I find that if you start at the bottom, go for middle and left hand point. The middle is typically where the hammer falls hardest, but as with any classical game of strategy, controlling the corners and sides of a map will usually net good results. Only go up the right side as far as the muni point, and don't waste too much effort pushing there until late game if everything else is under control. I find urban maps grant you a certain degree of fluidity in your tactics; you can hop fences, go into buildings, etc...and there's lots of shot-blocking stuff around, so infantry can make good use of that. That goes both ways. So, unfortunately, if your whole team isnt on the same page and communicating, there's a chacne the enemy can punch through somewhere, and then flow around you , using all the stuff I described. Mines can help mitigate some of that by slowing any flank, buying you time to re-allocate troops, re-direct MGs, etc... |
Oh, and as with any urban map, mine the shit out of it ! |
Here's a tip; fill every building with MGs. Then back them up with mortars. GG. ...seriously, this map is pretty formulaic. If you plant Mgs in the building in the middle of the map, then another one in the building overlooking the right side VP, then another overlooking the left-side VP, you're more than halfway there. |
Yeah, still not certain why USF suck so bad...I understand the faction design; light, mobile, flexible, etc...but that means nothing when all your weapons suck. I also can see that they would be more viable in 1v1, but even there, they get outmatched in late game. So again, the only option for USF is win fast...an increasingly difficult prospect given the current kubel situation. They're not even good as a support faction. In large team games, with USF, guaranteed the side of the map with USF will cave first. Unless, of course, you get that rare individual that can make them work, i.e. a pro. So if you're going to have an Allied "pros-only" faction, at least make one Axis faction equally difficult to play. I seriously miss the recoilless rifles for vCoH Airborne, or the Thompson- wielding Rangers. I say : give the Airborne the option of upgrading between the LMG, or RR, and bring back Rangers with Thompsons and give them AT grenades. Those two things would go a long way to making USF viable again. Provided you don't nerf the shit out of those weapons in the meantime. Which seems to be a thing with USF..."hey, you think <insert weapon/unit here> is too powerful?" "Hm...not sure...you know what, let's just nerf those fuckers into oblivion". |
4v4 requiring less skill to play and win ? Absolutely...as Axis. The strat for Axis in this case is stall for late game armor. GG. Nothing to it; I've done it a bunch of times. As we all know, the beauty of large teamgames is that if you fail, your team can back you up. In the case of Axis, this means if I lose 1,2, or 3 P4s, no matter...my team will have literally 5 more to replace them, probably with a Tiger somewhere in there. The only way to stop this is to ensure Axis doesn't get ANY fuel. Otherwise you won't win as long as they hold fuel. You WILL be ground down by endless waves of armor and infantry that has vetted up on the deaths of your men. This translates into win the game very quickly. It really is incredibly frustrating when you hold 2/3 VPs, and one fuel, and 3/4 of the map, have the game in the bag, and then can't close the deal because the armor starts coming and Allied AT sucks. Axis making a comeback like that ? Commonplace. Allied pulling off the same feat ? Nah. And the Axis players have the nerve to start with the "lol", and "noob". As if stalling requires any skill at all.
And yes, the crappy part of 1v1 (which I played a lot in vCoH), is that every map has its "trick"; this farmhouse, that intersection, etc...which , if exploited properly, will win you the game. I admit that 2v2 isn't bad, but I am still 100% behind the idea that large team games are awesome. It's something you can do with friends, and it's infinitely more complex and dynamic.
Again, I'm not a game developer, but I hope that if the large team games can't be balanced, then make a new game or an expansion pack. Separate the two, and leave 1v1, and 2v2 for "pros"; call it "Super Elite Platinum Edition Not-For-Noobs Serious Bobby Fischer Company of Heroes", and then create an expansion for larger games called "Cry Havoc ! Let slip the dogs of war !", or "Helmut Keeps Hogging the Rations". |
What about trash-eating?
oh snap....yes. All the time, except that one time when I got too accustomed to humans and kept getting in this guy's garage to lick his barbeque grill. Then I got sedated and dropped off in, like, the middle of nowhere. Not cool. |
Hi...I'm not sure how to contact someone on Steam, but I just added kreatiir, in the hopes of joining this clan. I've got 271 hours, and play a fair bit. I'm in Canada. I prefer playing Allies, but also like playing Ost. I mostly enjoy team games, and CAN'T STAND trash-talking ! My Steam name is Patches_O'Hoolahan. I'm level 96 if that means anything. |
Kind of on a related note: why don't we have a pre-game lobby anymore ? In the old days, you could at least chat a bit before the game, and hammer out some strategies. |
Nigel:
I added a section to my previous post for your consideration.
In addition to that, some more questions:
1) What % of your teamgames are with an arranged team?
2) What is your ratio of axis to allies matches in those arranged teams?
3) How many arranged matches have ypu won as either Axis/Allies?
3) Are you, or are you not, arguing that Allies is OP in 2v2+?
1) Not many
2) Pretty much the same. It's hard for me to get a group together either way, so I usually go random. The times I've won with random players is when the other team sucked bad, or we just all happened to be on the same page, and the magic happened.
3) If by arranged match, you mean with a good team using voice, as Allies, maybe 2-3 out of 10 ? As Axis, playing with randoms, not using voice comm, closer to 8/10.
4) I think you mean UP ? If that's the case, then I will say that yes, in late game they are, with the notable exception of the IS/ ISU. By itself, however, it can't really turn the tables. This ties in with my point that at 15 mins or less, you can have a good, competitive game where Allies can definitely hold their own. After that, they get overwhelmed. |
You made it an Axis vs Allies issue though, rather than a 3v3+ game issue.
Its a veiled "buff" Allies post, no matter how you cut it.
Do you play with established teammates that youhave planned with and communicate with on voice during match?
Look, I know it's a controversial topic. I am not a game developer, so I don't know how to fix it. These are my observations. I'm not really asking for an outright buff for Allies. I don't think that getting a Pershing, or making some units stronger, faster, etc...is necessarily the way to go. I also understand the idea behind faction design. I'm just saying that in large team games, playing the Allies is definitely much more unforgiving of ANY mistake, and requires really tight team play. Yes, I have played with a team using voice comms. It does help, of course, but the fact still stands: we are not allowed to make mistakes. Furthermore, as has been stated, sometimes it really is a map issue as well. Having also played Axis in large team games, I know that I can lose units, push deep into enemy lines, without sweating it too much. I can stage a comeback from 163 points to their 485, again without too much trouble.
Anyway, this is a good discussion , with good points being made by lots of people. I will say, that when we win as Allies after a long battle, it definitely feels like way more of an actual victory than when I've played as Axis and never really had any doubt about the outcome. |