victory point sucks

[eddyeddyd]

I hate VP mode, it has a tendency to have some battles that SHOULD be critical to winnning the game but then when you win sid battle......one side hit 0 points...and game over.......dumb.

Whereas in annihilate you must fiht for each and every inch of soil and beat thm back to their main base and since players in coh have a tendency to act like the germans did in berline 1945(fight to the end) its alwats a rewarding feeling when you take down that lasy hq.

Vp mode is just who can get to the points first and hold them 4 a little while.


annihilate is a real war and yu have the option of falling back and spending as much time as you need to regroup, rebuild and counter attack.

maps like lyon and vire with their bridges are often a stalemate(bridges), but when the stalemate is broken and one side is thorugh it should be a capaign from point to point althe ay back...not in vp...in vp the game will likely end in 1-2 mins after that breakthrough.


therefore be it resolved...vp sux

[lordgoof]

i much prefer annihilation as well. but vp does have its good points. and some last minute reckless attacks on vp's that somehow win the game for them.

[[3MD]A|Pvt.iTrek]

annihilate always favors the germans usually...mass tank rush :(

thats why u gotta pressure em!

[lordgoof]

at guns soon destroy a stug rush. plus a few sticky bombs.

[is_don_is_good]

i like a healthy dose of both games. i feel realy crap when my whole base is destroyed in annihilation *cries*. i mostly play that when im likely to win, especially with some of the guys i know

[eddyeddyd]

I just like fighting across the whole map because you get to enjoy combat in all the terrain whereas in vp youll only fight around those points., in vp you only need to think defensively whereas if a stalemate forms in anihilation your team has to figure out how to break the stalemate before they do.

[lordgoof]

^^you haven't played vire river valley with a massive stalemate have you? they are the best. blow both bridges, and use walking stukas to protect the middle one. then i only lose cause the guy on my team had to go to work and they launched a simultaneous attack.

[Cherni_95]

I just like fighting across the whole map because you get to enjoy combat in all the terrain whereas in vp youll only fight around those points., in vp you only need to think defensively whereas if a stalemate forms in anihilation your team has to figure out how to break the stalemate before they do.

Not neccisarily, you dont have to stay deffensive and create a stalemate. You can keep moving forward to destroy the HQ, but also keeping some units by your VCPs.

[lordgoof]

generally the vp's are spread out accross the map, so fighting generally takes place everywhere anyway.

[Buzzsaw]

^^you haven't played vire river valley with a massive stalemate have you? they are the best. blow both bridges, and use walking stukas to protect the middle one. then i only lose cause the guy on my team had to go to work and they launched a simultaneous attack.

Bah, I hate these! In the end it comes down to who has the most tanks- not how CoH is meant to be played IMO.

Victory points games are good because it means the players can technically be further apart in rank and still have a fairly decent game. But when skirmishing against the CPU in times of boredom, I always play Annihilate.

[eddyeddyd]

generally the vp's are spread out accross the map, so fighting generally takes place everywhere anyway.

LIES


it takes place NEAR the vps the rest of the map is untouched and unenjoyed.....like tira banks

[gazzthompson]

well if u only fight near the VPs then ur doing something wrong , u can flank across the map away from the VPs and attack from the rear , victory point is the best , it makes defending usefull , and attacking aswell , and wont last 2hrs

[eddyeddyd]

I like long rounds, gives a better feeling of satisfaction when you drive all the way back to their base.

in anihilation you can retreat and regroup without the fear that by the time to are ready to counter attack.....itll be to late, youll be tofar behind in tickets for any hope of victory.

[lordgoof]

long rounds suck, especially when you lose.

[Cherni_95]

long rounds suck, especially when you lose.

If the round is long and your losing but having fun then its aiight.

[eddyeddyd]

i actually agree with cherni, id rather play long fun rounds than short crappy ones.

[lordgoof]

yeah, i guess. if its 1v1, then its alright, but most of the long rounds i have played with 2v2 or more, usually end up with someone getting the ****s and kicking someone, or just quiting.

[is_don_is_good]

the british will have a good defence but PE will already have established a front line there. driving them out will prove difficult until you get some real armour rolling out

[eddyeddyd]

yeah and you bettwe get your armor first bcas after they get theirs.....

sticky bombs+shermans=pwnag3

thats y i always want an ob post on 1 or 2 munition points(I value munitions more than fuel lol) because if you get +40 munitions per min ur set.

[lordgoof]

but with the fuel, you can pump out those m10's

[eddyeddyd]

whch are always l33t, but my Fighting ability often rest on infantry and AT guns moving as one, so once I get to AT guns...Sure ill cap fuel points(to take it from the enemy and incase the round last so long that I can just decide 2 go tanks) but AT gun fire, plus infantry is pwnag3...watch your spacing.

[Sir. Tasty]

At spam + mgs = win

[eddyeddyd]

You Beat The Internet