1v1 as us vs shaka

[Panzer-Lehr-Division]

There you go, we had an disagreement, i had to Play as US, while us is my worst faction.. enjoy!

Me*ab* vs shaka*blitz

[Shanks]

although I do not play every day! ... you could not do gg in 5 minutes ... and I wanted to a panther, instead of making panzer spam

[Krieger Blitzer]

Actually the US Airborne doc is nearly unstoppable in 1vs1 games, works perfectly against any Axis doc.. regardless if the map was small or even big!

I have been saying this for a long time too... And it is currently the most flexible doctrine in the entire game by the way.

The only possible way to win against Airborne doctrine.. is only when the AB player would make several unforgiving errors all at once, but even then...
It's actually still not impossible for the AB opponent to recover his mistakes if he starts playing correctly from that point and so forth; until the end.

Nice match though.

[Mr. FeministDonut]

Good game, it was really close for Shanks, if not the mistake with the Panther, otherwise it would be opposite.
I call for rematch! One game is not an arguement.

[sami bosal]

can be 3 games. 2 wins victorious

[Shanks]

I just want to clarify something, in this lehr game, said "OP riflemen", then "OP allies" ... on this point I would like to explain mine, again, in everything I said so far, I always referred to the "riflemen" , which most say it is an OP unit (I do not share this idea, because as you see in this repetition, they were not a big problem, i think the planes gave me more problems, which by the way, are sometimes difficult to dodge in this type of maps, not the riflemen ) , on the other hand, lehr said, "allies OP", now at this point things change, because many units come in, like for example the 57 mm, which in my opinion, should not be able to kill in 1 shot or two shots to stug III or IV, minus the panzer J or H of 3 shots( without AP) , or that the AT 37 mm can extract 60% of life from a tank J, these are things that have to be changed (this delayed my double attack of tanks), so, in this game I do not think I have seen "some riflemen elite rank" ... I do not think the riflemen should change ... I just wanted to clarify this

[Panzer-Lehr-Division]

I just want to clarify something, in this lehr game, said "OP riflemen", then "OP allies" ... on this point I would like to explain mine, again, in everything I said so far, I always referred to the "riflemen" , which most say it is an OP unit (I do not share this idea, because as you see in this repetition, they were not a big problem, i think the planes gave me more problems, which by the way, are sometimes difficult to dodge in this type of maps, not the riflemen ) , on the other hand, lehr said, "allies OP", now at this point things change, because many units come in, like for example the 57 mm, which in my opinion, should not be able to kill in 1 shot or two shots to stug III or IV, minus the panzer J or H of 3 shots( without AP) , or that the AT 37 mm can extract 60% of life from a tank J, these are things that have to be changed (this delayed my double attack of tanks), so, in this game I do not think I have seen "some riflemen elite rank" ... I do not think the riflemen should change ... I just wanted to clarify this

But as i told you, now Play vs a very good us Player, my us is the worst and it pretty much Shows itself in the replay

[Warhawks97]

Seems like players still believe that BK is made for 1 vs 1,

Again, the bigger the map gets and the larger the battle the worse it gets for US.

In 1 vs 1 micro is all. US is best at small maps with low MP income but high ammo. That way they can make maximum advantage from their low MP cost and maxium benefit of their off maps, use HVAP from their cheap MP M10´s. One off map and a game on small maps is won. There is no space to recover.

But get into bigger maps, with lots more chaos and explosions everywhere and things change. The 107 mm mortar next to base wont cover the entire map (and instead perhaps only the next point), howitzers that cant move and short range become obsolet quickly and so on.
And the explosions, random coming planes and arty shells etc is the greatest nightmare for US due to their paper style. In 1 vs 1 everything is well planned, and you have a good oversight over your and enemies stuff. But in teamfights and durability (damage taken, HP) and initial damage output in combat is what matters. And here axis have more advantages. Their tanks dont die instant to a single arty shots and instead require 2-4 direct hits and thus their tanks dont die all over the place "accidentially".

Perhaps you repeat it on a bigger map.

@shanks: If you play BK doc vs US you better got for Volks with lmg and stugs/Panzer IV. Depending on ammo you dont need to upgrade all. For example i would give HE to tanks instead of AP bc you penetrate US anyways. Inf with upgraded zooks is your greatest threat when playing vs AB and inf.

Volks, Tank J (cheap) and Ostwind with HE. Oh and Puma with 20 mm is mandatory. Its a counter to greyhounds and stuff and performs well in all situations. The bigger the map, the better this vehicle is. Its not so good in overruning vehicle and AT gun lines. But using space and facing each of these things 1 vs 1 greatly increases your chances to come out as winner.


Also never got Tiger vs US. Your most expensive unit to build is Panther. Tigers can be ambushed and penetrated by 76 guns relatively easy. Also AB and inf with their M6A3C zooks have 50% frontal pen chance vs tiger. Its much less vs Panther. Also the biggest stuff gets killed planes and long tom.

I just want to clarify something, in this lehr game, said "OP riflemen", then "OP allies" ... on this point I would like to explain mine, again, in everything I said so far, I always referred to the "riflemen" , which most say it is an OP unit (I do not share this idea, because as you see in this repetition, they were not a big problem, i think the planes gave me more problems, which by the way, are sometimes difficult to dodge in this type of maps, not the riflemen ) , on the other hand, lehr said, "allies OP", now at this point things change, because many units come in, like for example the 57 mm, which in my opinion, should not be able to kill in 1 shot or two shots to stug III or IV, minus the panzer J or H of 3 shots( without AP) , or that the AT 37 mm can extract 60% of life from a tank J, these are things that have to be changed (this delayed my double attack of tanks), so, in this game I do not think I have seen "some riflemen elite rank" ... I do not think the riflemen should change ... I just wanted to clarify this

Bigger maps and aa use and airplane dodge much easier, true.

The 57 mm has like 30% pen chance vs Tank IV H/J with ambush and without AP. The 50 mm is much better vs shermans in this regard.
Keep in mind that AT guns have vet bonuses taken from vcoh. That means that Axis get slight survivability boosts, US gets massive pen and damage boosts. I would never try to engage a veted 57 mm with Tank IV´s.

The point is the ambush. Ambush can give massive boosts. For TD´s its generally higher as for AT guns.
So vs US your best bet is mobility and keep them at range. Thats why using ranged weapons. Puma and ostwind will make sure that nothing comes to close.

Maps are however a great match maker. Some of them help US due to hedgrows etc which makes it easier to close in. Also axis are good on bigger MP intense maps, US better with high ammo. That cant make too much of an advantage with pure MP. If they get any at all.

[Viper]

Also never got Tiger vs US. Your most expensive unit to build is Panther. Tigers can be ambushed and penetrated by 76 guns relatively easy. Also AB and inf with their M6A3C zooks have 50% frontal pen chance vs tiger. Its much less vs Panther. Also the biggest stuff gets killed planes and long tom.

i think i can see a problem here.
vs airborne tigers (or axis heavy tanks) will die by airstrike. vs infantry doctrine tiger will die by long tome. vs armor the tigers will die by jackson and pershing or super pershing. vs royal air force they will die by airstrikes again. vs royal arty they will die by arty. vs royal engineers they will die by firefly, achiless, comet and 17 pounder.

why every allie doctrine can counter axis heavy tanks? i thought they are specialized.....
allies can get powerful (and cheap) tanks early game like churchill and sherman jumbo, not all axis doctrines can counter them too early.

i think this should change when axis doctrine are reworked.

[Krieger Blitzer]

i think this should change when axis doctrine are reworked.

Have to agree.

[Warhawks97]

I never use tanks bigger than Panthers. Their reasons of existance are at best very specific. Like elephant when you must handle lots of enemie tanks at once.

I never used tiger tanks. Same as i never used pershings. Those can also quite easily killed by pretty much everything. Let it be schrecks, at nades, 50 mm at gun rocket shot. Even pe 37 mm HT can kill it etc.
But pershings reasons to exist is perhaps to counter heavies (with the risk to get killed as well).

But idk how you want to suddenly change axis heavies.
As i said, their issue is not that they are bad in particular or that counters exist. I mean imagine a doc would have no option to counter a certain thing (not even doc). It would be a no brainer to rush exactly for this unit knowing that the enemie has 0 counters. Doesnt it sound stupid?
Rather check how docs can support certain units. And in tigers case in particular: You can argue its bad bc it gets countered by everything (or can, nothing is sure, not even an arty strike). But you can also argue that they are bad bc every doctrine provides even better stuff.

[Krieger Blitzer]

I mean imagine a doc would have no option to counter a certain thing (not even doc). It would be a no brainer to rush exactly for this unit knowing that the enemie has 0 counters. Doesnt it sound stupid?

That's pretty much the case with early Churchills and Jumbo Shermans at the moment though! They are too cost effective, and available too early.
I'm afraid there is usually no reliable counter whatsoever for any Axis doc (except extreme luck) when facing Churchills and Jumbos early game.

Most of these doctrines have counters, but these counters are not as cheap or as early available as Jumbos and Churchills...
Therefore this way you could actually consider them as "no brainer" cheap early units! And I think Axis also have nothing similar.. there is absolutely no Axis tank that is too cheap and too early available which is capable of safely walking in front of 76 and 17pdr AT guns except in the very late stage of the game when the expensive heavy tanks are unlocked... While the Jumbo and Churchills can just walk safely in front of Pak40 AT guns early game!

So here is the point; I wouldn't actually agree to consider them "no brainer" units.
I mean that I have no problems with Churchills or Jumbos currently! As I think they are fine after all. However, I think Seha was right when he said that if Axis docs are reworked to be more specialized, then definitely some Allied doctrines should no longer have reliable counter against Axis heavy tanks, that's simply how "specialized" is supposed to be.

[|7th|Nighthawk]

@Tiger1996:
I would argue that if you delay the Churchills more, they become utterly useless. Their armour is already hit and miss (even though it's over performing by a large margin - but then again, so is the Panzer IV Ausf. H's armour), especially if the enemy loads APCR on the PaK 40, the armament is mediocre and it's speed is not even worth mentioning. There is a lot of stuff that can mess them up good in the mid game: APCR spamming L/48, artillery and Panzerschrecks. Once you have pounced them, they cannot retreat either because those strong men behind the PaK 40 can probably push the gun faster than the Churchill can retreat - nevermind the sprinting Panzerschreck guys or one artillery barrage.

[Krieger Blitzer]

Ya, never said Churchills should be delayed.. the point was totally different.

[MarKr]

vs airborne tigers (or axis heavy tanks) will die by airstrike. vs infantry doctrine tiger will die by long tome. vs armor the tigers will die by jackson and pershing or super pershing. vs royal air force they will die by airstrikes again. vs royal arty they will die by arty. vs royal engineers they will die by firefly, achiless, comet and 17 pounder.

There is a difference between "every doctrine CAN counter Axis heavies" and "every doctrine has EFFECTIVE and RELIABLE counter to Axis heavies". Airstrikes can be stopped (by AA, I mean IF you play on bigger maps where AAs have chance to kill the planes, the fact that players "are not willing" to play on recommended set up is not our problem), artillery can be dodged (unles the first shell immobilizes your tank), Tigers can be killed by Pershings and Jacksons but Pershings and Jacksons can get killed by them too (so it is not like "I build one Pershing and all Tigers can kiss my ass" - same goes for CW units with 17 pounders).

On the contrary - Axis have units that can easily go 1v1 vs the best Allies units and know that they are relatively safe - KTs, JP, JT...every Axis doctrine has some strong tank or TD that can easily destroy any Allied tank (maybe except for SP).

[Viper]

every Axis doctrine has some strong tank or TD that can easily destroy any Allied tank (maybe except for SP).

i was speaking that if this would change after the doctrine rework. warhawks say never use tigers because they die too fast, so for example if the axis will have only one doctrine with heavy tanks, allies should not need anymore firely and achiless everywhere.

[Shanks]

vs airborne tigers (or axis heavy tanks) will die by airstrike. vs infantry doctrine tiger will die by long tome. vs armor the tigers will die by jackson and pershing or super pershing. vs royal air force they will die by airstrikes again. vs royal arty they will die by arty. vs royal engineers they will die by firefly, achiless, comet and 17 pounder.

There is a difference between "every doctrine CAN counter Axis heavies" and "every doctrine has EFFECTIVE and RELIABLE counter to Axis heavies". Airstrikes can be stopped (by AA, I mean IF you play on bigger maps where AAs have chance to kill the planes, the fact that players "are not willing" to play on recommended set up is not our problem), artillery can be dodged (unles the first shell immobilizes your tank), Tigers can be killed by Pershings and Jacksons but Pershings and Jacksons can get killed by them too (so it is not like "I build one Pershing and all Tigers can kiss my ass" - same goes for CW units with 17 pounders).

On the contrary - Axis have units that can easily go 1v1 vs the best Allies units and know that they are relatively safe - KTs, JP, JT...every Axis doctrine has some strong tank or TD that can easily destroy any Allied tank (maybe except for SP).

totally agree....all the troops can win, the problem is in the ability of each player, this game is almost balanced right now, you just have to modify some things

[MarKr]

i was speaking that if this would change after the doctrine rework. warhawks say never use tigers because they die too fast, so for example if the axis will have only one doctrine with heavy tanks, allies should not need anymore firely and achiless everywhere.

In the rework it is not like only one doctrine has heavy tanks, so this is not needed. However we already are thinking about making Achilles and Firefly not available in every doctrine - the biggest problem is that every doctrine unlocks them in their unlock tree and replacing the unlock with something original, not gamebreaking and useful at the same time is sort of hard.

[Warhawks97]

i was speaking that if this would change after the doctrine rework. warhawks say never use tigers because they die too fast.

Wow. I you turning my words arround. I dont use them bc in the docs where tigers currently are i do have better stuff. Either spamming stugs and Tank IV´s early on or going for Panther.

I never said tiger is bad. It just doesnt fit for me and the docs provide stuff that is usually more cost effective. If you look into teamfights the need for tigers is reduced further. My mates can get cheaper hetzers and Jagdpanzer IV´s when we want to stop tanks or panthers when we need armor or aa tanks and pumas when we want to fight inf. And combining all of these things gives us more of a punch and shares the risk.

its same as with pershings. I used them perhaps once in 100 games if at all. And usually it ended up badly.


as for churchills its funny. Bc in talks i had in recent days i heared similar stories as those from nighthawks. They can absorb damage but are bad for making kills. So alone the fact that it requires support means that churchills arent no brainers. And without support they are dead. And retreat is also quite tricky.

I can agree that the jumbo from inf doc is some sort of nobrainer. However, Hetzers can be fielded just as early or earlier and from ambush and APCR they have approx 50% pen chance, if not more, to get through jumbo armor.

So in this regard Markr is right. Rushing straight for hetzers is more or less the same no brainer as the jumbo sherman from inf doc. If both gets fielded at the same time, both sides have then deployed some sort of no brainer defense. Jumbo protects you against pretty much any inf while standing most enemie shells that are fired from no-ambush and hetzer makes sure that no allied tank or vehicle will pass your line.