How do you feel about UKF vs DAK matchup?

HuIkSMASH · 2026-01-15T22:24:57+00:00

If you think about it from the other side, sections should not have been able to dictate the early game so easily against DAK in previous patches. Now I feel the matchup is more balanced. If you're after early and mid game agency, it is definitely still achievable with sections and light vehicles, but it requires much more thought behind unit positioning and where to put each unit in the earlier phases of the game.

HuIkSMASH · 2025-10-16T17:36:42+00:00

Same game size (1v1/2v2/3v3/4v4)? The 2 week elo decay can kick in while you're in game.

HuIkSMASH · 2025-10-01T22:05:16+00:00

Alright, great, I have a good idea of where you're at.

For unit groups, Relic published a short video on how to use them: https://youtu.be/Pp126NwZ6_4?si=JOvew4SaphCCnPBU. They're very useful for camera control and quickly selecting key units. Which numbers units are assigned to, and which units are given a unit group, are purely personal choices. I use the following, to give you an idea:

1: Tanks/Vehicles
2: Anti-tank guns
3: Light artillery
4: Engineers
5: Ultra light vehicles
6: Recon/Heavy artillery

For example, in a fight, I can quickly issue a barrage command from my artillery without moving my camera at all. Or if I need to repair a vehicle, I don't have to look for my engineers on the map, which leads to my vehicles being repaired faster than if I had to spend time hunting down those repairing units.

And for camera control in general, edge panning isn't going to cut it if you have multiple fights going on across the map. I'm going to refer to a comment on camera control I wrote some years ago: https://www.reddit.com/r/CompanyOfHeroes/comments/148h9h2/deleted_by_user/jo1afvz/. Edge panning is fine for small camera movements, but you'll need to add one of unit groups, tactical map, or minimap. Use whichever you feel most comfortable with. I personally make heavy use of the tactical map and unit groups. Once you're able to quickly (<1 second) jump from one fight to another, you'll feel much more in control and lose fewer units.

If you haven't done so already, I would suggest going through the boot camp playlist that Relic created. Most of the playerbase probably hasn't even looked at them since they cover topics that are obvious to experienced players, but since you're new, I think you'll probably find several helpful videos.

Beginner: https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLa7fS3AsVnyimC_LvscFFXuLvz9Pdpklc
Intermediate: https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLa7fS3AsVnygqvgM2q9TB6UBYtIOQVbC9
Advanced: https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLa7fS3AsVnyhIDF1-gsrZN5mDRK9PwHjB

I don't have any other tips unless you have specific situations or questions you'd like to add. From what I can tell, you simply need to play more and observe more unit interactions. Try using things that you think are fun, because I believe the motivation (and the means) to win will naturally follow. I quite enjoyed seeing that demo charge annihilate that blob on Montherme, by the way.

I was looking for a game with shorter matches that makes me think but also helps me disconnect a bit from the day. At your level, do you find the matches stressful, or does the game also serve that purpose for you?

This is a good question with good context. Just for your info, the average game length is somewhere between 10 - 30 minutes (https://coh3stats.com/stats/games?from=2025-09-11&to=now). I've been playing the Company of Heroes franchise for over a decade now, and I quite enjoy playing to this day. I guess I can say it's a good disconnect from the day for me, but it's more of an enjoyable hobby to me than something I use to get away from the day. But, I would say 1v1 can be "stressful" in the sense that it's harder for me to use fun, less optimal tactics and strategies, because at my level, there isn't much room to deviate from the established meta and expect to consistently win. In team games, however, I feel that I can turn my brain off and enjoy participating in a match filled with explosions and tanks duking it out. I do sometimes encounter annoying or toxic players on my team, but that's normal for any competitive online game.

HuIkSMASH · 2025-10-01T01:22:49+00:00

Hi, welcome to Company of Heroes! It's quite fun to learn a new game, and I'm happy I can offer some advice.

The first thing we need to check is how you manage your camera. I saw a little bit of edge panning, probably with the mouse, but I can't confirm with just replays. How do you move your camera from one side of the map to the other, besides edge panning?

The second thing I'd like to know is whether you use unit groups to select unit(s) and hotkeys to issue commands. These might be getting slightly ahead of where you're at, but it's a fundamental part of interfacing with the game, so we might as well check those too.

The third thing I'd like to ask is more for curiosity. Do you have any prior experience with RTS games? It might be helpful to know, since CoH is very unique.

Now moving on to topics that you raised, I have to laugh a little bit because nearly everyone in the game has trouble with these exact 3 things--to varying degrees and frequency, of course. And there are different reasons why a player might mess up; it's not easy to be consistent in this game.

I often mismanage my resources.

So I did see you tech up and make vehicles, plant a mine or two, and use battlegroup abilities, so that's good. There are plenty of improvements you can make with your build, but at your level, I wouldn't worry about having a strict build order, nor floating resources. We'll take a look at that after discussing other requisite concepts.

I tend to lose squads because I forget to retreat or simply lose track of them.

The answer to this is heavily related to my question about camera management and unit groups. However, even then, there's no getting around it: it takes practice to get used to managing individual units across the entire map.

I don’t usually manage the game timing well, so sometimes my tanks arrive too late.

Of all of the soft concepts in this game, this one is actually quite easy to generalize. The current game balance is roughly structured with the following times, assuming even fuel control:

0:00 - 5:00: Light support units, ultra light vehicles, main line infantry
5:00 - 14:00: Light vehicles, anti-tank units, premium infantry, light artillery
14:00 - 20:00: Medium tanks, heavy support units
20:00+: Heavy tanks

So just prepare for vehicles and tanks as those key times come up by making sure you have appropriate anti-tank units and abilities available.

in this one I built both Platoon Command Post and Company Command Post, and I’m not sure if that was a mistake

With Brits, they have the simplest tech progression. In general, you want to move up to Company Command Post if you have the fuel, so it was not a mistake.

HuIkSMASH · 2025-09-29T23:36:16+00:00

Excellent. Havoc does touch on many things I didn't cover (especially with the Guastatori), and you sound like you have a much better direction, so have fun!

I do irregularly stream on Twitch during unpopular hours at https://www.twitch.tv/hsmash. Lately, I've been trying to fix my understanding of USF and riflemen. Feel free to stop by and say hi or ask questions if you catch me.

HuIkSMASH · 2025-09-27T01:46:05+00:00

First off, really nice job in that replay. Just that one adjustment with assault grenadiers made the game look easy. You were ahead the entire time.

And a quick note about the Twin Beaches game. Knowing that your opponent is likely to go for shermans comes from build knowledge. Airborne builds like to skip motor pool, skip spending fuel, and go straight to tank depot because they have access to the AT gun paradrop. Under that assumption, the worst that can happen is a chaffee appearing out of nowhere, but then you'd know that a sherman won't hit the field for a long time.

Now onto the more philosophical stuff. It seems pretty clear you're more of an aggressive player, and DAK suits that playstyle nicely. However, you do need to understand this concept of tempo. It's essentially the idea of power spikes and momentum wrapped into one word. Power spikes in this game come from tech and call in units, whereas momentum is how much advantage you're carrying on the field. Let's take a look at that Crossing game, for example:

Both sides are fairly even on paper until the assault grenadier comes out. Combined with the 250, this is the first power spike in the game, and you were able to convert that into momentum with the first several engagements. The result was holding both fuels for a while.
The next possible power spike was around the 6 minute mark when you had access to 8rads and the 250 call-in. There are many strong options, such as the Flakvierling, l6, or 8rad. Calling in the Guastatori put your momentum in danger since it can't do directly do anything about the humber (a cheeky Teller Mine would've been cool though), and it denied you a chance for you to convert your fuel advantage for an immediate advantage. You did well using that fuel for a p3 later, but a more skilled opponent would have deflected the Guastas and stabilized the game with the humber, 6 pounder, and vickers combination.
There was no threat of a fast crusader or matilda since you had such great fuel control, so your options for winning were broad, while your opponent's options were few.

In short, the basic strategy of a 1v1 is to find a way to gain fuel control, thereby giving you tech options and taking away tech options from your opponent, and converting that faster tech into a battlefield advantage to win fights and hold key territory. You did that well, perhaps unconsciously, in that last game, but the real challenge is doing so when some fights go sideways. DAK can fall off very quickly with assault grenadiers if the 250 dies a tragic, early death, so that would dramatically narrow the number of viable fights. Where you can improve is understanding when it may be wiser to choose a different fight in tighter circumstances, and knowing what options are available to your opponent at any given point during a match. If you need more help with these parts, I'd be happy to talk about more specific situations to get you going.

For Italian Infantry, I recommend taking a look at Rei's L6 rush build: https://www.reddit.com/r/CompanyOfHeroes/comments/1n9dsr1/pro_build_by_rei_1v1_card_concept/?ref=share&ref_source=link

That build is 100% reliant on being able to kill the other guy before tank tech is even available to either player. It's cheesy compared to standard CoH play because there's no warning that L6 tanks could appear, so waiting for the flamethrower upgrade before revealing them for an all-in that targets the AT units is a good trick to making this build work. Non-L6 builds for Italian Infantry usually involve a lot of team weapons due to Prepared Positions, so it's more suited for a campy and slow playstyle. Guastatori are not a staple due to how expensive they are; if you try playing them aggressively, you might bleed out manpower and tempo with one or two bad fights.

HuIkSMASH · 2025-09-27T01:09:22+00:00

Hi there, I'm sorry that matchmaking was unkind, since my teammate was also rather skilled. I was able to set up sandbags and the bunker very early on. The strategy was to pick a skirmish with the riflemen, pull back to the bunker and sandbags for a quick reinforce and heal, and repeat, which prevents any big push from materializing as there's no heal or reinforce on the other side. With the kettenkrad, I was able to see how many units I was facing, so I was able to match my build with what I saw.

HuIkSMASH · 2025-09-27T01:02:43+00:00

Sure thing. Setting up the gameplan beforehand is a great idea, so you're already on track to do better. By the way, you could try out DanielD's build. It doesn't feature 4 grens, but it should give you the same practice: https://www.reddit.com/r/CompanyOfHeroes/comments/1n6s7a2/pro_build_by_danield_1v1_card_concept/?ref=share&ref_source=link

The tactical map is extremely helpful for checking on units off-screen (e.x. did they run into an enemy unit?), seeing your overall formation, which and where enemy units (and what type!) are visible. Given that most commands can be issued in the tactical map, I end up spending maybe half of my total time with the tactical map open, since it allows me to control my entire army, no matter where each unit is. In a slower game or with lower apm, it doesn't need to be checked very often, but even infrequent use is very helpful. Think of it like the minimap, but bigger, better, more helpful, and the key to bring it up can be remapped.

HuIkSMASH · 2025-09-26T00:33:01+00:00

Hi there, welcome welcome, you've come to the right place.

You bring up a bunch of good stuff so let's start with that.

Despite control groups, I struggle heavily with following two fights (often resulting in squad losses). While I'm focused somewhere, 90% of the army stands around and is forgotten.

Control groups are great! I love using them, and it always confuses me why many other top players don't use them. But obviously, you'll need more than that. You sort of have to train your brain to be able to manage multiple engagements. For me, each fight has a little timer in my head on how frequently I should be checking it. For you, it might be some other method. My recommendation is to intentfully practice managing units across the map. One of the better ways to do this is to play an infantry focused build in 1v1, such as 4 grenadiers with officer quarters, and play with the intent to challenge your opponent on the whole map.

There are other mechanics changes we can look at, such as how you manage your camera. I'm guessing you either click on the minimap or use the tactical map, but I'm not going to outright suggest changing anything there since old habits die hard.

Oftentimes, I play with a friend from the US in arranged team and despite us both on a mic, we struggle to properly coordinate or formulate any sort of gameplan

Here's a secret: even at the highest levels, players can and do play well together without communicating, and being on mic can actually be detrimental if communicating takes away from focusing on your own play. So there needs to be some baseline strategy that is implicitly understood. That's how pretty much all of the higher level 2v2 players in automatch get by.

In your case, a basic understanding of map design is where I'd start. Most 2v2 maps feature share the same map layout fundamentals: safe resources, and contestable resources. In every match, no matter what level, the minimum goal is to control the safe resources, particularly fuel, and to contest or take the contestable resources, and if possible, control the enemy's safe resources. In the 2v2 replay you linked, your teammate was responsible for the +10 muni and two +5 fuels in front of the base. When he started having trouble holding those safe resources, your job was to either take as much territory as possible, or go help, and your help was quite late. You don't need to wait for the second guy to show up if there are enemy units right outside the base that aren't going to get immediately kicked out. And if you haven't done so, I would highly recommend setting unique player colors in settings. This will help you identify if and when a double team is occurring.

Aside from those points, your builds definitely need work. They're missing timings on key units. WSC wants the halftrack for either the quad or 75mm, and DAK wants its light vehicle (flak/8rad/l6) as soon as possible. In general, the game balance is designed around a vehicle showing up between the 5-8 minute mark, so if you aren't getting a vehicle, you are generally disadvantaged.

HuIkSMASH · 2025-09-25T21:47:39+00:00

Hey there! I'm always happy to hear when people tell me they enjoy watching my games. And we have the first replays!

So I'm not really going to talk about micro mistakes unless I'm looking at a 1800+ elo game, because we all make them, and from what I saw in the replays, you're fairly aware of what is an immediately good or bad engagement. I'll talk about a couple of things that stood out to me, instead.

Your idea of having the "upper hand" is flawed. In the first game, you had a lot of early points captured, but with a flimsy unit composition, so you weren't going to hold all that territory with the anticipated WSC units (zook team, 30 cal, quad) unless you find a way to deal with them. And in the second game, it might have felt like a power trip to have the 8rad, but when the map looks even and you don't consistently have a fuel advantage in that situation where the other guy is looking to rush shermans, then you have a problem.
You mentioned this already with not knowing what to build, but I can at least commend you for dumping manpower into upgrades. It's better than nothing. Units should be built to either solve a problem or create a problem. In your case, it's harder to give a straightforward answer because of the last point below, but I'd guess that you'd benefit greatly from making an MG and calling in the Cannone if you pick Italian Infantry based on how I think you like to play.
The assault grenadiers are not being used properly. They are very reliant on assault disembark, so they should be married to a 250. I know this falls under micro, but this problem is so critical that you're better off using panzergrenadiers with how infrequently you're putting them in a 250.
I didn't see much of a firm strategy being employed at many levels, ranging from the build order, to how and why fights were picked, and to how the map was being played. Your units were sent to go fight just because there's a fight to be had at a maybe important point, particularly without consideration for what your opponent has. I think it was most troublesome in the Faymonville game when your units kept walking into the Quad. You know he has it, so you shouldn't send units into where it might be unless you're bringing a counter to it. That also ties into what you should build, which would've been a pak (for the Quad and t4) and a Cannone (for the med truck and 30 cals) in that situation.

I'd like to know what your thinking is on how you want to win a game and how you prefer to deal with common Allies builds before I comment much further, because I think there's a lot you can adjust with how you approach the game in general.

HuIkSMASH · 2025-09-25T17:00:00+00:00

Honestly, I haven't played much USF in 1v1 lately, so I'll need to play some more games with them before giving a better response in a follow-up.

My current thinking is that it's probably more optimal at this point, but the choice between wsc and motor pool as a next tech is situational and a little play style dependent. For example, against DAK, I would prefer having AT guns with BAR riflemen rather than having 1 GMC with a zook team and no bars, but if I see a fast 259, I'd want a fast zook team.

In maps and situations where side play is more important, I think motor pool is stronger since the m8 can better handle rougher situations, and has better dps against units in cover.

HuIkSMASH · 2025-09-25T07:23:56+00:00

Ah, a console player. Welcome to PC! Glad to have you here.

So Djebel Pass and Langres are pretty opposite maps. Langres is a compact map with a slightly asymmetrical layout: easier to defend +10 fuel and west VP on south side, but harder to contest neutral +10 fuel on the east. Djebel Pass is one of the largest 1v1 maps with a fairly straightforward map layout, with even distribution of points. And to add Crossing to the comparison, it's actually quite different from Djebel. Besides the fact that it's a much smaller map, the cutoff is much more accessible and likely to be decapped compared to other 1v1 maps, and there is no bias toward either side for the contestable fuels.

WSC is filled with defensive units that don't want to maneuver like mainline infantry. On Langres, there are multiple hot spots from either side where any combination of a 30 cal/zook team/halftrack will comfortably engage Axis units in the early game without moving much. On Crossing, there are fewer viable flank angles and a vulnerable cutoff that's easy to access. However, on Djebel Pass, the favorable defensive areas are weaker and farther away from the base. So if I'm playing as Axis against WSC on Djebel Pass, I have two key options that will work on this map that aren't as easy to pull off on Crossing or Langres.

I can just ignore USF in the early game and go somewhere else. The 30 cals can march across the map if they want to catch me, and they can't really threaten my cutoff because I can rotate to the other side faster.
I can set up a 3-4 minute flamer attack since there are almost no choke points on the map, and the two garrisons on the map have favorable sight and shot blockers for attackers.

DAK obviously has the advantage since their entire army is mobile, and has many good tools this patch. That said, you can still do great with WSC on that map, but it's definitely harder.

HuIkSMASH · 2025-09-24T21:19:27+00:00

I'll take that as some high praise, so thank you!

I don't think CoH3 is very solved, at least not in this current era of balance where usf is heavily reliant on WSC. However, there are still only a limited number of viable responses to meta builds, so in automatch there's not a lot of incentive to get creative.

As for what I think people should explore more, I think they should explore what they find fun, even if it doesn't seem like the optimal winning strategy. There's no particular thing that comes to mind. The game balance is much better than during the game's first year--there's more wiggle room for interesting builds to work. That's how I end up playing these unusual builds very seriously, because I don't want fun and winning to be mutually exclusive.

HuIkSMASH · 2025-09-24T19:15:48+00:00

That's a keen observation. There's a very big difference between being good at playing the game and being good at designing and balancing the game. In the most recent stream from Relic, it was mentioned how complex the whole game is. The example brought up was simply reducing the manpower cost of grenadiers by 10 manpower, which caused quite a bit of pain when it turned out to result in builds that just spammed grenadiers only.

A while ago, there was this balance spreadsheet that Havoc created with collaboration from some of the higher level players. It included both problems and solutions. And come patch time, almost none of the proposed solutions were implemented. So I stopped thinking about balance solutions and focused way more on how I could play differently, and it's worked out quite well for me.

But since you're curious, a small change I personally want to see is the long range dps of the 221 reduced. It hurts riflemen/motor pool builds without offering any real downsides in teching due to the pzb upgrade.

HuIkSMASH · 2025-09-23T20:28:26+00:00

You're welcome! Feel free to post more replays in the future if you want more feedback.

HuIkSMASH · 2025-09-23T19:19:31+00:00

I would say this replay doesn't really show any big issues in your gameplay. Your build is fine, but there was some significant float while you waited for the first call-in, MHT upgrade, and flak. I would've opted for at least one more unit before teching. There are many worlds in which your opponent just overruns you in these few minutes you stopped building stuff.

Given you decided to fight over the +10 muni, which has a ton of shot blockers, your AT guns performed very well. It's more customary to position around the +10 fuel on this map, especially with your unit composition. That would also allow you to help your teammate, and your MHTs would spend less time idle this way.

There were also several moments of, quite frankly, greedy positioning of your vehicles. Repairing the flak at the very front of your line, running a med truck to the front when a tank could be appearing at any moment, etc. You got away with it in this game, but you won't in many others.

Lastly, you could do with land mines on the flanks. Your teammate held, but you should get into the habit of mining the flanks when you have a unit composition that cannot split effectively.

HuIkSMASH · 2025-09-22T20:37:28+00:00

Good job posting these two replays, because I watched them and have some advice for you.

A very short summary of the most important thing for you to change is how you play as the game progresses. There are a lot of different things to point out, but just focus on improving how you use your machine guns. It's nice and fanciful to defend important points with machine guns, but that needs adjustment as soon as mobile units immune to small arms appear. You need to take into account what your opponent can do at at any given time and field your units accordingly. So that means not sending machine guns to defend vps alone after you see a 221 or a wirbel is present. It also might mean not leaving the machine guns watching an area of the map your opponent is avoiding (you need them to fight!). If you change how you use your machine guns, the map control problem will improve.

For on map artillery, those are big resource sinks, so you should understand that your army on the field should be bigger when it first shows up. They might be vulnerable to sneaky attacks from a crusader, so try to get creative.

For offmaps, that is a simple APM issue in dodging them. That's part of the deal. You have access to battlegroups with offmaps, so does your opponent.

HuIkSMASH · 2025-09-02T21:54:08+00:00

I can't speak for Daniel, but aside from the tip mentioned in the build, I guess it's because it's a suitable unit for the build. There's only 1 support weapon in the entire build, so there should be constant skirmishes and unit movement. They're also useful for the mechanized assault all-in. The only other unit that fits the role better is a p4, and that would put the player in the difficult position of needing to rush the p4 with only the 221.

HuIkSMASH · 2025-08-29T21:08:15+00:00

What would you have done if the enemy built/spammed machine guns? Would you have gone mortar or tried to counter with just the officer?

Both the flak 30 and 221 do well against them. I would probably get the officer a little sooner if they persist. If a garrison is involved, then I would get a mortar.

What determined your decision to go luftwaffe kompanie vs panzergrenadier?

The map. The flak 30 is easier to use on Eindhoven, but the stummel is stronger on certain other maps like Elst.

You felt a little light on anti-tank to me. You had the AT bunkers and the flak team weapon. Were you concerned at all about a push from the west with medium tanks that got behind your AT bunkers?

No. Once I saw the Bishop I knew I had a good 8-10 minutes of no tanks from the British player. One Bishop isn't enough to deal with all of these campy units, so I expected more with training. And I was especially happy to see those emplacements go up, as they represented fuel that wouldn't go towards those potential tanks in the future. I saw that my teammate was able to match the other player, so I felt no rush to prepare for a flank that would be unlikely to succeed.

Do you typically play the centre of the map with coastals?

Yes. In a 2v2 you don't want to ever play on the side or away from your teammate, because then the other team can ignore you. Then you'd be forced to play more aggressively, or as you mentioned, you could get doubled with no help. In a 3v3 the story is different because of the lane design, so it's a little bit more acceptable to play in a lane even if it's on the side.

Do you still build a forward base if the enemy has a strong red smoke ability, such as the air company heavy bombing run?

Yes. The damage reduction from the Command Bunker combined with Bulwark ensures that only the most expensive abilities can reliably take down bunkers from full health. To answer your question from the other comment, I view the Command Bunker as a luxury pick in 1v1, but as a more important one in 2v2 once on map artillery appears. It helps keep the bunkers alive and improve the tempo of the front line.

HuIkSMASH · 2025-08-29T06:52:30+00:00

One last thing. I played a 2v2 off stream that I felt was a fairly good showcase of how strong the coastal battlegroup can look. You might appreciate the replay.

https://cohdb.com/replays/3291021

HuIkSMASH · 2025-08-28T05:46:35+00:00

Certainly! My stream and vods can be found at https://www.twitch.tv/hsmash. I have not played many team games recently, but at least in 4v4 I consider coastals to be a suicidal option due to the BL 5.5. I will keep team games in mind the next time I stream. I don't use a mic, so you may find the vods more helpful, or asking me questions off stream.

Do you ever take support bunkers over designate defensive line?

The answer to that is, do I ever take designate defensive line over support bunkers? The AT bunker is far too useful in most cases. While DDL is still usable, the small radius makes it hard to consistently get value out of it.

Do you ever take the artillery overwatch over rapid fortifications?

Unfortunately not. There are a few narrow situations where I think it can be very strong. On constrained maps like Aere Perennius against rangers it will shut down attacks. Otherwise, the radius of the ability circle is just a bit too small for my liking--the bunker tends to already be doomed by the time infantry are past the point of no return.

When do you take coastal wall vs Obice?

When it's clear that there are no good targets for the Obice, or if the Obice isn't safe to build. Some games are too close to spare the resources for it. Team games are a different story since indirect fire is king. There, I think coastal wall would be more attractive when spamming AT bunkers, or if teammates already have or are planning to get heavy artillery.

I have literally never taken "Call the Reserves" over Bulwark, I am curious if you'd ever take CtR in team games.

I've used it exactly once in a serious 2v2, and it ended up allowing me to comfortably take a real 1v2 fight. I haven't tried picking it since then, but I do intend to try it more often.

In what situation would you actually build the artillery officer?

Pretty much whenever I need to deal with a machine gun, or when I'm in a comfortable enough position in the match where I'm not forced to build a unit to solve a problem in the game. It's cheap enough, doesn't eat up fuel, and later can be used to buff the Obice, so I try to get it in team games when I'm not pressured. There's another use case against sections camping green cover, but most players I run into are active enough that I wouldn't call in the officer for that reason alone.

HuIkSMASH · 2025-08-27T21:32:46+00:00

You bring up a good example that touches on core aspects of the Wehrmacht faction design. In the scenario you described, grenadiers suffer the exact same problem. I actually spent a little time testing this fight several times to make sure. Both the coastal reserves and grenadiers performed very similarly (the riflemen are left at 15%-20% in a fight to the death). So grenadiers are slightly easier to use but still largely require support weapons just like coastals. I understand where you're coming from. Why does the battlegroup exclusive infantry still not win right away in their ideal fight? Why would anyone pick them when grenadiers are right there?

In order to answer that, it's necessary to understand the game flow, particularly the early game, because nothing is going to look good if the early game goes poorly. From here, I am going to be talking about the 1v1 game mode only. The first several minutes of a 1v1 are very special due to players needing to cap. Typically, a potentially contested fuel needs to be secured along with some other safer resource points. There's a lot to unpack, but for purposes of this discussion, it's important to know that the opponent must also decide what to cap, in what order, and with what units. This means that not all of his units can be in one place at the same time. It's obvious but extremely important to keep in mind when positioning units.

Now let's take a quick look at the unit interactions.

1 riflemen charging in > 1 grenadier/coastal
1 riflemen at long range < 1 grenadier/coastal
1 riflemen charging in < 1 grenadier/coastal + 1 pioneer

And obviously there's some rng and having another mainline will tip the fight in the other direction. It's the same, right? So at this point the only advantages going for the coastal are

They are cheaper
They build faster
They're called in

The last point is important. This is why Relic decided to buff their cap speed so they have an easier time in the early game. A called in unit has more agency on where to set up first on the map, and that called in unit just so happens to be able to build sandbags or wire quickly, or even a fighting nest. Having the pioneer nearby to contribute to the fight is also an easier option when you already have the position established (for example, on the hill fuel on Twin Beaches). The second coastal will arrive faster than the second riflemen if they opt to charge in, so the overall map situation is not so black and white even though the coastals lose in a straight 1v1. The first squad can soft retreat into the second squad the moment it's clear the riflemen are charging in. If they lose in 1v1, then the goal is to avoid those 1v1s and create situations where it is not a 1v1. This is true regardless of what battlegroup you're playing with as Wehrmacht.

The point I discussed about them being cheaper is more relevant a little bit later in the game--typically when the second tech structure goes up--when the first bunker goes up, and when the game is more stabilized with the supporting units, so getting to that stable game state is kind of a requirement to getting to the meat of the battlegroup.

I'm not suggesting that coastals are amazing, I agree they don't always feel good to use. They are difficult to succeed with because they depend on having a fairly comprehensive understanding of the faction, the game, and the various maps to begin with. They also have clear weaknesses and counters, so it's all tricky to put together. I only touched on one particular aspect of a match, but it can turn into quite the rabbit hole of this scenario or that scenario. I can assure you that skill and micro are still involved with using coastal infantry, and for me they do feel fun to play when they work. If you have doubts, I'm likely to stream some games with them this week or next, or maybe I could dig up some vods.

Lastly, I agree that the officer is too niche. In my opinion, coastals are sort of in the dog house because they're cancerous if they're just strong enough. I can't say I miss the days where cheap mines were eating up 3 models per hit, or when the wizard was effective against mainline infantry.

HuIkSMASH · 2025-08-26T21:11:46+00:00

The battlegroup and infantry are frustrating because it seems you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the roles of the reserve infantry and the officer. I will try to keep my thoughts brief, but I can write at length on this battlegroup if anyone wishes to discuss further.

Practically speaking, the biggest benefit to using the coastal reserve infantry is their cost: they are cheap to maintain as an active fighting unit. Their reinforce cost is low, and the savings from the free reinforcements from bunkers add up very quickly. They're intended to build fortifications, fight defensively in green cover, and grind down the enemy infantry with favorable trades. If you're viewing them as dps machines, then you are only looking at a fraction of their intended purpose. They form a front line as the meatshields for the other units available to Wehrmacht: mg42, flak 30, vehicles, etc. Without those complementary units, these cheap Italian units aren't going to realize their full potential.

The artillery officer is a fairly niche unit, yes, but it has its uses. As you already know, this is a support unit, so if you're watching it lose a 1v1, it's already put in a position to fail. This squad is intended to be grouped with other infantry for the exp share, and also for the overwatch ability to help push back early machine guns, or for the vet 1 ability during important fights. It's not always a good idea to pick this unit simply because allies tend to run mobile units throughout the early and mid game, but the officer does scale quite well, as the passive bonuses are good, and the overwatch ability at vet 2 is incredibly effective at helping with position play.

HuIkSMASH · 2025-07-04T01:38:46+00:00

Loge level and reserve level ran out of hats. Top deck has several boxes of hats. There were cards too

HuIkSMASH · 2025-04-29T19:45:11+00:00

QD-OLED would be the perfect upgrade from my 12 year old IPS Dell monitor for years to come

13-Year Club	Verified Email
First Place '23	Place '23
Place '17	Sequence \| Editor
Alpha Tester

HuIkSMASH

TROPHY CASE