To many words for just stating your opinion which was the only thing required.
Don't want to flame you further, I have nothing to discuss realy with a player that has only 8 Axis games so I'll stop here. Just for the record, I completely disagree + my opinion is enirely viable for the reasons I stated before. Keep lying to yourself imagining that 4v4 is so different game compared to 3v3.
It's funny to see someone arguing over my playcard while hiding his. Note that I'm not interested in seeing it. You probably kept it hidden for some good reasons.
Now imagine what you want about 4vs4, its your right after all but don't come to people who actually play 4vs4 to try to teach them your imaginative opinion.
|
Well, unlike you, I didn't intend no ad hominem with my replay, while I just stated my opinion related to CAS and the behavior of this doctrine on different sized maps no matter how many players would these involve. From this point of view, you can't tell me that you play a different game on 4v4.
P.S. : See? I could do it in a civilized way with no ad hominem attacks instead just replaying to you that "4v4 heroes wanna be" have nothing to teach me about game or doctrines and that the skill and game knowledge is not accomplished by playing 4v4.
Oh, and I'm sure you have learned everything about CAS in your 8 Ostheer games.
Your opinion is inappropriate when we are talking 4vs4 because you don't know what you're talking about in this game mod. You think yourself superior of 4vs4 players because 1vs1 requires more micro which is just plenty stupid. 4vs4 has little to do with micromanagement but a lot to with teamplay, where CAS unique drawback is fully compensate by what other Ostheer and OWK players can field while it completely annihilates Allied late game strength.
But you don't know that, because you don't play 4vs4, because in your imagination its a game mod dedicated for low level players that should simply shut up before yourself and your high authority as 1vs1 specialist.
|
Well to bad, because I would have apreciated a more elaborate and sustained answer to what I said (which was argumented and sustained). People use to hide behind such answers like you wrote when they are out of arguments. Oh well, I asked to much it seems.
Play 4vs4 and get your own answers, but its probably too much for you, better to call 4vs4 players low skilled scum that have no idea what's the problem with a doctrine in their game mod.
Btw, It took you an entire day to formulate your answer and try to keep your dignity in your reply? |
I don't realize how it is in 4v4 because I never play such a mess ( I apologize to 4v4 fans) but what I can say from my experience, is that on large maps (meaning some 2v2 maps, almost all 3v3 maps and I imagine all 4v4 maps) if you don't build vehicles = you are disadvantaged because the distances you have to walk with your ostheer infantry which has no forward retreat point. Have fun fighting 1 or 2 IS2s, ISU or 85s with your dual P4 with or without air strikes to support them. And even if your mates support you with vehicles you won't be able to support them all the times they need, because 50% of battle you will march from your base to the frontline or from your current position to the position where you have to reach to support your mates.
Please do not exagerate the effectiveness of CAS. It's a nice doctrine, it's efficient, it's powerfull, but it has enough dizadvantages in order not to be OP.
Since you don't realize, just don't talk about it. You have absolutely no idea how works 4vs4 games and you dare come to people and tell them what to do in situations they are facing and you not.
CAS doctrine is balanced in 1vs and 2vs2 but 4vs4 not. And you have no argument neither experience to bring contraction to this statement.
|
No matter of how much amo you have, you still won't be able to have lmgs for all your grens, schrecks for all your pzgrens, rifle nades, air strikes, bundle grenades, flamers etc etc... AND tellers. You just can't. You will still have to chose what you will buy with your converted amo. And I don't believe having zero vehicles on the field will be that inspired. So you won't convert your every drop of fuel I can assure you. You will usualy have at least one sdkfz for reinforcements on the field or you will have a panther. No tanks means that when you have one, that need to be a real tank so your choise won't be made from Tier 3. And in order to reach Panther you will need some fuel. Even for that sdkfz you will need teching, Tier 2 and the vehicle, of course.
Yes you do. Maybe you don't realize it but in 4vs4, you have enough of it.
And going panther is a wrong decision with this doctrine, Pz4 (1 or 2) are more than enough if supported by Shrecks and more deadly with Air strikes. But in 4vs4, it is only if you wish use a tank to play with |
It was probably mentioned earlier in the thread but Conversion ability has a exponential impact with the number of players.
It loops with Napalm's question on improving 4vs4 meta, all resources need to be cut down. You can't say 1vs and 4vs4 are the same meta/game if you artificially increase any resource income in 4vs4 by multiplicating the number of resource points.
Two solutions:
Apply a resource penalty income to 3vs3 and 4vs4 mods to match 1vs1 natural income.
Modify any 3vs3 and 4vs4 map to reduce their number of points.
In fact I strongly believe if reducing the resource income would balance the game in those mods more than anything else. |
Here's my idea, a pipe dream if you will-
T0 RE / Ambulance
T1 Rifles / M20
T2 50cal / Pack Howi / 57mm
T3 Stuart / M3 HT / Scott
T4 Sherman / Jackson
After T1 OR T2, T3 and T4 are unlocked.
IF so USF = Dead meat faction for OKW with its current stats.
If you modify USF teching in that way, you'll have to make RE far more stronger than they are, probably a 230-240 mp unit to match volks/gren and have a chance to resist more than 5 sec vs Sturm, this also probably means to up the squad size to 6 men at least.
You'll also have to give the fuel to unlock T1 or T2 at start. Seeing how 50cal can be really strong if well supported by those new RE, it would probably create a new mg meta for USF as for Sov.
Last, it would make USF not anymore dominating early game and so, you'll have to buff its late game. Maybe reduce some cost or increase some dmg stats and resilience for Shermans and Jacksons.
|
I don't know about it.
USA women football in lingerie is quite popular.
Proof? Link? |
It is why I use more Rifle company when I know I'll extra vision because of the map, That rifle flare is one of the best tool to combine with M36.
|
Buffing anti-blob units will make them primarily overpowered vs single unit they're mean to counter aka one shot ability many anti-blob already have. ISG and USF howi buff is quite interesting but it also works too well vs 1 single squad, buffing it too much would make people building 2 or 3 them and sit on their defense.
And people who never heard about tactical blob never played the game... Moving 3+ squads in a small radius isn't something rare, any Ostheer player does it when he Attack move with 2 paks + 1 or 2 potential support unit. Don't tell me no, I have ready it again today from good players here as a strategy to counter IS2. And the same goes for any faction in many situations.
I think people have a really poor definition of what a blob is in term of game mechanism and only think about the most obvious examples, which is simply wrong. You cannot put a buff or debuff to game mechanism and expect it to impact one situation over 10-20 existant.
Edit:
Removing Attack move is probably the best measure, simple and easy to put in place, I have read so far to counter the particular way of blobbing people want to get rid off without impacting too much the rest of the gameplay.
|