another good example - defense is just throwing lives, because they don’t care.
This should be limited, fo sho
In total, your team lost 97 units (I’m not even counting the player who leave, with him it would have been 101, which is probably correct).
The opposing team lost 107 units. That’s 1 additional revival per player. Does that sound like “throwing lives” to you? There’s a 10% difference in revivals.
The interesting thing is that you killed 10 tanks, that is 10 squads. If you were not so effective on your T-50 (which is an extremely strong tank), there would be no difference at all.
It’s not “throwing lives away” and it doesn’t require being modified. I described the reasons:
4 Likes
Hell no the attackers would even need to take 1 point to win
lol you sat there with a calculator and added it all up? what a nerd man jeez.
if you have to be a super nerd about it - defense should have limits too. top 5 of defense team has like no KPD at all, 1 to 1, and I had a decent team. And still - you just can’t kill them fast enough. I was mowing down the entire fight, hordes of pz4s and infantry. Still no dent really. mkay nerd lol? now pull the calculator out of your butt jk 
So you thought the enemy had a lot more unit losses, I just added up 20 figures and showed that the difference was quite small, and you’re saying that’s wrong?
You played well, but the overall stats show that the team performed about the same. You lost (if you lost) on the very last point, which confirms the fact that the game was even.
I find it rather strange to hear you refuse to acknowledge simple math, any game decisions are based on accurate calculations, not “I thought the enemies died more often than our team”
4 Likes
Your assists to win ratio suggests that you were in a tank for a good part of the match. And with that many vehicle kills it also looks like you were facing a team full of newer and cherry picked a match to try to bolster your side the the argument.
Pick a match that was closer, we all have them
1 Like
oh you nerds, my goodness. I mow down infantry quite nicely with my maxxed out ppd40s/ppsh squads, and maxed out Dp-27 squads, and my SVT-40s, ok? I just usually win those, if I go full infantry, and mow down enemies. And I forget to screenshot.
This one, as you can see, NERDS, I have 3 lives lost, 2 of those were infantry, quite nicely mowing down. Ok, now shut up. Honestly, ur annoying.
Lol, I hope I see you in a game very soon. I’ll cook your tank everytime you spawn mr ThinksHeISABigShot
point is - you can hardly win vs unlimited defense resources. What’s the reason here anyway? Why not limit defense tickets, so defense has to be careful? Reasonable request, so shut up please, if u got nothing interesting to add.
Personally, my team very rarely losses when attacking, no matter the campaign.
The Devs have the game data, if the attacking team on a map was getting steamrolled
a vast majority of the time, they would try to balance the map …. with barrage balloons
or something.
take your silly screenshots and try selling them to dumb people, most of us here know how the game works
If there is a time limit per objective that isn’t long enough for the attacking team to kill every single defender in one objective, and this timer got time increases every time the attacking team captures an objective, you could have a constant need for s push, and at the same time defenders would be able to win by acting recklessly abusing their lack of spawn limits
Don’t you think that’s overcomplicating?
“Easy to do is hard, hard to do is easy.”
Look at the screenshot of the author of the thread. He mistakenly quickly estimated the number of deaths with his eyes and thought the opponent was “throwing lives”. However, I just added up the numbers to check and got 101 vs. 107.
This is an extremely small difference, and in this particular fight if the author hadn’t been so efficient, the attackers would have lost more units than the defense.
In fact, the defense doesn’t die that often more often than the attackers, and that’s the price for the fact that the very principle of attacking points is simpler than their defense. I have already described why.
If defenders have tickets, I’d rather then have the choice of “play attack or play defense.” I will choose to attack and win even more often than I do now.
You and every other human would likely choose “Attack” then we’d be back to bot farming most games
Of course, that’s why I oppose the introduction of tickets for defenders. I think my arguments are exhaustive, and the screenshot the author of the post attached showed that he greatly overestimates the defense’s ability to "throw lives.
It all comes down to which team has more strong players.
If defenders don’t have at least one player placing strategic rally points,
it’s usually an easy win for the attackers.
Speed and aggression on the attackers side can overwhelm the defenders
no matter how many tickets they have
2 Likes
You are damn right, my friend. I wish defenders had more time to build respawn points, because as I wrote before:
It frustrates me and makes me think I have more tactical thinking in attack
In any case, defense tickets are definitely the wrong idea, which will weaken the non-dominant side on average
It works both ways, just look at airfield
1 Like
The airfield is an unfortunate joke. I most often leave games with it because I don’t want 50 minutes of intense shooting. The only map with stupid mechanics that should be removed or balanced.
i don’t mind airfield, having tasted both sides, it comes down if you have good players or they do, i have successfully defended as axis, and also played when we pushed back as axis, also play as allies i have been on teams that squash axis, or they cant take a point.
I fully agree. It is visible in Tunisia that I play time to time and engineers are way far in the campaign. I often play games were spawn points are built rarely and it is often decisive factor, who has spawn 50m next to the objective can easily take or defend it vs the one that has to sprint hundreds of meters often partially in the open.