There's your problem. Are you sure they weren't out-blobbing you? There's not much a single unsupported MG can do against three guastatori in the face. Same thing with riflemen. If they have the numbers advantage, carnage is to be expected.
If you want to take the high road, always use two MGs together to suppress infantry blobs. If not, then you need to blob back lol. US riflemen blob gets free suppressive fire ability at vet 1, so they'll stomp guastatori if you tech grenades too. Not much they can do but tank the nades or retreat under threat of losing too much manpower.
good point. yes, this typically would happen with 1-3 gus squads. |
I can't speak for Bersaglieri, they seemed alright combat wise to me in my very limited use of them. Lack of a snare (or even threat of a snare) put me off them a lot. But I'm a big believer in the scaling power of Panzergrens.
Guastatori well, they do indeed give pioneers a good name. However in 20+ games of them I've not had one post-nerf where they've felt invincible, esp since Allied mainlines will have a bit of a vet advantage due to 2CP timing. Getting models picked off is to be expected, making you pick your fights carefully. The usual Britblob contains AT boys who make your armour feel nonexistent. Obviously if an Allied player 1v1 Guastatori then they'll get stomped and they should since Guastatori have 440MP, 40MP reinforce cost.
Not sure why you seem to think cover works against flamethrowers? If anything you take more damage because your men are all bunched up together tightly and flamers ignore cover. Historically they even do bonus damage to garrisons.
I do see a lot of ppl dive vehicles onto vet I of them, but that's your own fault for what comes next (AT satchel).
Absolutely. Yes, flames maximize against cover. I know this, but what I'm saying is, it doesn't seem to matter what the circumstances are, these guys are beasts; my opinion seems at least somewhat supported by the fact that they are an overwhelmingly popular unit in team games. Not to mention- flames, body armour, AT satchels, what ? |
Because you try to fighting them in negative cover, with engineers, at max range.
They lose to 60mp cheaper rifles, badly.
Have we played against each other ? Yes, I have tried engineers, infantry, MGs...at max range, CQC range, behind cover and out of cover. I stand by what I said. |
|
against USF. firing out of cover, absolutely decimating any and all units with flamethrowers, while taking very little damage from units firing from cover. |
|
why do these troops seem to be invincible while dishing out massive damage ? |
|
I, for one, am very impressed with the new game. The maps are gorgeous. I love that you can hear the sound of the gravel when a vehicle passes over it. Here are my likes:
Vehicle weaponry sounds like it has more punch
Beautiful maps
Troops hopping fences, etc...without specifically being told to
Way more options for unit customization via training options and commanders
Allies finally feel like they have a chance due to aforementioned upgrades
FINALLY the option to mute chat ! no more toxic troll comments !
Also love that you don't need to dedicate engineers to build base buildings
Requests/ questions:
How to face MGs when garrisoned ? I know they will autoface, but does that mean you cant manually face them ?
When grouping units, it seems as if when a unit has been previously grouped it will stay with that group ? eg: engineers in group one with some infantry. reconfigure group to only hold infantry. engineers still seem to follow that group around.
dropped weapons, no longer display name when mousing over ?
unfinished mines. used to display a construction icon to make it easier to click on to resume work, but now do not. slightly more difficult to click on unfinished mines in order to finish them
Anyway, bang up job so far !
|
|
bit ridiculous, innit ? nearly zero survivability when accomplishing their intended purpose. By that I mean, theyre called in behind the lines to take out team weapons. They seldom can do this before being attacked themselves. No option to use nades due to cooldown. The choice then becomes retreat or die. Either way, you've wasted 340 MP for something that did nothing. Even axis infiltrators get 4 men. |
I'm not sure why. I think the majority of groups play between themselves already, when I play with my friends the only AT I do is when we're 3 or 2 and my mate doesn't want to play 1vs1. AT isn't fun when you stomp your opponents unless that's your objective more than playing good games.
yeah, this. Every time I've lost to an arranged team, while playing with randoms (which is the only way I play since I have no friends), the AT have been incredibly toxic and obnoxious. Leading me to believe that, yes, their entire purpose and joie de vivre was found in "stomping" some randoms. I will not be sad if ATs have to wait longer to play other ATs. |
|
As per title. I've gone back to trying to play USF in team games, and they suck so bad. They just can't seem to compete against Axis spam and by the time they get decent weapons/ equipment, they're even more outclassed. I could see using them as support with another team member taking on the brunt of the fighting, but they suck too much to hold a lane on their own against someone who knows what they're doing. I even tried "classic" strats like pathfinder spam, or straight up infantry spam, including M1919 spam. I have much better luck with UKF, playing like USF; ie: aggressive and mobile. |
|
Yeah, I play team games exclusively and I choose Axis when I don't wanna have to think too hard. |
Canada
Relic Entertainment
cblanco ★ 
보드카 중대 
VonManteuffel 
Heartless Jäger 
