Profile of Nemesis10192

Volks suck, thats just a fact.

Obers are nice, but by the time you can bring them in, the critical mass of Riflemen has been reached, and they are already vet 3. My experience shows N vet 3 Riflemen squads with zooks can beat N-1 Ober squads with LMG. Even though the price difference is 280 vs 400, not including teching costs.

Joseph

Lmao what game are you playing? In what world does even a vet 3 rifle beat an lmg ober when equipped with 2 zooks?

You are delusional and to admit to losing to 6 rifle 12 zook builds is just screaming to the world you are a massive noob with no idea how to play the game.

Firstly the Pershing is not decrewable because otherwise you could call multiple in (as the game will never have a way of knowing wether its decrewed by USF choice and sitting somewhere safe or abandoned in the middle of a war-zone) so as to prevent abusing the single heavy limit.

Calliope is not decrewable because of manpower income abuse. A calliopes value is its barrage, it is effectively worthless when recharging since it has no gun so decrewing whilst cooldown continues is pure abuse. You can decrew random tanks if you want to get more manpower, but a decrewed tank cannot move or fight so is not contributing anyway whilst you are receiving a tiny bit more manpower.

Stalling out at 100 pop for any amount of time is massive hint that you are a noob playing in noob games tbh, allies never want to stall for 100 pop as quite frankly they get ruined in 100 pop v 100 pop axis. Sure you can overpop as americans but this is only good for one big push where you either plan to win or at least grind both sides armies down as as someone pointed out the moment you are over 100 pop you cannot reinforce your wounded infantry without uncrewing all your vehicles all over the map every time which would obviously end in disaster and is hugely micro heavy.

And who loses to a 5-6 sherman push? Shermans are absolutely garbage lategame lol, will get absolutely ruined by any and all axis heavy armour especially with any mines on the field. They even have to toggle between AI and AT shells so they CANNOT be simultaneously killing your handheld AT/AT guns and heavy tanks.

OK.
[math]
400mp pit+100/15+280/30 bofors (18 popcap) vs 3x(no idea why you want 3 when 2 are enough, but whatever) 330mp and 200/40 as the first truck is basically free due to starting fuel and bonus menpower.

We have here 780mp and 45 fuel vs, 990mp(which again, I don't know why you insist so hard on 3 ISGs) and 200/40 med truck, but med truck is a tech building and NOT a side cost expansion, so I either need to subtract its cost completely from the comparison or add UKF T2 cost.

Lets ignore mandatory tech cost as neither med truck nor UKF T2 are optional and we'll see them every single game regardless of choices.

As shown by the supply drops, 50 fuel is worth pretty much 200 menpower so 45 will be 180mp.

This leaves us at 780/45 vs 990, which translates to 960 vs 990 mp and that 990 mp is pretty much guaranteed to hardcounter brit investment.

Now, I could recalculate everything with inclusion of tech structures AND UKF engineers(because you can't build emplacements without engies unless you go for one specific doctrine).

Either way, whether you like it or not, brits emplacements will be cleared and OKW will have considerable indirect fire force for the rest of the game. Investment in infantry force will be similar.
[/math]

Conclusion:
You've hardcountered emplacements without investing more then brit had invested in the emplacements.
The only arguable thing left is pop cap comparison, but you'll have 3 mobile light arty pieces and brit will have nothing after that.
Happy now?

Not saying emplacements are healthy or not or discussing their balance, just saying you're wrong.

Only thing is it doesn't counter the emplacements on maps where counter battery is in range and will bleed the OKW like a pig to keep the ISGs manned.

Emplacements without an emplacement supportive commander are not strong (though a lone mortar pit has its uses) but advanced emplacements really changes things.

I do in 2s.
It saved my life as often as killed me

I go for Churchill if I have complex army behind. I mean, double vetted 6 pounders, double vetted Tommies, 2 Pits or something, then all I need is a damage sponge to keep vision, bait, protect vunerable crew etc.

If I have 17pounder and 6 pounder or double/triple 6 pounder and resources let me, I go for Croc+Churchill. Just move 3 pounders behind to stop any vehicles, while Croc+Church will melt any infantry/crew weapons.

Sounds like something that would get melted by rocket arty+heavy tanks. Gonna struggle v tanks once your AT guns get decrewed and lose vet!

Implying axis forces have no buildings that require zero user input and yet still gets the job done.

Oh wait, they totally do.

Ostheer can lockdown parts of the map really earlygame by placing bunkers and upgrading a machine gun on it, which is counterable, but requires a big investment AND time to do so, making you vulnerable to the inevitable counterattack that's coming your way the second ostheer player spots you moving in for the bunker.

OKW has a flak-emplacement which also locksdown a huge chunk of the map, for 200MP and 120 Fuel. Unlike the bofors, it also works as a tech-up for the OKW, who can then employ Obersoldaten or tanks to the fight. Countering this building also proves hard, unless you have high CP and a lot of ammo to spend.

Lets be real, whilst the schwerer IS infurating and totally saves OKW players from losing games they deserve to lose (especially in 1v1s, where it denies you the ability to take all their resources and crush them off the map like you could any other faction by being placed defensively behind shotblockers on their fuel and VP), the ostheer bunker is in no way comparable .

All that thing does is suppress in a moderate area, and is flimsy as hell, as opposed to brit bofors being total lock down to anything but heavy armour and mortar pits barraging the hell out of a big area!