I'm talking about players opinions about how you just use X to counter Y, if the enemy is blobbing, just use an MG!:
Oh the enemy has build 2 leigs? Just cloak up to him with commandos and gammon bomb them! (Completely ignoring everything else that can happen in a level) THATS hyperbole.
You "explained" what the difference was, but that doesnt stop the fact that Ostwinds wouldnt get hurt by Tommie blobs, and if it was a blob of piat weilding infantry sections then, they hardly pose an AI threat, so you know, Just use oswtwinds the game is a game of X/Y!
Were MG's designed to be countered by obers? Because, as I have shown, they can be, from the front, very easily.
Who said I regularly lose to blobs? and as someone that mains 3v3 how can you state that it is detrimental to map control? One blob can wipe 2-3 squads easily if you dont retreat in time, have you ever faces 2x obers with LMGs in a blob? Try retreat from that and then tell me its detrimental to map control or "Expensive" negating the amount of MP bleed they will inflict on the enemy.
EDIT: woah, and use mines or vehicles to counter obers..... So luck or a fuel investment that will get countered by a mine or a vehicle or a rak or a faust or a shreck or in some cases, the Schwer to counter an infantry squad, non doc at that, and you see no issue with that? But tommy blobs supposedly countering them, was an issue? OK