|
As happy as I am to see that CoH3 is happening, I quit CoH2 and haven't played for a few months because I couldn't take the toxicity. Will any mechanics address this ? Option to mute chat, etc... |
Blobbing wins when it hits you hard and at random. When it consistently drains you of MP while he doesn't lose any. Because at that point it's a slippery slope where you are spending so much MP to reinforce losses he didn't take. So you are bled and unable to buy the counters to said blob. It's very important to initially scout out if your opponent is a blobber and not to drain your own MP with losing engagements. It's alright to just instantly fallback if you have just then realized he's doing it with your squads out in the open and spread out simply because you can't win anymore. It's at this point scouting tools become important.
Different blobs do have different counters, a tommy blob is infinitely worse against any light vehicle vs say a volks blob. But a volks blob can be outgunned.
It's worth noting mines/grenades/other muni utility are a trap against massive blobbers. Because they will buy gun upgrades to ensure they keep winning in any firefights while having a sweeper in the blob.
Counters are basically an MG42 or a really good/suppression light vehicle (Like an M5 meat grinder) that can be mobile and dodge snares. Have something that forces them to run at you while you take good cover and you'll win most likely.
I like it. Thanks for the help. |
|
|
|
of course. So a follow-up question might be how better players handle this. I use mines, MGs, AI vehicles, but in team games, you often see two or more players combined their swarms. Is this why high-level players don't play team games ? |
|
Some time ago, I posted a complaint about OKW spam. At the time, I believed this phenomena to be exclusive to OKW. I was wrong. I played several games as OKW and Ost, attempting several spam- based strategies to see if they were viable, if it's a L2P issue on my part, etc...
I experienced mixed results. What I did notice however, was that Allied factions were just as likely to spam in team games. In fact, this approach seemed to dominate team games.
The overall effect seemed to be that games accelerated, with whoever fielded the most infantry and were careful with preservation, generally winning in the end. The only response seemed to be a frantic arms race toward anything that could counter masses of infantry.
In the end, whoever had the largest groups of infantry won, due to winning enough time to field their own heavies, etc...
Question : has anyone else noticed this in team games ? Are longer strategies dead ? Are combined arms strategies now the province of elite players, ie: those that can make them work properly ? |
I think it comes down to a bunch of factors. For starters, your commander choice may compliment going one or the other.
It also depends on the match up, their commanders, and game mode. Like I personally feel MG's are worthless against fusiliers because their sight range/flares eventually outranges your MGs. But against volks it's not half bad. OR the ML20 is pretty good against OKW, but against ostheer it's somewhat bad because of fausts and fast 222s. The stuart doesn't necessarily counter a 222, just deter it since he's not going to be dumb enough to lose it. So that can put you behind in the tank race.
Captain is arguably just safer, but you lose access to MGs. Personally I feel the smarter my opponent is the less optimal MG's for USF becomes. As shitty pathfinding as the halftrack has I do appreciate it's mobile suppression. Then later in the game it negates air support. I think the captain is also a useful team player because of ON ME and Supervise.
Fair enough, I agree with all that |
|
When I play USF, I rely heavily on the cpt to supervise and get stuff out fast. The idea is, USF can gain a significant advantage by dominating the early game. This sometimes works, sometimes not. Does anyone else here think that way, or is it generally better to go lt first ? The only think I can think of is having access to HMG and light armour earlier I guess, but then being constrained by "regular time", not "accelerated time". |
Really explain this to me then: why are the brits on the button of the charts despite being the best brute force faction. The soviets have the best way to shut the okw down. A simple at gun line with a kathusya in the back is enough to destroy 95 % of the okw tactics.
I have SERIOUS misgivings about the brits being the best brute force faction, so I'm gonna go ahead and disagree with that. Aside from that, you're saying I have to play Soviets to win against OKW ? Besides all that, you're missing the point- OKW can field a pretty respectable blob before most countering units, like katyusha for example. That's what I've been saying; you don't have a chance to get to later units against the OKW blob, and if you do, they haven't been idle either and will handily destroy your armour, etc... |
You have mistaken flexibility for brute force. Once you understand that the okw options are very limited its very easy to dominate this faction because you know exactly what they are going to do.
Really ? Because one might argue that brute force IS flexibility. After all, beating the shit out of everything pretty much resolves most conflicts. I'm open to suggestions though; how do you propose to dominate this faction in team games ? |
That concept has been thrown out of the window years ago. OKW right now is the faction with best front line units but no flexibility and their options are very limited in certain situations.
Fair enough, but I'd argue that the best front-line units are inherently flexible, and basically create their own options. |
Relic Entertainment
cblanco ★ 
보드카 중대 
VonManteuffel 
Heartless Jäger 
