Canada
United States
I once built four Grens and one MG in a 1v1 on Kholodny Ferma and won against a USF player. He told me that there's "nothing USF can do about grenadier spam" and I laughed so hard.
Ahh, sometimes getting 15 loss streaks is great because your rank plummets and you get to play scrubs.
Anyway, I agree with Lemon and Cookiez about the MG42 play. I would rather face riflespam with double HMGs than face Soviet cons/T2 with double HMGs. Mortars tear your MGs apart.
I find that the early game is exceptionally difficult for Ostheer. I lost two 1v1s today due to mis-clicks, bad micro, and bugs, both of which were under ten or 15 minutes.
My HMG42 had to vacate a house due to a molotov, then a squad of partisans popped out a few seconds later. PPsH annihilated my half-health crew of four, then a retreating Gren squad.
I lost a game in about 8 minutes because my first HMG decided not to unpack in a house, so it ate two nades. That early in the game and it was all over. Not to mention I had the bug where I couldn't scroll right or down, but that wasn't that big of a deal.
MG42 just needs to be faster at aiming, acquiring targets, etc. It won't fire at a squad at max range, even if you are sighting well ahead of it. It's like the crew can't see beyond it's range; the weapon won't ready up in anticipation of an incoming squad before it gets to the arc. I imagine it's the same with every team weapon, but it's quite frustrating when you watch a rifle squad move in for five seconds before moving into the arc.
Another issue I have is access to artillery. LEFh is alright, just like the ML-20, but that's expensive and doctrinal. It's easier for Soviets to get Katyusha than it is for Ostheer to get Panzerwerfer.
If Soviet goes T2 and I have a combined arms build, I don't have easy access to rocket artillery like the Soviets.
-Or do I? Tech costs (assuming only T4 is built) is 190 fuel (45+55+60)). 205 with T1 (15 fuel for T1 building?) for Soviets it's 170 (50+120). Maybe more fuel cost is on purpose, to reflect some sort of historical lack of fuel?
With Ostheer, I find it has a very well rounded late game. Two vetted MGs can lock down late game infantry pushes. Best AT gun in the game. Best hand-held AT. Great core infantry. The problem is that Soviets have some great ways to counter all your infantry shit: flame artillery, katyusha.
If I'm holding one fuel, one VP, on muni point and a few other strat points, I find that I'm usually good with fuel. The issue is manpower. 600 manpower for all teching; 120/160/200(?) manpower for T2/3/4 building. What do Soviets pay? 320 for T3/T4, 250 for T1/T2 (I don't recall). While the Ostheer system makes it easier to back-tech and have the ability to acquire a more well-rounded force in the late game, the Soviets have the ability to get powerful units out sooner because they are forced to make choices.
There are many pros and cons to each factions teching order. It may be slower with Ostheer, but it is more balanced, while the Soviets require one to make potentially game-breaking decisions early on.
Against USF, Ostheer really struggles. You're not supposed to be losing squads and constantly reinforcing your grens. You're supposed to be inflicting casualties on the enemy from range with LMGs and super accurate mortar rounds. Grenadiers used to smash conscripts and it was unbalanced. Rifles are like uber conscripts. They will beat grenadiers at any range in equal cover, equal health, no upgrades. That, I find, is a problem. Manpower always low.
Just my two cents.
0
c0mpl3x1ty
~TAB~ GBPirate
Krhomie
高大上
~TAB~ GBPirate
Relic Entertainment
