安装 Steam
登录
|
语言
繁體中文（繁体中文）
日本語（日语）
한국어（韩语）
ไทย（泰语）
български（保加利亚语）
Čeština（捷克语）
Dansk（丹麦语）
Deutsch（德语）
English（英语）
Español-España（西班牙语 - 西班牙）
Español - Latinoamérica（西班牙语 - 拉丁美洲）
Ελληνικά（希腊语）
Français（法语）
Italiano（意大利语）
Bahasa Indonesia（印度尼西亚语）
Magyar（匈牙利语）
Nederlands（荷兰语）
Norsk（挪威语）
Polski（波兰语）
Português（葡萄牙语 - 葡萄牙）
Português-Brasil（葡萄牙语 - 巴西）
Română（罗马尼亚语）
Русский（俄语）
Suomi（芬兰语）
Svenska（瑞典语）
Türkçe（土耳其语）
Tiếng Việt（越南语）
Українська（乌克兰语）
报告翻译问题
讨论规则及指引
举报此帖
Everything they can kill something cheaper can kill too. The things they can't kill heavily outgun them. Atleast a T-80A can do something with its ATGM against a Leopard2A5 but what can a Leopard 2 do against a T-80U?
Ya those Mig27/F-1 are really nasty. I know how to avoid that most of the time but for newcommers...
But a SU-27M or an A-10 can kill two medium tanks in one strafe run too.
yeah but the cheaper stuff will have a longer TTK and be slaughtered in droves by a tank slightly superior.
Yes for many these days they are the corner stone and it lets me march right through them with my heavier tanks or it makes my Red Dragon motorised deck even more deadly because I can rip and tear these mediums easier than a real heavy.
The Mexas is 75$ I think. I use it too its great. But Tanks that are more expensive 80 - 140 I really don't see why to take them even the K1.
It is very much like you describe. If the opponent makes mistakes you can punish him for that with these. In conquest they make more sense yea. But even there if you push with a dozen K1 down the road a single bomber or burito will put an end to it then 2 real heavy tanks do the clean up.
For me a medium has to be expendable and at 80+ it isn't expendable anymore.
So yes I play more destruction than conquest but I doubt its the kind of Destruction that you know.
Now that Conquest has 2000 vic points I happen to like that too. But its still rather awful. it doesn't surprise me much that the EE vets are playing much better than others. I see players with far beyond 1000 games but no idea on how to manouver or how to position. All they're capable of is playing conquest and then throw a hard counter at you and if it fails since Conq gives you massive money they buy a bomber and then bomb it all.
Conquest is so bloody boring. At least Destruction doesn't encourage camping. [/quote]
Of course it does. A defensive position is easier to hold than it is to assault. Many Destruction games are won by campers who just take over a tactically sound part of the map and let the enemy throw waves of troops at them...campers tend to not win conquest because it forces you to assault if you don't have the majority of point income.
Of course it does. A defensive position is easier to hold than it is to assault. Many Destruction games are won by campers who just take over a tactically sound part of the map and let the enemy throw waves of troops at them...campers tend to not win conquest because it forces you to assault if you don't have the majority of point income. [/quote]
I play destruction as a turtle, and I know that any smart person wouldn't just chuck units at a fortified position. There's a reason arty is in this game.
But when you DO have the majority of income, there is NO reason to advance.
Go play the competitive game. :)
anyway guys we already know that Conquest is the better game mode, it's just a small but vocal minority that talk good about Destruction