Profile of iTzDusty

That sounds interesting!
So the mistake was to call only 1-2 Osttruppen. because these figures only from a certain mass of (spam)?
I'll test it once, Thanks!

@Scaletta
Nice tips for mid game. I'll try it Thanks!

Absolutely. Ostruppen in my experience is all or nothing. You don't mix grens with them unless you really need them late game. Snipers can work well too. 4 or 5 is the magic number of squads for me.

Ostruppen are completely fine and in reality the only viable way to skip T1 (at least until mid game when you need to build it to unlock fausts).

Calling them "only meat shields" and "no damage" units ignores that they received buffs and fixes to their accuracy, and that 6 men with super cheap reinforce costs make them probably the most cost effective infantry in the game.

If you build 4 ostruppen, 1 mg 42, a 5th ostruppen, tech up, get 1 or 2 222s, and then get T1 for fausts, you will see much more success. Just stick to cover and garrisons, and suddenly osttruppen win most fights.

So you wanted to make a profound and well thought-out observation on how people form strong opinions after playing the most diluted game mode for a very short time and blame their problems on mechanics that wouldn't be problematic had they considered known bugs. But what came out was:

"4v4 ? No one cares."

Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't touch 4v4 with a 10 foot pole but I understand the reactions here. If you're going to write that, you have to expect some shit flying your way.

Yes, in hindsight, the low effort of my initial post paid me back ten fold. But eh, everyone got shit off their chest I guess.

Well, for everything to work like that, we'd had to have commander that makes losing huge blobs of infantry unpunished and makes them easily sustainable, just like the recent firecracker commander

Oh boy,

were talking literally infinite manpower here.

Why is this even a thing.

can you blame us when you start out by saying

"4v4
?

No one cares."

??

lol.

and you are right. there are much much less proportion of good and game understanding people in 3v3+. maybe it is because it is so noncompetitive most of the time which some of us are eager to fix except your type comes into shit on us just because... you know.

you are also right in lack of flanking leads to more a-moving. a big big problem which i do not see being fixed in coh2. Many of the top 3v3+ teams just got the meta figured out every patch. they know what they are doing 100% of the time and do the same thing over and over and over again because to them, it is about winning not playing. whenever they try new stuffs, they collapse like house of cards which I have seen a lot of times.

---------------------------

here is the bottom line for you and other people who just like to shit on 3v3+ players.

coming to this kind of thread and shit on NorthWeapon and me for being premature is absolutely fair.

but just STFU about 3v3+ if you don't care for those game modes.

Thats literally the point I'm trying to make. People are being premature and kneejerking extremely hard. My "4v4, no one cares" comment is from the use of coh 2 win rates to prove a balance argument. Random 4v4s are literally the most useless statistic to look at, not because of the game mode problems, but because of how inconsistent the data is. I don't know if 94% OKW is 4x OKW teams vs 4x Brits teams, likewise no one has any idea what match ups caused Brits to have an atrocious win rate.

So when people make rage threads like this claiming "Brits are dead" without considering the above, and the fact that Brits face problems in this patch because of how absolutely fucked their popcap is (while trying to claim that X number of other "problems" are why Brits are "dead" when that is so absolutely far from the truth), it will get called out for what it is.


Again, I never intended this whole thread to devolve into a 1v1/2v2 vs 3v3/4v4 slit shinging thread, when my original comment was intended to address the issue of using only 4v4 random stats in the original unedited OP.