TLS 2.0 Test Games

[Guest]

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever

Login with username, password and session length

[BoDyBaG2224TLS]

I will throw together a NGV company if someone wants to test it.

[chefarzt]

It work if u dont use upgunned shermans.But im not sure if the tungsten tipping willmake up for that.
Btw changing the 2 pz4 and 3 Ostwinds for 2 stugs and 2 ostwinds like in the  game against keating and draygon was a bad deal imo.
The 2 stugs had no chance neither did the ostwinds.

[Jelly-Boy]

HuH? The NGV build has no upguns. And I didn't see that Chef already did NGV. O well I wanna test onboard and NGV for myself anyway, tomorrow will be a good day for me to test those two, might make a cally company too.

[chefarzt]

Well the ngv build had/has 2 upguns but it doesnt work with the normal cp setup.

[Jelly-Boy]

salan fixed the list so it has 4 un-upgunned shermans.

[bromly]

was my bad, sorry guys, I built armor companies (ngv/calliope) on the same account, tehn put in onboard mechanics on the same account tehn edited NGV and ended up getting the extra fuel and not noticing.

I have since moved onboard to its own account and keeping the other two on the non fuel bonus one ..


btw i have 8 eir accounts atm designated to actually having built replica's of the templates so its easy to edit.

[UnLimiTeDTLS3]

Playing with artillery expertise vs 2 heavy support, other 3 players dont matter.
Main problem:
HS takes advantage of it's T4 more than other builds, mainly: you get lots of support, and artillery expertise fails without it's T4.
With it, you could kill snipers, mortars, buildings...  without, the 2 snipers backed up by about 4-5 hmgs really killed us off, and there were no tanks.
+it prooves that this layout benefits good players, noobs bumrushing their tanks into hordes of schrecks and not retreating their RRs will always lose, but if they only got 2 tanks... well, they die a lot faster.

[Nevyen]

I guess these builds though are desinged for experianced players with allot more experiance in EIR, I think we should make no apologies for this as allot of the people who will be playing this campaign are generally the older guard of the mod.

The unique play though will teach newer players better micro and company structure that would actually set themselves up for a better normal EIR experiance. The reality is though if the learning curve is hard for EIR then TLS does take it up another notch again.

[UnLimiTeD]

Whats for experienced players there?
I think Heavy support for exsample is a build everyone with decent micro can use.
So basically you wanna say that the builds differ in difficulty?

[Nevyen]

In a way yes........

But further to this the tests currently have not been placed in context of the how the campaign will operate, but then again people in this community never ever look at things objectivly, hence the testing is so we can see what you'll complain about and then make small tweaks but then maybe we should place some more context on how the tests should operate and ill get salan to think on that, BUT these builds are harder to operate make no mistake and will become harde as vet comes into play but then once the campaign kicks in well then there will be some very interesting challenges.

[UnLimiTeD]

You write without breaks, it's hard to read
I agree with you.
Still, I feel as a part of this community and I don't see why I wouldn't see things objective.
Sure with only one game so far, I can hardly view it from both sides, but I get the idea of it.
The game showed several things:
1. No matter how you play, a bad teammate, and you die.
2.3 players with their t4 vs 3 players without seems to be really a big advantage for the 3 with t4 (who would have guessed).
3. As you admitted; some builds are harder than others.
That would be ok if the better players get to use them, or if it's more rewarding.
If it's completely random it will surely lead to frustration as players getting the "bad" builds will feel like having a disadvantage (probably rightful).
Players will bitch anyways, but it's gonna be bad if you can't proove them wrong.

[Nevyen]

Glad we agree and you will have to wait now till the campaign begins before you start with more objective criticism of the builds.  Theory-crafting can only go so far.

Also I would reconmend that in future if you want an rational and fair disucssion leave the critcism of ones style to the end and look to rather build rapport and credability first off.

[UnLimiTeD]

I critizized a style? quote me plz.
I just said Artillery without T4 lacks against support weapons.
What do you want test games for if we can't tell our findings afterwards?

[salan2]

i got the t4 on my arty company and hot damn it kicks peoples butts bad in this style.

Of course it is limited use, but it is probably one of the strongest t4s there are when you actually look at what it does.

its just yes, you do have to get there first.

[Nevyen]

You write without breaks, it's hard to read

there we go

[UnLimiTeD]

That you mean.
Yeah, I didn't say anything negative, I did not critize you at all; where do I insult you?  common, tell me.
It is a fact.
Edit: This comment could look negative as well, it's the way I write, sorry for that)

[Nevyen]

All good mate

done and dusted.