General Information
Register Time: 20 Jan 2014, 06:00 AM
Last Visit Time: Today, 14:08 PM
Broadcast: https://www.twitch.tv/gbpirate
Steam: 76561198035726839
Residence: Canada
Nationality: United States
Timezone: America/Toronto
Game Name: GBPirate
Here's a pretty decent game... 1v1 Stalingrad.
A build order I've found interesting and useful:
T1 AG MG AG MG AG T2
From there I kinda go with whatever works... I won in under seven minutes on Langreskaya summer; the two MGs can help cover flanks or pin conscript blobs. AGs are good at CQB (although I find that they often lose to conscripts even at short range... not sure why). With no munition spending on upgrades, I often have 150 + muni stockpiled before I tech for T2, so I am free to use the AG grenades (which really turn the tide against shocks or ppsh con... well worth the investment if it does damage.
I managed to have enough muni to get a shreks on my PGs... My oppononent ended up getting 2 T-34/85 call ins.
This replay also demonstrates the *best* way to cap in Stalingrad: send units to both fuel points and make sure you win at least one of the engagements.
It is extremely frustrating when this happens... even if the fuel race is about equal, it seems the Soviets just skip building a T3 or T4 and opt for the T34s... I played a game where I had the enemy almost pinned to their base when an isu comes out, wipes 3 squads in 5 minutes.
If you're German and happen to be losing the fuel race, a KV-8 could come out (only 135 fuel?) and your PaK guns are just BBQ'd...
It's just frustrating when the some big tank comes out and wins the game for them... especially when their inf. micro is bad.
I don't mean to sound like I'm ranting; I'm just tired.
sometimes CoH2 can be real frustrating.
Why is it that an MG42 in light cover will lose to a Maxim squad in no cover (or even negative cover)? I've seen this before: MG42 opens up on Maxim, suppresses them; Maxim squad turns - while suppressed - and fires on MG42 squad and suppresses it, then pins it.
I think this should be fixed; it would leave Ostheer more ways to defeat a 6x Maxim opening.
I played as Ostheer, 1v1 Kholodny Ferma (summer) lost to six Maxims... Why must this strategy still be viable? I made some micro mistakes, but still... six maxims? MG42 should be more effective against Maxim guns... especially when the MG fires when the maxim is facing away.
Sigh.
^Thanks for the suggestions guys... It seems silly to me to rely on doctrine only AT, as for Germans, the Tiger at 720 MP and 200 fuel seems like quite a lot. I don't remember how much the elefant costs, but that is only in one doctrine.
On Minsk Pocket I successfully fought of a T34/85 horde with two paks...they even were great counters to the snipers he sent out for some reason. I find mines expensive and prefer infantry upgrades but they do help in certain situations...
At the higher levels of play, I see the triple sniper/guard opening more often than not. It's hard to deal with early game
@Aurgelwulf: I think it's okay because the soviet player has to choose a doctrine to get access to the guard infantry. That means heavy anti infantry stuff like KV - 8 won't appear and you can play out your infantry heavy G43 strat .
The only commander with Guards that has access to a vehicle that obliterates (literally) infantry squads is the Mechanized Support Commander which has an ISU-152. It is an assault gun, not necessarily a tank destroyer.
I lost a game because of one of those... squad wiped 3 of my inf. squads in its first 5 minutes.
Remember guys, check out the Commander tool on this website...somewhere. I have it on my iPod all the time now. It's really great. I get to look at my opponents bulletin choices and their commander choices and it can really make a difference.
I played a 1v1 game yesterday on Langreskaya winter, and my soviet opponent managed to get an ISU-152 on the field when I only had a P4. I had to say, I was winning, but I never knew it. When the ISU-152 came out, after looking at the replay, my opponent only had two vet 3 guards (although he was floating ~2000 MP due to a sniper + SC start).
Overall, I had more fuel income than he did, however, the manpower drain I suffered as a result of the snipers (men retreating through deep snow...) cost me the game. When the ISU-152 hit the field, it's first shot killed a full health AG squad... the second shot killed a full health Grenadiers squad, and soon after another AG was killed. It was extremely infuriating. I almost killed the ISu-152 with a P4; I got behind it while a friendly gren squad engaged the AT gun. With only one man left on the AT gun it fired (I think that was a bug; when weapon teams have one man, they run away, right?) and killed my P4... then he got another ISU-152. Against two, the best strategy is to surrender. Perhaps heavy vehicles (Elefant, Tiger, ISU-152, IS-2, and maybe KV-1/8 should be limited to one at a time in 1v1 games?
I think that was the reason I lost the game... I had plenty of fuel for three panthers, but not the manpower. I didn't realize how few squads he had left and how little resources he had (besides manpower). In 1v1 I find my teching to be slow. Although the new patch helps my infantry out, getting armored vehicles to me seems an unnecessary MP cost because I am generally winning my engagements with infantry, so why get vehicles? Is there something I need to do to get them faster, or is it simply actually realizing that I can get vehicles and that I should get them?
To all the people I told on Steam that the idea of Western Front factions is simply absurd... I am appalled. The original direction of CoH 2, as marketed, was to 'tell the story' of the Eastern Front. They could keep telling that story with Finnish, Hungarian, Italian, Romanian, and/or Bulgarian factions, as well as creating a second Soviet faction (as the foil to the PE of CoH 1). IF I was Russian or a citizen/resident of the former USSR, I would be offended. As an American, I am simply appalled at their choice for these new factions.
The balance issues, the "which vehicles are they using" issues, and whatnot, but simply... this. Why western front? WHY?
I played 3 or 4 games with the new patch yesterday; lots of Soviets whining how the patch favors the Germans?
Is it just my PE-influenced infantry micro that dictates non-blobbing and putting men behind all sorts of cover to create kill zones (think the right side of Langreskaya by the muni point)?
The spread of DPS at 35m has increased (there is a higher range of DPS among all the weapons types), so, in theory, it should benefit both factions.
March Deployment 1v1 Combined Arms v. Mechanized Assault Semoskiy Winter VPs 258-0
The longest and closest game I've played so far with March Deployment update. My previous games were ~20 minutes. Soviets used a heavy Maxim build to hold territory; effective against German infantry which now seem to be more effective than the Soviet infantry (unless I just have great micro). In the end it came down to a desperate tank battle against two KV-1s and... lots of spilled German blood.
Perhaps this will help Soviet players struggling with the new patch, although the Soviets did lose.
Canada
United States
0
JellyD0nut
GBPirate
.
GBPirate
Relic Entertainment
