I started playing ranked games a few weeks ago, and was doing well against guys in my level range, going about 50/50 to the guys well above me but learning as I went. I wouldn't call myself a top tier player, I can hold my own in any 3v3 or 4v4 I've played (decimating in some games even) and have hit 1740 or so in ranked.

Then I hit 3 different rushers in a row, which made me rethink my whole build. I started holding points back, but really to properly counter a true rush you need a good amount to spend. More often then not now I'm so apprehensive to spend points against a decently high ranked opponent that my early game is terrible against conventional, competent players. It basically has forced me out of ranked games out of annoyance.

Anyone else finding this a problem?

_________________

You probably nailed the real problem with rushes.

I don't play more than 2v2 ranked, and not that often anyway, but in low numbers games, just building my usual army, while having an eye in the sky to see where the rush is if there is one so I can NOT fight it until he starts spreading out (and if he doesn't it is easy to dodge). If it is an air rush (rarely faced any), hiding everyone in forests alll over the map so he can't do anything without heavy losses, then running out of supplies, proved effective.

Not facing the enemy on his own ground. Basically, act like the insurgents in A-stan: Instead of facing highly trained and well equipped guys, they fight in places they know, and where the technological advantage is lessened.

Honourable fighting is overrated against lamers.

_________________
"Rocks are OP. Paper is fine" signed: Scissors

My Youtube Channel

Honourable fighting is overrated period. In any sort of conflict, from hand to hand combat to grand strategy, sticking to honor while your opponent plays underhanded means certain disaster.

Exactly. I do not do ranked yet - just casuals, but more often than not I help carry my team with the most points.

How? By using dirty, underhanded tactics. Cheap infantry blitzs, burratinos, smerchs, w/e it is I think I need to use to smash the opponent, I use.

Would I prefer these tactics get a nerf? YES! After a while, it does make for boring gameplay.

But you know what I hate more than a mediocre win? A lose of any kind.

Yeah, I like to win.

Even without the "I want to win" class, playing dirty is needed. it makes you unpredictable, forces a smart opponent to rethinking and leads a dumb one to an early grave. Even using 10% of your forces to do dirty tricks can prove very efficient, while using 50% can not work just as well, because that becomes your main strategy, thus predictable.

_________________
"Rocks are OP. Paper is fine" signed: Scissors

My Youtube Channel

rushing is really a nonsense concept tbh, theres a countdown, the game starts.... from then you can kill other units, what are you expecting then, that everyone sits around and takes up defensive positions close to their start to avoid the other play? never going to happen......

_________________
My youtube channel with wargame videos http://www.youtube.com/user/GenGRorg
My Wargame blog, including top 1v1 replays! http://onceov3r.blogspot.co.uk/
Enjoy!

I'm not against rushes but I think there is a culmination of several meta game issues that make them a little too effective (vst1's being too cheap/effective, vet being applied after stabilizer, infantry instantly unloading, etc.)

Keep in mind this is a relatively new game and that so far, Eugen has been really responsive to the community.

Tigga had a great post for recommended changes viewtopic.php?f=11&t=3654

The problem is that most unhonorable tactics presently in the game wouldn't work in real life so the argument doesn't work well. In real life, no army does mindless APC rushes by exemple, but weirdly it works much more often than it should in this game. Ever eared about martial court? Winning a battle with 85% losses that are not justified can make you being kicked out of the army ... or executed by your own troops ^^ .

You can cry on the forums but it doesnt change the fact that people who rush win. Their tactics are literally better than yours.

Imagine a scenario.

Russia and US-UK-FR are ready to go at it with nuclear weapons. Russia is pushing hard on NATO forces. If the NATO line collapses due to this Russian push then the entire war will quickly devolve into nuclear deterrence, something Russia would ignore at this point in the war or so NATO believes.

That means you are given the order to stop the Russian advance at ALL COSTS. You have the resources to do a crazy assault and you know without a doubt it will work. The only risk you carry is your men killing you and surrendering to Russians... because at this point, it is a justified loss.

These casualties aren't Vietnam. Such a war in Europe would be extremely "combat rules out the window" within the first few hours...

_________________

Vietnam & 1975 - Player List & Deck Advice