Profile of Aimstrong

My favourite 2v2 partner and one hell of a wild card in 1v1. Rumors have it that he's going pro?

GL to both of you!

I approve. Sandland is now the Danish Champion!

Good points by Guderian.

It's because of the risks associated with flanking, Hitting one mine with the wrong squad can end up ruining the whole flank, and a failed flank - whatever the cause - ends up costing lots of manpower.

Even as we reached the end of the last patch WM was beginning to dominate earlier and earlier. So I do not believe it's because of the volks and mg change, both of which I don't find that significant.

At the same time it's now much more viable for US to tech now. Pak nerf and firestorm nerf to howi (no longer one shotting it) makes lategame US much more viable. Snipers have, for both sides, gotten easier and more efficient to use now that they don't run for cover. The stuh comes earlier and the American player may risk getting a stuh up his ass if he overly commits to anti infantry.

The result is that it's much more risky for the US to attack in the early game, compared to when he's gotten a little bit of tech, and that US lategame is pretty much on par with WM.

Most people will play safer on maps they haven't played before, but I actually believe that the layouts on them encourage continous manpower skirmishes rather than camping. The cutoffs aren't as important to hold as on normal maps (Langres, Ango cutoff and Semois bridge), especially not on Bois.

To sum up I think it's because the level of play has gotten better than ever before. This in turn has made it riskier to commit to an attack into uncharted territory (early game flanks are an attack into unknown). With balance changes to tech, it's now much more viable to get tech rather than try to end it early; good play atm is getting the tech advantage while losing as little manpower as possible.

Who are you? Do I know you?