Profile of astro_zombie

Jump back to quoted post5 Oct 2014, 21:47 PMREforever

Jagdtiger definitely isn't game breaking. I would argue that it needs a buff since 2 Jacksons or a handful of T-34's can decimate easily even if you have Volks with shreks supporting it. I lost countless Jagdtigers even when supported with shreked Volks to Jacksons and T-34's. The Jagdtiger is simply too weak and either needs to have an armour increase or a speed increase. It also has no anti-infantry capability which is puzzling; why doesn't a 800 MP and 300 petrol unit have the capability to kill infantry? If the Jagd could actually kill infantry then the price would almost be worth it, but as of now I don't ever use it because it's simply not worth it.

Jump back to quoted post28 Sep 2014, 15:55 PMBrachiaraidos

Pro tip: Make arguments that support your case, not ones that highlight the weakness of it.

It's one of the most basic principles of human psychology that given enough time at a repetitive task we gravitate towards the path of least resistance, not the 'coolest looking' or 'most challenging'.

We back-dash everywhere in castlevania SotN because it's faster than walking. We use combat rolls everywhere in LoZ: OoT because it's faster than walking. We take the shortest & most convenient paths to work.

And in CoH2 the overall population gravitates towards the fraction that strikes the best balance between ease and power to match our play styles..

Claiming anything other than is pretty silly. As it stands, OKW is super powerful and easy to play in 4v4, ergo 4v4 is full of it and full of it winning.


There is no way to claim the bias of play being so large is anything but an imbalance issue. Stop trying.



Nonsense.

German equipment at the beginning of WWII was trash. It was trash because it had to be assembled and prepared under the eye of a world still unimpressed with what it had been doing in WWI (and it lost at).

German start of the war tanks were terrible, their infantry armament was mediocre, and their infantry no better trained than the rest of the world.

Good leadership and a modern approach to war against a France trying desperately to fight like it was WWI won them the fight. Not technological or training superiority.

If people actually spent ten sodding minutes researching history with attention to real world performance and statistics and introduction dates? This whole 'Omg Germany super engineer WIZZARDS' myth wouldn't be so prevalent.

It bugs me. Learn your history, people.

In 1945, specifically, Germany was suffering massive resource shortages, manpower shortages, poor quality and often disrupted production, and the burden of a government sinking huge amounts of cash into white elephants like the Maus project (Lol @ that hilarious waste of space). Their air superiority was gone, their indirect fire batteries scattered, their armies divided or gone.

So yeah, no. Germany should arguably be the army with the least access to vehicles and elite troops. And yet, the perpetuation of poorly understood recounts of history means we get the exact opposite. It's sad.