loses in duels.

Wow your the only one. Prec strike is not at all what it used to be. It won't kill a full health squad any longer. And a reload of what is it 7.4 vs 2.4? I always lose that battle. I mean they aren't even in the same universe. 82 is complete trash. Oorah conscripts do a much better job countering osts mortar.

I don't even think osts sniper fires that much faster than the soviet sniper percentage wise.