|
|
Post by Harry Lillis "Bing" Crosby Jr on May 6, 2020 3:29:59 GMT
Artillery generals rarely get nuked, unless you dont use a tank gen in proximity to them Yes, that's my point. I didn't say I disagreed now, did I?  |
|
|
|
Post by Sun Li-jen of the Glorious RoC on May 6, 2020 7:15:18 GMT
Tanks are actually the best offensive units. What make tanks special is their 'assault' ability which can be exploited to their maximum effect by artillery, infantry, and air supports. I added blitzkrieg (instead of panz leader) to Rommel so that he can function as 'semi-artillery' which doesn't get counter attacked very often + the 'assault' ability. This game is actually about tanks, so adopting a kind of "Heinz Guderian's doctrine" is always great. And I dont think your particular playing style matches Guderian's. You seem to prefer powerful, enveloping thrusts to destroy the enemy and his position, but Guderian's approach is much faster and daring, where the objective is to move as fast as possible and capture cities quickly to cut the enemy off and ensnare them. Without explosives or mobile air generals this will be pretty tough for your playing style and preferred skills That's not what I meant. By saying "Heinz Guderian's doctrine" I was saying about his understanding the of the roles of armored units on the battlefield as mainforce, while the others as support for panzer only. My playstyle however is different. In the end games I use Konev and Leeb to bog down the morale and decrease the enemy generals' hp (as they don't get counter attacked). If the enemy still have some morale, perhaps Guderian could attack and decrease the morale. While the enemy's general is paralized, I assign one or two generals along with some rocket artillery barrages to destroy the paralized enemy general while the other generals attack another city or hunt down some more preys. In the end game, the most important thing is to paralize and destroy the enemy generals quickly. Usually the enemy units will get counterattacked by my generals in the next turn and their hp is decreased. That's when I use Guderian's and other panzer generals' 'assault' capability, mass destroying some weaker enemy units. If my panzer generals' power is not enough to destroy some units, that's when I need artillery/infantry/air support to carry out the 'assault'. In the end game, strategy isn't as solid as in beginnings, what you need the most is your generals and their skills. |
|
|
|
Post by Harry Lillis "Bing" Crosby Jr on May 6, 2020 10:32:38 GMT
And I dont think your particular playing style matches Guderian's. You seem to prefer powerful, enveloping thrusts to destroy the enemy and his position, but Guderian's approach is much faster and daring, where the objective is to move as fast as possible and capture cities quickly to cut the enemy off and ensnare them. Without explosives or mobile air generals this will be pretty tough for your playing style and preferred skills That's not what I meant. By saying "Heinz Guderian's doctrine" I was saying about his understanding the of the roles of armored units on the battlefield as mainforce, while the others as support for panzer only. My playstyle however is different. In the end games I use Konev and Leeb to bog down the morale and decrease the enemy generals' hp (as they don't get counter attacked). If the enemy still have some morale, perhaps Guderian could attack and decrease the morale. While the enemy's general is paralized, I assign one or two generals along with some rocket artillery barrages to destroy the paralized enemy general while the other generals attack another city or hunt down some more preys. In the end game, the most important thing is to paralize and destroy the enemy generals quickly. Usually the enemy units will get counterattacked by my generals in the next turn and their hp is decreased. That's when I use Guderian's and other panzer generals' 'assault' capability, mass destroying some weaker enemy units. If my panzer generals' power is not enough to destroy some units, that's when I need artillery/infantry/air support to carry out the 'assault'. In the end game, strategy isn't as solid as in beginnings, what you need the most is your generals and their skills. I see, then its just a generic pro-tank approach, which seems to be pioneered by Guderian, which is not really the case in revisionist history. |
|
|
|
Post by Sun Li-jen of the Glorious RoC on May 6, 2020 11:14:18 GMT
That's not what I meant. By saying "Heinz Guderian's doctrine" I was saying about his understanding the of the roles of armored units on the battlefield as mainforce, while the others as support for panzer only. My playstyle however is different. In the end games I use Konev and Leeb to bog down the morale and decrease the enemy generals' hp (as they don't get counter attacked). If the enemy still have some morale, perhaps Guderian could attack and decrease the morale. While the enemy's general is paralized, I assign one or two generals along with some rocket artillery barrages to destroy the paralized enemy general while the other generals attack another city or hunt down some more preys. In the end game, the most important thing is to paralize and destroy the enemy generals quickly. Usually the enemy units will get counterattacked by my generals in the next turn and their hp is decreased. That's when I use Guderian's and other panzer generals' 'assault' capability, mass destroying some weaker enemy units. If my panzer generals' power is not enough to destroy some units, that's when I need artillery/infantry/air support to carry out the 'assault'. In the end game, strategy isn't as solid as in beginnings, what you need the most is your generals and their skills. I see, then its just a generic pro-tank approach, which seems to be pioneered by Guderian, which is not really the case in revisionist history. I don't really believe in Guderian's doctrine though. It is the game which forces us to use tanks as main forces, because tanks are almighty in this game. Well, if you play any Call of Duty you would think infantries are the almighty ones. I f you play Ace Combat, you would think air forces are the almighty ones. In real life, they all work together like a musical orchestra, you can not have one without another. However, playing WC4 is like commanding large divisions in WWII, or a whole country when you play conquests. From the perspective of a large division commander, panzer divisions are indeed the most effective and mobile. While it is just a representative, in real life armored divisions also have infantries to help fighting in rough terrains, small streets, and secure buildings or factories. So a tank unit in WC4 is a representation of an actual combined units with panzer as its main force in real life. This also applies for other units as well. |
|
|
|
Post by Harry Lillis "Bing" Crosby Jr on May 6, 2020 12:52:51 GMT
I see, then its just a generic pro-tank approach, which seems to be pioneered by Guderian, which is not really the case in revisionist history. I don't really believe in Guderian's doctrine though. It is the game which forces us to use tanks as main forces, because tanks are almighty in this game. Well, if you play any Call of Duty you would think infantries are the almighty ones. I f you play Ace Combat, you would think air forces are the almighty ones. In real life, they all work together like a musical orchestra, you can not have one without another. However, playing WC4 is like commanding large divisions in WWII, or a whole country when you play conquests. From the perspective of a large division commander, panzer divisions are indeed the most effective and mobile. While it is just a representative, in real life armored divisions also have infantries to help fighting in rough terrains, small streets, and secure buildings or factories. So a tank unit in WC4 is a representation of an actual combined units with panzer as its main force in real life. This also applies for other units as well. Yep WC4 is too macro for effective real-life strats to be employed. I wonder what games feature mico gameplay |
|
|
|
Post by Sun Li-jen of the Glorious RoC on May 11, 2020 14:33:21 GMT
I don't really believe in Guderian's doctrine though. It is the game which forces us to use tanks as main forces, because tanks are almighty in this game. Well, if you play any Call of Duty you would think infantries are the almighty ones. I f you play Ace Combat, you would think air forces are the almighty ones. In real life, they all work together like a musical orchestra, you can not have one without another. However, playing WC4 is like commanding large divisions in WWII, or a whole country when you play conquests. From the perspective of a large division commander, panzer divisions are indeed the most effective and mobile. While it is just a representative, in real life armored divisions also have infantries to help fighting in rough terrains, small streets, and secure buildings or factories. So a tank unit in WC4 is a representation of an actual combined units with panzer as its main force in real life. This also applies for other units as well. Yep WC4 is too macro for effective real-life strats to be employed. I wonder what games feature mico gameplay Perhaps you should try WW2 Eastern front and WW2 Western Front by JoyNow Studio. But they're not as good as WC4 off course. |
|
