Baine
Steven Spielberg
 Posts: 3713
|
|
« Reply #40 on: April 21, 2009, 11:07:27 am » |
|
Solution to this problem - Vet 3 Dual LMG42 Grens - They friggin tear rangers up.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1dc3Pmmzuw4 Took them a damn long time ( i know its half speed but still). |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
RikiRude
Donator
 Posts: 4376
|
|
« Reply #41 on: April 21, 2009, 11:57:40 am » |
|
You guys do know that you can counter rangers with 2 flame pio squads right? It's ridiculous how effective flame pios are against them. Or grab a flammenwafer. You guys are saying they are OP because they can run right into your stuff and wreck it, just keep a flamer near your MG or something.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
 Killer344: "Repent: sory no joke i just had savage diorea" ... or a fat ass cock sucking churchill being stupid |
|
|
| Mgallun74
|
|
« Reply #42 on: April 21, 2009, 12:08:09 pm » |
|
You guys do know that you can counter rangers with 2 flame pio squads right? It's ridiculous how effective flame pios are against them. Or grab a flammenwafer. You guys are saying they are OP because they can run right into your stuff and wreck it, just keep a flamer near your MG or something.
exactly... if i see flame pio's or flamW its like run for the hills! Rangers burn really well. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
| donnieDark
|
|
« Reply #43 on: April 21, 2009, 12:28:16 pm » |
|
I miss the good ole days of complaining about Light AT HT's
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
| Schultz
|
|
« Reply #44 on: April 21, 2009, 12:43:23 pm » |
|
For what its worth, you can spam rangers quite effectively in EIRR as you could before. See what smokaz did, and that was without the extra munitions/manpower bonus. There's no way you can lose a vet 3 ranger squad unless you're playing too risky.
PPs do not limmit you in any way, when you know when to retreat. So there's a gap here quite obviously.
We all can do full rangers/ 4 atgs/2 mortars/2mgs companies and own the day. And throw in a couple of bars for extra suppression. Oh and a howi or two.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
| Mgallun74
|
|
« Reply #45 on: April 21, 2009, 12:45:53 pm » |
|
For what its worth, you can spam rangers quite effectively in EIRR as you could before. See what smokaz did, and that was without the extra munitions/manpower bonus. There's no way you can lose a vet 3 ranger squad unless you're playing too risky.
PPs do not limmit you in any way, when you know when to retreat. So there's a gap here quite obviously.
We all can do full rangers/ 4 atgs/2 mortars/2mgs companies and own the day. And throw in a couple of bars for extra suppression. Oh and a howi or two.
if iam correct u cant get more than 6 rangers now? with the way everythign is setup? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
| Leafedge
|
|
« Reply #46 on: April 21, 2009, 01:06:36 pm » |
|
You can still have more, you just have to pay more PP's. This isn't a problem for people who know what they are doing. It only prevents retarded noobs from building spam companies, but not good players.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
| Mgallun74
|
|
« Reply #47 on: April 21, 2009, 01:23:53 pm » |
|
For what its worth, you can spam rangers quite effectively in EIRR as you could before. See what smokaz did, and that was without the extra munitions/manpower bonus. There's no way you can lose a vet 3 ranger squad unless you're playing too risky.
PPs do not limmit you in any way, when you know when to retreat. So there's a gap here quite obviously.
We all can do full rangers/ 4 atgs/2 mortars/2mgs companies and own the day. And throw in a couple of bars for extra suppression. Oh and a howi or two.
i would love to see how that setup would work... |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Tymathee
Donator
Posts: 9741
|
|
« Reply #48 on: April 21, 2009, 04:35:59 pm » |
|
but most people would rather hold onto their pp's for vet and other stuff. Can't wait to see what its like with the doctrine system in cu zas of now i'm so low on pps unlike last time when i had like 9 9
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"I want proof!"
"I have proof!"
"Whatever, I'm still right"
Dafuq man, don't ask for proof if you'll refuse it if it's not in your favor, logic fallacy for the bloody win.
|
|
|
Mysthalin
Tired King of Stats
 Posts: 9028
|
|
« Reply #49 on: April 22, 2009, 06:19:46 am » |
|
mgallun, that setup would work like a charm. Long range harrasement - check. Heavy AT - check. Light AT - check. Long range firepower - check. Close range firepower - check. Breakthrough capabilities - check. Territory holding capabilities - check.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Killer344
The Inquisitor
 Posts: 6904
|
|
« Reply #50 on: April 22, 2009, 06:22:51 am » |
|
Good luck trying to beat hmg spam + axis mortars with 2 "Allieds mortars"....
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
If I get shot and it's a gay medic fixing me up, he's not gonna be fondling my balls while he does it. You can't patch a chest wound and suck a cock at the same time.
|
|
|
| Mgallun74
|
|
« Reply #51 on: April 22, 2009, 07:10:20 am » |
|
Good luck trying to beat hmg spam + axis mortars with 2 "Allieds mortars"....
allied motar sucks donkey doo.. had a axis motar shooting at somebody else, got my allied POs into range of him, shot at him 3 times, all times missing, he turned his attention to me and in 1 shot hit me and killed all my dudes... WTF! i had to waste a full Howi shot on him.. sigh. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
| Schultz
|
|
« Reply #52 on: April 22, 2009, 07:10:45 am » |
|
Good luck trying to beat hmg spam + axis mortars with 2 "Allieds mortars"....
Thats why you also have the howi my dear  Not to mention that if you play the spam cards right you will overwhelm them by flanking and killing the mg and their support weps become yours. Allied mortars suck when you keep them stationary. Or you fire without having a clue where youre firing, without proper scouts or units that give you los. |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: April 22, 2009, 07:14:30 am by Schultz »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Mysthalin
Tired King of Stats
Posts: 9028
|
|
« Reply #53 on: April 22, 2009, 07:26:54 am » |
|
yeah killer, that's why I said long range harrasement. Allied mortar only fell in the long range firepower group - HMG semi-suppresses, mortar finishes off.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Killer344
The Inquisitor
Posts: 6904
|
|
« Reply #54 on: April 22, 2009, 08:04:37 am » |
|
meh, anyway, Im a PE reaper nowadays, earning around 50 kills with each AC woot lol.
Send your allied spam at me plz.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
| Mgallun74
|
|
« Reply #55 on: April 22, 2009, 08:20:59 am » |
|
meh, anyway, Im a PE reaper nowadays, earning around 50 kills with each AC woot lol.
Send your allied spam at me plz.
ok, lol... AC car spam FTW! |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
| brn4mepIz
|
|
« Reply #56 on: April 23, 2009, 03:28:57 pm » |
|
Thats cause with the new Armour class of the AC it's way too powerfull. It has puma armour, has a better gun, moves faster, costs less and costs less population.
Puma 300 mp 50 Fuel 8 population
AC 260 mp 30 Fuel 6 population
(also Mortars don't engine damage an AC)
thats why you get 45+ kills with your AC's and bergetiger, lol
(wrong login, my bad)
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Killer344
The Inquisitor
Posts: 6904
|
|
« Reply #57 on: April 23, 2009, 05:24:37 pm » |
|
It still has only 220hp.... <3.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
gamesguy2
Honoured Member
Posts: 2238
|
|
« Reply #58 on: April 23, 2009, 05:28:23 pm » |
|
The lack of support weapons really hurt PE though. All three other factions have low pop support weapons(brits have emplacements), PE does not.
PE is the weakest faction atm and you cant really nerf their units without making them useless.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
brn4meplz
Misinformation Officer
 Posts: 6952
|
|
« Reply #59 on: April 23, 2009, 05:39:55 pm » |
|
PE isn't meant to have Support weapons. Multiple PE units can function in a support role the Inf HT suppresses really good now. I'm sure both of you would agree PE just has to be played differently. I just don't think that 3 AC's for the same population of 2 Puma's is really appropriate. 6 population on a bullet resistant infantry eater of super speed doesn't seem right.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
He thinks Tactics is a breath mint Wow I think that was the nicest thing brn ever posted! the pussy of a prostitute is not tight enough for destroy a condom  |
|
|
|
