I will give this example on scott:
I heard a lot of rantings about m8 scott. Understanding how to use it ptoperly just takes 2 matches for me
If you dont have decent armor you shouldnt directly rush and engage frontaly
Long distance fire support from flanks is required.
You can literally nuke enemy hard points and snipe them from 200 meters ( some maps are not designed for it but still good)
Super moveable, playing cat and mouse with big tanks and deceive them is funny
Also, big tanks are not unbalance
Ambushed countless pz 3 and even 4
In 1 match,; 2 shots to tigerâs two tracks,
Crew had to get out of vehicle to repair it
Then hund them down with mg like ducks
Same goes for pacific:
Players using spaa like they tigers, rushing enemy frontaly and got killed easily.
I really dont understand those âx is too opâ compalints. Using what you got properly often solves problems
My observation personally is that about 90% of the player base has the patience of a five-year-old on a sugar high, so yeah theyâre going to take whatever they get and theyâre gonna Rush into to the point with it pell-mell.
Personally I prefer to play just like youâre suggesting above, but that 90% of the player base is also going to call you a camper for doing so.
Basically this rush in mentality is the same thing that makes people suicide with their airplanes or have hugely negative kill death ratios.
Im not camping
I never played in greyzone
And everytime i use scott my commander sniped within 3 minute average
Whic is the only bad part of using scott
I didnât mean to suggest that you were, but regardless theyâre going to call you that because youâre not on the point, Right now personally Iâm trying to not use armor very much because I find it extremely frustrating at this point, it is so ridiculously easy to strafe tanks dead right now.
A one second burst into the side of a panzer four with a 20 mm cannon on a P 38 will blow it up, itâs just ridiculous itâs bad enough that you can kill them quite easily with bombs but now this whole strafing thing thing itâs completely out of hand.
because single mg34 kills more long rnge than dual mgs from pz 3
It is exactly what I was saying in another topic. They arenât my playstyle so I donât use them. But the way you use them is good and it seems to work. At least for you.
Well, Iâd say the game is more focused on head on engagements than flanking.
Mostly because of maps. Many of them simply donât have enough room to flank the enemy (all city maps, beach maps, many forest maps, etc.).
You can easily flank in pacific. I think widening playable are in maps will solve it
No, it wonât.
Most maps are build in a way where you have one, maybe two roads and everywhere else is hard or even impossible to drive.
Take the corn farm in the normandy for example.
You may think that fields arround will allow to do flanking. But fear not, devs thought about this and modeled big as fuck bomb craters in the middle of such field.
Devs designed maps to be a corridor, head on fights.
Not to mention poor tank driving model that causes them to often get stuck.
At least thatâs how I as a casual player see it.
Normandy is worst example ever for light/âfastâ vehicles. Most compact and smallest maps ever.
And donât forget the awful spawn locations and spam of trenchs in the corn fields.
Bad thing about any of those above strategies is that any player with a brain will take up bomber and just destroy you. EasyâŚ.
I barely play tanks anymore because the one time you get into a good position. Your dead to bombs because the player you just wiped out is getting revenge
This is the same argument with snipers, they are long range and stay far away to snipe at enemies and provide markers but people complain that you are camping and not helping by rushing the point.
Tanks dont exist for rushing unless you wanna die easily.
But tansk are actually effective when camping.
But if all of your team play your style you will not get the capture point. So a few teams have to rush the point - donât blame them for this.