|
I love how flanking and general positioning is so much more important than just outnumbering your opponent. Some guy pushed his entire force towards me, no recon, and I managed to slip my MBT70s and a few VAB Mephistos behind him and they just annihilate him. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eiC_wW3VRrA He quit shortly after his last forces were destroyed.
|
| # ? Feb 26, 2012 03:58 |
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2013 07:47 |
|
|
This game owns. Just had a match on A Bridge too far as Pact where my westernmost ally got rolled up pretty hard, leaving me alone in the middle against a huge flanking assault plus the initial army I was fighting. Four top model T-62s and eight Fagot squads camped with some Urals in the woods were stonewalling the hell out of my initial opponent with infinite missiles, but my west flank had literally nothing. Luckily my genius western opponent suicided his Cobras to get my base command unit (500+ points for my command? okay!) before he had moved up his massive army to prevent my frontal command unit from falling back. Somehow I was able to get my Mi-24Ps to stun his super long range AA unit and the game went from us on the bad side of a 3000-5000 score to a victory as I mowed down almost two dozen MBT-70s and Abrams. FallenGod fucked around with this message at Feb 26, 2012 around 04:22 |
| # ? Feb 26, 2012 03:59 |
|
|
Welp even high ranked players don't know how to defend against special forces. Found a high-ranked dude dude who put no recon around his stuff and lost two of his three command trucks because my SF just trudged around the forests and killed them with no resistance. Then I artied (god forbid) the two Buk-M1s that were guarding his last command truck and a suicide Gazelle took it out. I think I only killed maybe 400 points worth of units aside from those trucks. Dude was pretty pissed at that loss, especially since I was kicking his rear end in the skirmishes as well. Been noticing this a lot with players, actually. No one seems to know how to look out for special forces or where they're able to be dropped, so you can drop off a couple squads a bit away from the obvious AA defense zones and just march them straight into the enemy command truck. A simple recon jeep would alert you to helicopters coming from a good distance away and let you react.
|
| # ? Feb 26, 2012 04:32 |
|
|
Shadowlz posted:Here is a game I played a while ago with goons. One of us dropped out at the beginning so we all spammed t-62s and infantry. We end up kicking a lot of rear end. Hey thats me. I am kind of amazed that worked. We should do that again.
|
| # ? Feb 26, 2012 04:42 |
|
|
dropping two MI24P hinds with spetznaz loaded up in a tree line in a high traffic area does wonders just for points here and there. Shot down like 4 cobras and a couple of gazelles that were baited by a hind with a Squad of spetznaz. Good times. I rarely use artillery because I just don't ever think of it, I need to figure that out. Level 6 now, loving this game.
|
| # ? Feb 26, 2012 04:48 |
|
|
Control Volume posted:
Also helps to make sure to use the special forces that have light AT weapons since it makes cleaning out all the weak helpless targets much easier.
|
| # ? Feb 26, 2012 04:51 |
|
|
http://weereplays.com/index.php?page=replay&id=27 (I am Vasily Krysov) How are pubbies this fuckin bad at this game?  Just gonna charge my tanks again and again into dug in infantry and not use arty to clear them out.  Also, Tunguskas are great for knocking out those Kiowa warriors with an ambush.
|
| # ? Feb 26, 2012 05:31 |
|
|
I really need to learn how to play this properly or I'll never stop being a big dumb baby who can barely out-play an empty field.
|
| # ? Feb 26, 2012 07:21 |
|
|
I cannot beat easy AI in skirmish  Also the 2nd mission in the campaign seems pretty tough as the 2nd objective to get a command unit past the broken bridge gets attacked very quickly from the left hand side before I can even get my forces in order Ok back to skirmish : I try to make a command squad consisting of : 1 command vehicle 4 tanks 4 anti-aircraft vehicles 2-4 helis 1 supply truck 1 recon vehicle 2-4 anti air troops 2-4 anti tank troops Is this the right way of going? By the time I manage to get a couple of zones taken over I have found I am running out of vehicles in the pool and the enemy ai seems to have unlimited numbers in his pool.
|
| # ? Feb 26, 2012 09:35 |
|
|
My team and I got stomped in a 4v4 multiplayer game this afternoon. I've got a few questions though: Do command vehicles only "capture" areas when they're stationary? What happens if you lose all your command vehicles?
|
| # ? Feb 26, 2012 09:57 |
|
|
Ragingsheep posted:My team and I got stomped in a 4v4 multiplayer game this afternoon. I've got a few questions though: Yes. Also for command vehicles, if you lose them all all your units explode and go to the enemy in 1v1s; I don't know how they work for individual players in a 2v2.
|
| # ? Feb 26, 2012 09:59 |
|
|
I bought this game on an absolute whim; soley on the fact that I love cold war games. So far, it has exceeded all of my expectations in new and amazing ways. Now I wanna play it online with goons. http://steamcommunity.com/id/ackart/ Can I get an invite, please?
|
| # ? Feb 26, 2012 10:00 |
|
|
Control Volume posted:Yes. When a player on the team loses his last command vehicle nothing special happens. When the team loses its last command vehicle the game ends. You don't even appear to be aware of how basic mechanics in 2v2-4v4 games work, so perhaps you should try playing a few of those if you'd like to comment about balance issues in team games? Artillery is pretty much fine in 1v1 games because as you say, they need to sacrifice a pretty good chunk of forces and income to pull it off. It becomes more of an issue as you move in 2v2 where the guy still has an ally to lean on to support his defenses and a pretty substantial issue in 3v3 and 4v4 where the sacrifice in units is pretty negligible with 3 allied armies while the benefits of mass barrages provide a huge advantage for the rest of his team. Warbadger fucked around with this message at Feb 26, 2012 around 11:08 |
| # ? Feb 26, 2012 10:44 |
|
|
Ragingsheep posted:My team and I got stomped in a 4v4 multiplayer game this afternoon. I've got a few questions though: They only capture an area when they are stationary (and landed if it's a helicopter command unit) and if both you and the enemy have a command unit stationary in an area then it will be neutral. If your entire team loses all of its command units then you'll lose instantly. If you don't have any command vehicles in one of the control areas near the edge of the map with an arrow near it then you won't be able to call in more units until you capture one.
|
| # ? Feb 26, 2012 10:50 |
|
|
Control Volume posted:Warbadger do you have a replay showing how supposedly overpowered artillery is? Bonus points if it's a 1v1. Because quite frankly, my experience, the experience of many people in this thread, and the experience of some top level players all say that to artillery is pretty balanced for its cost. Hell, last time I used MLRS in my NATO deck was because a dude was cramming a bunch of infantry around his command vehicles, and even then they barely made back their worth in points. With that being said, every game I've played that was against goons or some of the more experienced pubbies ends up being static regardless of artillery, with attrition ruling the day. You either find a way to crush their initial attack and just never stop rolling, or you sit around shelling each other all game.
|
| # ? Feb 26, 2012 11:50 |
|
|
rossmum posted:With that being said, every game I've played that was against goons or some of the more experienced pubbies ends up being static regardless of artillery, with attrition ruling the day. You either find a way to crush their initial attack and just never stop rolling, or you sit around shelling each other all game. It's because of this that artillery is so very useful. If the game kept up some momentum and lines didn't become static then artillery wouldn't be nearly as useful. I'm hoping for more game modes with different scoring and reinforcement mechanics. A high-powered game with NATO 2000 points (but they get to deploy up to half the map), WP 4000 points, objective: wipe NATO out within 20 minutes? And every area gives 10 times as much reinforcement points as they currently do? Yes please.
|
| # ? Feb 26, 2012 12:26 |
|
|
Control Volume posted:Welp even high ranked players don't know how to defend against special forces. Found a high-ranked dude dude who put no recon around his stuff and lost two of his three command trucks because my SF just trudged around the forests and killed them with no resistance. Then I artied (god forbid) the two Buk-M1s that were guarding his last command truck and a suicide Gazelle took it out. I think I only killed maybe 400 points worth of units aside from those trucks. Dude was pretty pissed at that loss, especially since I was kicking his rear end in the skirmishes as well. To be fair high ranked doesn't really mean anything yet. I'm something like 24th on the overall leaderboards and I've played like five games.
|
| # ? Feb 26, 2012 12:30 |
|
|
Hob_Gadling posted:It's because of this that artillery is so very useful. If the game kept up some momentum and lines didn't become static then artillery wouldn't be nearly as useful. It contributes quite a bit to making the game become static after the initial pushes. Both sides need to spread out and hide everything from the roving eye of sauron and anything toward the front lines is vulnerable so you've also got to keep any key units out of range of spotters near the front. You also can't rely on a concerted push to break up the opponents dispersed lines if it's just going to get hammered the moment it breaks cover/gets scouted while building up.
|
| # ? Feb 26, 2012 13:20 |
|
|
Warbadger posted:It contributes quite a bit to making the game become static after the initial pushes. No, I disagree. It did in the beta, but not anymore. The game becomes static for some other reason. I think it is the way the game is set up. After the initial clash one side is better off, either by having more objective areas or more units left. Often the same side has both advantages. After that it's the player who is worse off who has to attack. Why? Because the longer they wait, the more points the winning player gets in reinforcements. The longer they wait, the more lopsided the game becomes. At that point you'd have to pull off a comeback that is extremely hard. You're down in troops and have to attack? No wonder people often don't do it and instead attempt to artillery duel the opponent. There's been quite a lot of ideas how to best deal with this but I don't think tuning artillery in a general sense because of the game mode is a particularly good idea. Some of the individual artillery pieces still need work, though. A particularly egregious offender is French Auf1 155mm artillery unit. NATO has no need to pick any other arty unit from its selection, since Auf1 matches or beats point for point every other artillery piece they have. It's a strong contender for the best artillery piece in the game, even without price considerations.
|
| # ? Feb 26, 2012 13:48 |
|
|
DEVILDOGOOORAH posted:dropping two MI24P hinds with spetznaz loaded up in a tree line in a high traffic area does wonders just for points here and there. Shot down like 4 cobras and a couple of gazelles that were baited by a hind with a Squad of spetznaz. I'm the same, I've used arty two times in this game. Once was to shoot my ally.
|
| # ? Feb 26, 2012 15:15 |
|
|
Hob_Gadling posted:It's because of this that artillery is so very useful. If the game kept up some momentum and lines didn't become static then artillery wouldn't be nearly as useful. We use Buratinos as a means of either breaking armoured attacks by hitting them at point-blank range (thus stunning the poo poo out of them and forcing a rout), or of smashing a big enough hole in the line for our tanks to roll on through, with supply trucks, AA and arty following behind. Halos are used to resupply the main spearhead on the move. Once you build momentum up like that, you're basically impossible to stop. Not even tank or helicopter spam works. rossmum fucked around with this message at Feb 26, 2012 around 15:30 |
| # ? Feb 26, 2012 15:27 |
|
|
rossmum posted:I've actually found the dead opposite to be true. I think we aren't speaking about the same thing here. Have you seen any company+ sized pushes after the beginning phases that succeed (preferably against people who have some idea how to play, or at least in games where people of equal skill play)? Can I have a replay if you've got one? I'm saying that the game bogs down and that there aren't any more strong pushes after the opening phases are over. Of course it's beneficial to bring arty close and use it as accurately as possible. It's just very rare to see concentrated strong attacks that use a lot of units; the game resembles more a series of individual skirmishes than any sort of concentrated effort. This is not necessarily unintentional, but it seems strange given the theme of the game. e: I recommend weereplays.com for uploading. Hob_Gadling fucked around with this message at Feb 26, 2012 around 15:47 |
| # ? Feb 26, 2012 15:36 |
|
|
Mostly we did them against fairly lovely players, but just today we managed to pull a fairly late-game push out of our arses to try and break the re-enactment of Passchendaele that was busy going on around the mid-right of Hell's Highway. I'll have to upload the replays from both our typical "stomp pubbies in 10 minutes flat" games and the "loving goons, so much arty" game we had.
|
| # ? Feb 26, 2012 15:44 |
|
|
Hob_Gadling posted:It's just very rare to see concentrated strong attacks that use a lot of units; the game resembles more a series of individual skirmishes than any sort of concentrated effort. This is not necessarily unintentional, but it seems strange given the theme of the game. It's probably because the maps are so massive and the units can take forever to transverse the whole map which leads to piles of smaller battles.
|
| # ? Feb 26, 2012 15:47 |
|
|
etalian posted:It's probably because the maps are so massive and the units can take forever to transverse the whole map which leads to piles of smaller battles. I think it's also the lack of a concrete, ultimate goal to attack towards. There's no particular reason for taking over the opponents starting zone if he can just drive his units somewhere else. Large concentrations of troops also need a lot of supply. I'd really love to see a "you attack, you defend" game mode and see if that makes any difference in how things play out.
|
| # ? Feb 26, 2012 15:53 |
|
|
Hob_Gadling posted:I think it's also the lack of a concrete, ultimate goal to attack towards. There's no particular reason for taking over the opponents starting zone if he can just drive his units somewhere else. Large concentrations of troops also need a lot of supply. I'd really love to see a "you attack, you defend" game mode and see if that makes any difference in how things play out. Left side (the anvil) is almost entirely infantry lurking in the forest and light AT with some air defence; right side (the hammer) is very, very armour-heavy, with artillery and mechanised infantry in support and aircraft if possible. rossmum fucked around with this message at Feb 26, 2012 around 16:00 |
| # ? Feb 26, 2012 15:57 |
|
|
It's just a game mode thing, there's no real reason to make a concentrated attack when you don't need to hold anything to win. It desperately needs some form of victory point game mode like in CoH or assault squad. I have had some success with being aggressive but against a really good player it turns into a defensive stalemate with the occasional breakthroughs.
|
| # ? Feb 26, 2012 16:00 |
|
|
How do I get the next tier of units for multiplayer? I filled out my nato starter pack, every unit, how do I get to the next "pack" so I can get the units I dont see in there?
|
| # ? Feb 26, 2012 16:05 |
|
|
NoneSuch posted:It's just a game mode thing, there's no real reason to make a concentrated attack when you don't need to hold anything to win. It desperately needs some form of victory point game mode like in CoH or assault squad. I have had some success with being aggressive but against a really good player it turns into a defensive stalemate with the occasional breakthroughs. Or something similar to World in Conflict's Tug of War mode.
|
| # ? Feb 26, 2012 16:06 |
|
|
Is anyone here good with movies? I have a replay here of when we absolutely straight up hell rushed some pubs with BMPs and T-55s and 72s, and watching it while listening to The Man Comes Around made me want so badly to see someone with editing skill put some awesome shots together with that song. 
|
| # ? Feb 26, 2012 16:10 |
|
|
Let's discuss the hilarious unit quotes. I like the Russian pilots who sing flight of the Valkyries.
|
| # ? Feb 26, 2012 16:13 |
|
|
Diogines posted:How do I get the next tier of units for multiplayer? I filled out my nato starter pack, every unit, how do I get to the next "pack" so I can get the units I dont see in there? Create your own deck and use the Add button to buy stuff.
|
| # ? Feb 26, 2012 16:15 |
|
|
What happens when you try and flank the anvil side against our standard Hell's Highway push (this is the one I'd love to see edited): http://weereplays.com/index.php?page=replay&id=29 Bogged down by AT defences for ages, but eventually an attack wins through: http://weereplays.com/index.php?page=replay&id=31 Insane arty exchange ended by armoured assault: http://weereplays.com/index.php?page=replay&id=30
|
| # ? Feb 26, 2012 16:24 |
|
|
Elendil004 posted:Let's discuss the hilarious unit quotes. I like the Russian pilots who sing flight of the Valkyries. French (I think) pilots whistle it too!
|
| # ? Feb 26, 2012 16:28 |
|
|
rossmum posted:I've actually found the dead opposite to be true. When we would just roll straight down the map, I was moving 3-5 Akatsiyas up as close to the advance as I dared to risk and using them to utterly atomise any particularly annoying pockets of resistance (especially infantry in forests or buildings). At close range they are insanely accurate, and their relatively high ROF is magical. Using them from a static position in the rear to try and thin out a static line is an utter waste. This is how I use it, too. Run into a few M1 Abrams that threaten to counter my el-cheapo expendable crap units? Yeah, 20 seconds of artillery fire from my guns (worth slightly less than 2 M1s) and they're combat ineffective, stunned in place, and stripped of any nearby infantry support. A few marders in the trees/ATGMs/infantry? Free kills the moment they're spotted or fire a rocket. Tanks or APCs moving to plug the hole? First barrage will panic some crews to ruin their accuracy and they'll be routed before they've killed a few T62s. The problem is when you run into somebody else with the same strategy and both sides hammer any attempts to push through, resulting in a stalemate. Warbadger fucked around with this message at Feb 26, 2012 around 16:35 |
| # ? Feb 26, 2012 16:29 |
|
|
Warbadger posted:This is how I use it, too. Run into a few M1 Abrams that threaten to counter my el-cheapo expendable crap units? Yeah, 20 seconds of artillery fire from my guns (worth slightly less than 2 M1s) and they're combat ineffective, stunned in place, and stripped of any nearby infantry support. A few marders in the trees/ATGMs/infantry? Free kills the moment they're spotted or fire a rocket. Tanks or APCs moving to plug the hole? First barrage will panic some crews to ruin their accuracy and they'll be routed before they've killed a few T62s.
|
| # ? Feb 26, 2012 16:38 |
|
|
rossmum posted:Pubbies might need a defined goal, but I do not. I do, for several reasons. It would add to the theme. Battalion commanders rarely get to decide their objectives in complete void: there's always a pressing need to accomplish something. Currently that something is lacking. It would add to the game. Close Combat 2 had operations, which were three to five map long fights. Your ultimate objectives would vary depending on the operation in question. You might have to take the Arnhem Bridge on day 1 of the paratrooper landings, to fortify and hold out until tanks arrive. You might have to push your armored spearheads forward in an attempt to link up with the paras before they inevitably fall. You might be tasked to delay the American advance until you can blow the bridge and screw up their time table. A campaign was a bunch of these operations stringed together. It lead to the most fantastic sort of decision-making process I've ever witnessed in a computer strategy game. Let me give an example. I know my infantry units are beat and battered, and the Germans still have one MG42 fortified in that building. Do I let them blow the bridge or will I attempt one last push to take them out and save my paratroopers who have no direct bearing on this fight or even operation? I have only one belt of ammunition for my last MG42. Do I concede the bridge here and pull back to get more ammo and some reinforcements? Or do I attempt to hold here and risk losing everything that stands between this map here and the last map in the operation? The decisions were interlinked, and you had to keep in mind the ultimate objective which was either capturing, or holding, the Bridge Too Far. It lead to tactically interesting play because the operation or the whole campaign would demand that you take the risk here even when the safe move would be to wait for more troops. It would add to the variety. A battalion of your best against scattered NATO troops and tight time limits, a company of yours in a running delay where you have to mind both the time and your own losses, a counter-attack which has to crush the enemy fighting capability but you can't afford to take crippling losses. Even a war to the hilt where that one hill or highway is the most important thing in the world and everything is expendable if you just can hang onto it. All those become possible once you have an ultimate objective to achieve. It would remove the variable of luck somewhat. One unlucky tank platoon turn later you may be out of 200 points, which is a lot in the game context. If you have three maps to fight for, one accident doesn't lose the game right away. It would kill most of the "tune this" poo poo right away. The unit variety would get to shine more and there'd be more cases where some unit was worth it. It'd allow for all sorts of themed fights. Soviet paratroopers against NATO home guard, East Germany against West Germany, the best of V Corps against 8th Guards Army. High- and low-intensity fights. But most of all it'd be great to see Soviet armored columns rushing through Fulda Gap, in an attempt to take the defensive chokepoint before NATO can completely seal it off. A balls to the wall armored assault, losses be damned but this position will be ours. Desperate delay action, to hold the Warsaw Pact masses off just long enough for reinforcements to roll in and counter-attack. Currently the game only features meeting engagements, where forces of equal size attempt to wrest the advantage and kill off more than they lose. That's fine, but it's not the whole story. Warsaw Pact expected to see extreme losses within the first few days of conflict and they were willing to take them if they'd just achieve the operational objectives. Currently this is not possible. I want it so bad I can taste it, and this game is tantalizingly close to fulfilling my desire.
|
| # ? Feb 26, 2012 16:43 |
|
|
NoneSuch posted:Create your own deck and use the Add button to buy stuff. Oh god. I've sunk tons of worthless stars into the starter deck, any way to get them back?
|
| # ? Feb 26, 2012 16:44 |
|
|
Diogines posted:Oh god. Not really but just playing through the SP campaign will give you piles of upgrade stars.
|
| # ? Feb 26, 2012 16:47 |
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2013 07:47 |
|
|
Hob_Gadling posted:I do, for several reasons. e/ Actually the more I think about it, I would kill for the Fulda Gap done right. WE WILL BLOT OUT THE SUN WITH OUR rossmum fucked around with this message at Feb 26, 2012 around 16:53 |
| # ? Feb 26, 2012 16:49 |
|
