^ Great scene from Casablanca, definitely a humorous moment.
cuss words in a M-Rated game is too much for some people to handle, especially in 2015. Watching Soviet Soldiers get instantly turned into quadruple amputees from the splash damage from your Tiger tank is just fine with relic however. |
Relic is full of a bunch of gardening nice persons if you asked me. Apparently it's ok for the riflemen in COH1 to say "Jesus Conrad tie your fucking laces" and "Get your dicks swinging" in this M-Rated game, just not the people who actually play it. |
I don't know if you guys have seen this film although I'm sure some of you have. The film just doesn't do it for me. If there's a WWII movie/miniseries that's made post 1998 or so (although I watched Das Boot and enjoyed it), I buy it and watch it, unless it's totally fictionalized such as InGlorious Basterds.
I've seen some great WWII films that didn't come off all "America F Yea!!!" like this film did. I got a vague sense it may have been an Anti-War film but wasn't for sure. It really made the Germans out to be these horrible people, but I didn't much care for the first battle scene the Americans committing a horrible war crime against a POW.
Other films, like Letters from Iwo Jima actually did a decent job at humanizing our WWII enemies, which this film did as little as possible.
The end scene was so hokey, the Germans weren't nearly as intelligent as they are in my game. If they were going to massacre several hundred germans in the final battle it should have been a group of dumbass volkssturm parade marching down the road (70 year old men and 9-10 year old boys) rather than seasoned and battle hardened PanzerGrenadiers.
I mean really fighting the immobilized tank in the last scene with Machine guns? They showed that they had several supplies of Panzerfausts, that's about the only thing you should be using on the tank and it's crew, not MG42's and rifle fire. That tanks should have been dead within 1 minute, 2 minutes tops, maybe even within 15-30 seconds when they realized it was still crewed and they intended to fight. No PanzerGrenadier unit would be blobbed up, parade marching down a road, even in April of 45 without AT weaponry.
I really don't see why the men chose to fight the battle then and there. The commander all worried about his supply lines that the Germans are threatening. It's April of '45! Everyone already knows Germany has lost the war and the only offenses would be at best on a very localized scale. Why would this 5 man crew of Audie Murphy's, Gunnery Sergeant Basilone's, Heinrich Severloh's and Fritz Christen's decide then and there to sacrifice their lives fighting the very last remnants of the German Army, all because they're SS in a total suicide mission, when the War is practically over anyways?
I really did not care for how much the film did to dehumanize the German people. The film really made next to no distinction between War Criminal SS troops, and Wehrmacht troops.
I laugh at the reviewer that said it was "the best War film since Saving Private Ryan and Platoon". I'm not nostalgic either when it comes to films. There have been some great, modern film making, WWII movies, Band of Brothers, The Pacific, Unsere Mutter Unsere Vater from Germany, Saving Private Ryan (although I disapproved of that films' morals seemingly advocating the shooting of German POW's which I think Steven Spielberg had something to do with that) in the off the top of my head. This was was just too fictionalized, over dramatic, had an impossible to pull off end scene where an immobilized tank destroys practically a whole company of Panzergrenadiers in an obvious ambush where everyone sees the tank with it's only saving grace is initially they thought it was decrewed and I thought it was BS that the germans kept wasting ammunition firing MG42 rounds at a tank, wouldn't they have the intelligence to save their MG ammo for targets they can actually kill?
OH well, maybe this film was good and I'm just sour on it. I guess I'll go back to watching my favorite WWII film of all time, Company of Heroes (Tom Sizemore and Neal McDonough For the Win!) |
You can recrew paks using halftracks and pios,and a STUG dies to a stiff breeze except it costs fuel and you cant recrew it once it dies. you just keep drainig fuel by replacing it.
I also dont feel a fragile assault gun is all that mobile.
But thats just my opinion. To me the only thing a STUG has going for it is DPS vs medium tanks like the T34 or sherman when you have 2-3 together,since it can actuallly penetrate them.
But vs IS2s n whatnot i'd rather have a panther or tiger. again just me
Granted I virtually never build StuG's, I had a kick ass round with them though. I just think if you understand their battlefield role (THey're a self-propelled gun, NOT a tank) and micro them well you can make effective use of them. They're a notch above a SU76, which truly has paper armor and can take virtually no return fire without dying. |
If we're talking 3v3+,I'd get panthers or tigers behind a TWP pak wall all day. Why get a STUG with your fuel for TWP when a pak does the same thing for only MP?
My main problem with paks is #1 they're no where near as mobile as a StuG. I can get a StuG into the action whereas Pak's need to be somewhat close to where the action is before they can become of use and #2, this is a huge flaw in the Pak, they get decrewed SOOOOO easily. Like a fire bomb right ontop of a couple of Pak's their crews are gone, StuG will drive right through that though. Plus it has an MG Gunner on top to boot.
StuG can survive a Katyusha rocket barrage, I think I've even seen them survive a direct hit from a M6 Priest Howitzer, can't say the same for a Pak crew.
Fuel is almost never an issue with my style of game, i micro my tanks so well usually, that I'm usually floating a lot of fuel by endgame rather than in constant need of it. Which is once again why I like the StuG, I lost 3 StuGs out of 7 built and got 40,000 damage, can't complain about that bang for the buck. |
|
About 40,xxx damage with StuG's, 42,xxx damage with PGrens, another 21k in damage from everything else.
I did the most damage out of everyone in the round, had just shy of a 2:1 KD ratio |
Post your replay...
I find stugs personally to be crap at tank hunting. Once they vet theyre ok but pathers are really the best at tank hunting, they're even better then tigers because of their range and penetration. Personally I use 2 pak40s, p4 and sheks to massacre all. The drawback to the panther is it takes awhile to hit the field vs p4 or ootherwise.
Lastly... If you really want to wreck armor go for elefant.
I will gladly post this replay, it is fuckin awesome! It was the most epic battle I had in months. We totally snatched victory from the jaws of defeat, considering we got down to like 11 vics left when the tide turned. |
I just had the most epic 4v4 tank battle ever. I have no idea how many IS2's we killed, but it must have been 15 IS2's and about 20 T34/85's and probably another 15 SU-85's or so. The round lasted over an hour and came down to 11 vics vs 0 at the end. I had over 103000 damage, 40,000 dealt by StuG's and 42,000 delt by Panzer Grens.
Throughout the entire round I never really had fuel for panthers
Something told me that StuG's would have been better for the round given how many t34/85 and IS2 commanders I was up against. If you're facing just an absolute massive medium and heavy tank spam, does the StuG make more sense than the Panther? I'm thinking with the Weak point ability at vet1 2 StuGs MAY be a better tank killer overall than the Panther, not to mention that it vets up WAYYYY faster.
I had a round a day or two ago where the enemy sent in about 6 T34's vs my 2 Tigers and 2 Pgrens with schrecks. WIth the massive kind of spam, not even all that AT weaponry could kill the enemy tanks. In certain situations isn't it better to have lots of small and medium tank killers, rather than a Heavy or two, or 2 or 3 panthers tops? |
i hate you rzhev.
I pwn face on rzhev. Rzhev works for me because the muni, cutoff and fuel are all relatively close to my main base and easy to defend in the early game.
Hands down worst maps for me are Ettelbruck, that map comes as so unbalanced and it's game over right off the bat if your opponent has pay 2 win Urban Defense doctrine.
THe maps I have trouble with is Moscow OUtskirts, seems to me when the fuel is a far walk away from your main base, it favors early game allied infantry spam over ostheer, and the other map is Semois. 2 Rifles in cover, or 2 conscripts, can effectively tie up 3 grens without some kind of support behind them. Semois, another urban map with cutoffs and fuels faraway from the main base just doesn't seem to favor Ostheer and in fact work against them. Summer Semois has the fuels near the main base but the problem is that everything on that map is a damn cutoff. HM-138 mortars rape Ostheer on those maps, not to mention Katyushas, and again, the cutoffs are not anywhere near the main base. Like say I take right half on that map, I got two cutoffs and a muni I got to defend plus a fuel. Your whole income can get raped by harassing allied squads.
AN ideal map is one that isn't urban, so urban defense doesn't have an upper hand and one that has fuel and munitions and minimal cutoffs near your main base so they're easy to defend.
BTW the hands down WORST 4v4-3v3 map is Sittard Summer. DO NOT PLAY SITTARD SUMMER. It is the most boring map of them all, camp the bridges and fire artillery at each other the whole time, crowd AT weapons and MG's around each bridge. I once played a bridge map very similar to it in coh1, and it took no less than 2 HOURS to win the round. No thanks, I consider 1 hour long games to start to get boring, 2 hours and I'm totally burnt out on company of heroes. |