Profile of turbotortoise

i play every so often with one of my friends whose on every couple of weeks.

was it still providing income?

Alrighty! Thanks for putting your play on display wanting to improve. Although I only watched the first game, it was certainly unique.

I suppose I ought to congratulate you for winning a game with such an unorthodox style. Not having a single rifle squad certainly put yourself at a disadvantage; however, generally speaking, despite your good use of volley fire and fighting positions, these are no substitutes for riflemen. By forgoing rifles, you are ignoring one of the USF’s greatest strengths and this became an issue once your opponent’s volksgrenadiers earned veterancy and started pushing you back. Usually an extra RE squad will help you flank an MG or a Kubelwagon, or gain map control on larger maps, or smaller game modes, but otherwise will become a liability as the game progresses, RE's are not effective combat infantry.

Whether or not the early ambulance is a good idea is up for debate, it can help your team mates tremendously, but also set you back. What isn't debatable is the loss when you lose the first one like you did. You need to make sure to be careful with these units, they are expensive, delay your tech progression and allow your opponent a foot in the game.

The Captain is a good choice which suits your defensive style, but the Stuarts do not perform well, and the use of the 57mm without any light vehicles or armor on the field puts you at a further disadvantage against an army composing of infantry. Thus, I liked the adaptation to Lieutenant to get a bit more suppression power from the .50cal, but again, this can be avoided by utilizing a more stable build order and including units from the battalion. Much like RE’s not being a substitute for riflemen, Armor isn’t a suitable substitute for the Major or your battalion tech. Your M10 failed to give you any return on your investment and an M4A3 Sherman and their HE rounds, or M8 Scott’s would have really helped against their heavy Volks army composition.

If you do decide to adhere closer to the state of the game, one of our senior strategists has wrote a good guide here, which although specifically for the Infantry Company, includes really solid, adaptable build orders, which are well defined, explaining what to build, when and why, http://www.coh2.org/guides/33076/infantry-company-guide

Again, thank you for sharing, it isn't easy asking for feedback and I hope what little I've posted helps you at least somewhat. 1v1's are generally much easier to review and tax your skill set a lot more as a player, exposing your deficiencies and letting your strengths shine. Finally if there's anyway in which you think I could improve my feedback, don't hesitate to post.

Thanks.

Well. 4v4's don't really give a very good sample of play. I'll have a crack, but I won't be able to comment on strategy, just tactics and execution.

On many maps IMO there are very key points that lead to control to the several other key points and some the majority of the map. Having that concentration of force to take over these key points can win the early game in my opinion. if we lose trying to contest one of these key points early game and you have time to set up defenses it takes the USF too long to get the support weapons we need to push you out of these key points. yes we could settle for other areas but like I said it will probably end up in defeat. I agree our starting infantry are better but okw can go mg34 or kubel rendering our better infantry useless when they are pinned. Especially the maps where they put two victory points and fuel close together lets say an area highly contested if we lose the first fight there and okw have time to set up we are probably done for unless we can buy time to get arty etc. I am not saying they are much better I feel a good USF player can win that first fight there are things we can do smoke garrison etc to win that but I feel right now things are pretty even compared to before.

However your not going to agree that the forward hq truck which is really hard to destroy early to mid game does not allow okw to have a better map presence from simply getting to points faster and to defend points faster?

I notice this all the time. It takes USF a much longer time to get our major and a med truck up and going to do this equally but it is highly susceptible to the walking stukka or anything really unlike the hq truck ....

I am going to disagree because if you employ this tactic, the reach offered is really poor. Again, realistically you're only going to take a 1/3rd of the map giving you a resource income similar to the Wehrmacht, without the Wehrmacht's tools. Not bearing in mind the penalty It's very tough. It isn't like a Schwerer is being plopped down on your cut off inward of 7 minutes.

As the Allies the only maps I ever feel... eh, on are: Kharkov, maybe Langres, maybe Crossing, and Faymonville if I'm feeling bleh. When you can dictate the tempo of the fight just by right clicking closer to your opponent, it's a huge advantage. You mention it right there, you're only ever going to be dealing with: less volks, and an MG34, it's not exactly, rigid opposition. Only on the maps I mentioned can you realistically hold any more than a 1/3rd of the map, with the pressure exerted by a truck, which is still putting the allies at a significant resource advantage. You do mention the lack of indirect fire, which is an issue, but one that if solved, would neigh on entirely dwarf the OKW's relevancy.

And the final part of your argument requires the premise that your opponent has both MechReg and BattleGruppe, which leaves their mid-to-late game in a pitiful position without a Schewerer.