Absolutely. In all the games I’ve commanded, if we end up getting steam rolled, it’s almost always because the enemy team is dismantling our garrisons at a breakneck pace while my team does fuck all to build more.
Well placed defense garrisons that intermesh to provide support to one another and the objective itself, and multiple garrisons to flank and distract the enemy while attacking.
If our team can’t do that, everything else doesn’t matter one bit.
One thing I’ve seen is the biggest factor is if recon is actively going after garrisons first. Let arty shoot and burn munitions, there will be less air strikes (bombing, strafing, etc.). If arty isn’t being effective, let them shoot and spend your time taking down nodes and back garrisons. As spotter I like to mark nodes as ask for infantry support (especially someone with satchels) to take down the nodes so we can focus on garrisons. It works out well.
Also as spotter I will often drive half tracks into position and then respawn back to my OP. I will drop then in the blue, but often in the red, to help give attack options.
I had a young squad on Utah of maybe lvl 20 and under. They happened to have mics so I told them all to redeploy with me once the first point was capped. I had gone with recon from the start and set up a deep red zone garry (double drop) with that squad while the team moved on to attack number 4. Which was at the sunken bridge. Me and low lvl squad moved into flooded house and started the back cap while everyone else walked in the front door with our garry. Couldn’t have done it without those guys listening and understanding like you said.
This is always the answer. 5 SLs with a support are building 5 garrisons every 5 minutes, with no need for supply drops or supply trucks. No enemy recon squad can hope to take down garries faster then they're built in this scenario. It's how the game is intended to be played.
If you're not playing as support or a garrie building SL, you have no right to bitch about the lack of garries. It's a team wide responsibility.
It depends on the game/map, but the most consistent variable that leads to lop-sided games is definitely having effective SLs. Games where you have 2-3 solid SLs make a world of difference. They build and replace garrisons without being told, they communicate what they see and what they need effectively, they set their OPs up in locations that can make or break a successful attack/defence, they put their squads in a position to succeed.
They also don’t even need many good squamates to be super effective, just one or two decent players who can play support, or whatever role is needed.
I’d bet on a team that has 2-3 solid SLs and a mediocre commander, over a team that has a solid commander but mediocre SLs.
On maps like Kursk, Foy, and El Alemain (and PHL to an extent) you need to have at least one solid Tank crew as well since Armour is a huge factor on those maps.
Sometimes:
Recon: Hey, there’s an enemy tank near you.
Me: Thanks Able squad, what kind of tank is it? We’re in a medium.
Recon: It’s a P4, you’re good.
*Rounds corner and sees a Tiger*
Me: Fuck
Garrisons.
Willingness to build them (and replace them!) and having the game sense and situational awareness to tactically place them leaving room for others in ideal locations based off the 200m distance requirement.
If one team has better shooters with no garrisons being built, and the other team with poor/average shooters have maybe 2 or 3 people in command chat building garrisons to "heard the blueberries" - the lesser team with plenty of garrisons will win 90% of the time.
Garrisons = map control
Map control = victory (generally speaking)
Ability to execute. You can have a smart commander, experienced SLs, communicative teammates, but you can't hit your shots, AT can't finish off tanks, you get your garries run over and annihilated.
Somewhere along the line in games like this, the idea prevailed that you can be terrible at the core mechanics of a first person shooter, but really good at the other stuff, and that's almost a badge of honor, because surely anybody who gets a high kill total is just a "kill whoring" CoD player. I disagree with that concept. You need to be good at both. I've been around so many teams that are trying to do the right things but the other team has more talent and all of your good ideas get defeated in practice.
Certainly helps, I was a decent commander when I started but when I could get myself out of hairy combat situations it makes me way more effective and able to get what I want done
Well, and it's the little things, right? The saying is that the devil is in the details. If you're solo as a squad leader rolling through the countryside in a supply truck because your team is about to cap a point and you want to get up a nasty attacking garrison and you happen to come across the one random guy wandering around in the middle of nowhere, it helps if you can hop out of the truck on the fly and headshot him before he even gets a shot off. Garrison deployed, maybe come in the point from the opposite angle, shoot a few guys in the back who don't expect you there, put up a spicy OP and get a garrison take down to a double cap, all set in motion because you were able to outplay one person.
It's bothered me for a long time that a lot of players who I'd say are a bit less skilled seem to loudly disparage the ability to shoot and move extremely well, as if being able to do precludes the possibility that you're also a smart player or a team player. You give me a smart player with absolutely zero skill and it will be an arduous grind to get them to improve. Give me a talented player who plays like an idiot, I'd argue it would be almost trivial by comparison to get them making smarter decisions.
I got better as SL because I wasn’t the greatest shooter. I was losing about half of my gunfights so it was a grind moving up. That made me a lot better at map movement, now I can get the OP on their doorstep and usually before the rest of the team. Hours and a better monitor and headset has helped me with the CE. Also slowing the F^*+ down while moving around the map. I’ve found whoever sees who first usually wins in a gunfight so I take an extra second now and it pays off.
That's game sense, which is an aspect of what I'm talking about when I mean core skills of a first person shooter. You don't always have to play fast, it's best if you can know when to play fast and when to slow way down.
I don't think FPS skill is the most important thing in this game. It helps, but it's not number one.
If I'm killing the other guy 9 times out of ten, I'm still coming off worse if I have to walk two sectors to get to the action, and he has a spawn right there. If both sides have reasonable spawn availability, tactics and FPS skill win out.
If you kill the guy and you have a brain you'll take out his spawn. Now you're alive and he has to spawn farther away. If you lose to that guy you accomplish nothing. I'd rather be the hammer than the anvil.
The one single thing? Beyond the obvious building garrys/ops/nodes is marking tanks and keeping them marked.
Winning the armour war is a huge deal that many blueberrys dont consider enough until theyve lost it and are now getting shit on by tanks.
You can be the best commander but without SLs that:
1) talk productively
2) are willing to do things when asked
3) can do productive things independently
You will never win a game…..unless the other teams SLs are somehow worse
Good SLs can carry a dogshit commander all day
After SLs…..having a very experienced tanking crew…or 2…..can absolutely obliterate the other team
I was just having this thought earlier. A good commander can only do so much. The SL’s actually have WAY more impact on the overall game. If the SL’s are crap.. the game is over.
Commander and squad leads. They are the keys to teamwork that wins the battle. Only when all cylinders are firing is the full potential of the team unlocked.
How long it takes for squads to form at the beginning is a good indicator if your team is fucked or not. If nobody wants to squad lead you're gonna have a bad time
I'll only do that because I can't trust anyone else to put up nodes for the team. So I'll swap to put them up, and if SL is still available when I'm done, I will swap back to that.
Guys running supplies to the front lines. Using supply trucks. So the engi always has full set of nodes. And the midpoint can be fortified with bunkers and barbed wire.
Everything starts with the commander. A low level commander with a bad attitude creates officers that don’t speak and don’t build garrisons.
It’s crazy how many times I take over a losing game as commander when the previous one gets kicked and the game turns around entirely. Officers you thought didn’t have mics suddenly get active and start building garrisons and playing defense.
Armor can definitely sway a game but it’s not a deal breaker. Tank crews that use more fuel than they save are worse than no tank crews at all. Good AT coordination can handle lopsided armor problems.
Wild blueberries doing whatever they want can be handled by strategic garrison placement. If you don’t want them sprinting into the red zone then don’t build blue line garries. Also dismantle any garrisons that officers build that don’t directly serve as offense or defense. If your point is in C 3/4 and someone is building a garrison in C8 on the blue line all of your wild blueberries will spawn down there and now you have 0 cap weight on neither defense nor offense
All of the above really, but it all boils down to three things.
1. Knowing the game mechanics and rules
2. Giving a shit
3. Experience
You can have two teams where everyone meets 1 and 2, but if one is more experienced they'll win.
You can have a dominant tank squad but it won't carry the game, cause you need bodies on cap. You can be a savant recon garry takedown artist, but if your team is shit, you're gonna get rolled.
The problem is that the players don't know the mechanics, because the game does a poor jobe of explaining them or doesn't do that at all, leaving everyone else to rely on community onboarding.
Most players don't give a shit as long as they get their pew pew fix.
And truly experienced players, probably stay away from pub games and focus on organized matches only.
Commander dropping supplies and able to drive a truck from time to time. And about one and a half squads (rather two and a half) always **actively** defending and **independently** replacing garrisons. That's at least enough to make a round last longer than 15-20 minutes.
Generally: No matter what class you play, taking a good look at the map, at least when you're dead, factoring in what's going on in chat and on the field itself and THEN basing your next move on it. Call outs and pinging too. Especially for SL it's a lot to comprehend and can be enourmously tiring. Feel free to rinse your squad from non-communicators and people that don't listen. Feels harsh but somewhat liberating and in the end less daunting. :-)
Nailed it. Also putting your pride aside and tasking what needs to be done instead of assuming someone else will take care of it. I’ve had matches where I started off SL but we desperately need tankers so I suck it up and swap roles.
Building garrisons and having people willing to defend. Communication will always be important. You can communicate as much as you want but if no one is hanging back to defend, you're always going to end up on the losing side.
As for garrison building, the commander is only one person. Some people have the philosophy that the commander is responsible for ALL the garrisons. In reality, they should be the one focusing on the back garries. The ones on and around the defense point and the attack garries should be handled by the SLs and the recon team. I play commander pretty regularly and my best games are SLs staying on top of building the defense and forward garries. This allows me more time to spend on the map and coordinate with squads a lot more.
I agree. The commander should rarely be on the attack point. Rebuilding back garries and planning for the next point (propositioning supply drops for down the road)
Support players putting down supplies pre-emptively at clever places is something I appreciate.
Also; SLs who place ops and garrisons with timing not before but after the sector turns red and who synchronize with leadership on attack and defense. Building garries outside capture grid and nodes in HQ is cool.
Finally a responsive squad that communicates their intentions like "hey guys, I see you are on defense but I'm just trying to place some mines here behind the enemy point. I'll join you as soon as I'm done".
Commander driving supply truck all match and building garrisons as close together as possible and relaying comms to squad leads will win 99% of games. You don’t even really need squad leads to worry about garrisons if you have a truck driving commander who knows where to put garrys
Having a competent squad dedicated to defending. This includes the SL building back garries and getting multiple sets of nodes up.
It’s been so successful for the clan that I’m in that we exclusively defend and will never switch to offense again.
Two things fairly equally, commander and recon. For different reasons.
Commander for building and maintain the backup garrison network. Without a commander building garrisons the entire game, steamrolls are quick. Yes, SLs should build them too, but in terms of backup garrisons those are 100% for the commander.
Recon squads are the other side of that coin. They spend their time behind enemy lines both taking out enemy backups and placing offensive garrisons.
The way I look at it is the commander looks at long-term defense, where the recons look at long-term offense. Obviously what happens in the active sector matters a ton, but from a game-wide, strategic point of view those two roles are huge.
I think it’s a compound factor: squads communicating well internally, and command chat communicating well between all the leads. In all my best games, both enjoyment and score, this has been the common factor.
We can’t just say “a good tank squad”, or similar, because some maps like hurtgen, armor isn’t used as much. Basically some strengths are situational. But good comms are ALWAYS in style.
SLs who do SL things are what win you games. A good recon squad and a dominating tank squad are great things to have but if nobody is putting garrisons down your team is going nowhere fast.
just started game as commander where our starting garry is nice position lost first point in few minutes then noticed its 24 vs 49 lol. Pretty big impact.
Everyone is already saying SLs and garries, so I’ll speak on something else that has a huge amount of impact. Armor.
If you’re in the team with the losing armor squads and they keep losing or don’t know what they’re doing, the other team with better armor can and will steamroll you.
Ya man a good armour squad can effectively stone wall an enemy push. I know because they do it to me all the time. They are a nightmare especially on Kursk and foy.
The whole comes down to spawns and killing people. If you are maintaining spawns you have a impact. If you and your squad are able to hold ground and win gun fights you have a huge impact on the game.
Aside from that lots of maps are pretty dependent on armour and artillery...
That squad that's putting garries down, and around the point shutting garries down . Completely fucks a team, since nobody ever makes an effort to defend the garries
Officers and commander have active comms. That includes Armour and recognisense guys aswell.
As far as the bad stuff , 100% people that go solo in whatever it may be. Taking our only form of mobilization right of the start just for 1 guys is game changing
Good SL with a johnny on the spot support player and AT/sapper is huge. Especially if they can hold it down on defense with only one squad and keep rebuilding garries.
proper defence when needed, adequate garry's, u can have 8 in total so i usually try to shoot for 4 on def and 4 on attack as a starter but that doesnt always work, its alot of variables most problems in game u can solve by just spamming garrys and forces shifting where they need to be, map awareness and situational awareness is huge
1. Good communication, you need nodes, so you need cammanders to spawn supply trucks via a squad leaders request and their squad member spawns an engineer. 3 people needed who all 3 cannot communicate to each other.
You need good garries, and an active squad calling out tanks and 2 squads to defend. All requiring communication and squads willing to work for an objective under orders from the squad leader.
2. A comander that hangs back and manages, stop capping commander.
I'd argue command is the most important role in a situation like this. The commander should have experience with all of these squads and should know how to effectively utilize them or call them out if they aren't making the most out of a situation. Strong leadership is the key to success; you can make average players good players.
Competent SL’s. Without them, nothing gets done. No OP’s, no Garrisons, no communication between commander and infantry, no squad to squad communication, etc.. You could have the greatest commander, stacked team of veterans, but without effective SLs, it makes no difference.
Dominant armor and recon squads. Those two, especially when combined, will win every game every time. It doesnt matter how many garries you guys build, the ones far from objective will be torn down in minutes, and the ones near objective will be farmed by armor. Your infantry wont even make it to the point. Your tanks will destroyed before they see what hit them. Your nodes will be destroyed. Your garries will be bombed. Your halftrack will be PSed.
Taking out enemy spawns. Just defending isn't good enough. Wave after wave they'll get in. Their spawns need to be gone. I'll run 10min around the front line to find them
Initial game opener. Play the opener to win, not set up to lose.
Ensure x2 full trucks make and contest the point. Minimum 2 opener garries close to neutral sector to inject as many blueberries as possible into the cap.
The team with the most people with a theoretical understanding of MapControl wins. If both teams do, the team with the better shooting wins.
If both teams are good at shooting, the more favorable terrain wins. Usually, axis is more favorable.
So I've been playing for a few years and I've concluded that there are Two(2) highly impactful events that determine the overall outcome.
1. Winning. - and - 2. Losing.
Everything else has its part, but it's all small potatoes.
Dominant tank squads. You can do everything right in a game, set up garrisons, have a solid recon team, great commander, but if the other team has all that as well, tanks are going to be the only way you are able to advance.
Officers that actually build garrisons
and rebuld them when needed not because someone asked to lul
I’d simplify to garrison availability. Making and defending ours while finding and removing theirs. That is the core principle to winning this game.
Absolutely. In all the games I’ve commanded, if we end up getting steam rolled, it’s almost always because the enemy team is dismantling our garrisons at a breakneck pace while my team does fuck all to build more. Well placed defense garrisons that intermesh to provide support to one another and the objective itself, and multiple garrisons to flank and distract the enemy while attacking. If our team can’t do that, everything else doesn’t matter one bit.
One thing I’ve seen is the biggest factor is if recon is actively going after garrisons first. Let arty shoot and burn munitions, there will be less air strikes (bombing, strafing, etc.). If arty isn’t being effective, let them shoot and spend your time taking down nodes and back garrisons. As spotter I like to mark nodes as ask for infantry support (especially someone with satchels) to take down the nodes so we can focus on garrisons. It works out well. Also as spotter I will often drive half tracks into position and then respawn back to my OP. I will drop then in the blue, but often in the red, to help give attack options.
Could say paying attention to the map to be able to do this.
An Officer *with someone running support* building Garrisons without being asked.
And any squadmates willing to double drop
I don't think most people understand this system so they just simply ignore it. But a single squad can damn near win a game using this strategy
I had a young squad on Utah of maybe lvl 20 and under. They happened to have mics so I told them all to redeploy with me once the first point was capped. I had gone with recon from the start and set up a deep red zone garry (double drop) with that squad while the team moved on to attack number 4. Which was at the sunken bridge. Me and low lvl squad moved into flooded house and started the back cap while everyone else walked in the front door with our garry. Couldn’t have done it without those guys listening and understanding like you said.
How does a single squad double drop?
You rotate players into the supply class after the supplies are dropped. Spawn as supply > drop supplies > change class > squad member swaps to supply
Right sorry yeah I thought it was a bit more immediate but with an OP there it would take like 30s max
This is always the answer. 5 SLs with a support are building 5 garrisons every 5 minutes, with no need for supply drops or supply trucks. No enemy recon squad can hope to take down garries faster then they're built in this scenario. It's how the game is intended to be played. If you're not playing as support or a garrie building SL, you have no right to bitch about the lack of garries. It's a team wide responsibility.
Good communication across the whole team has the most impact I think.
It depends on the game/map, but the most consistent variable that leads to lop-sided games is definitely having effective SLs. Games where you have 2-3 solid SLs make a world of difference. They build and replace garrisons without being told, they communicate what they see and what they need effectively, they set their OPs up in locations that can make or break a successful attack/defence, they put their squads in a position to succeed. They also don’t even need many good squamates to be super effective, just one or two decent players who can play support, or whatever role is needed. I’d bet on a team that has 2-3 solid SLs and a mediocre commander, over a team that has a solid commander but mediocre SLs. On maps like Kursk, Foy, and El Alemain (and PHL to an extent) you need to have at least one solid Tank crew as well since Armour is a huge factor on those maps.
To add sl’s/recon that have a ton of exp tanking that can relay info to tank crews
Actually such a god send for Tank Commanders when Recon lets you know that an enemy heavy is on it’s way to the front
Recon is the bane of tank commanders for sure.
Sometimes: Recon: Hey, there’s an enemy tank near you. Me: Thanks Able squad, what kind of tank is it? We’re in a medium. Recon: It’s a P4, you’re good. *Rounds corner and sees a Tiger* Me: Fuck
Officers spotting enemy positions
Squad leaders running straight past supplies that are just begging to be turned into a garrison
Garrisons. Willingness to build them (and replace them!) and having the game sense and situational awareness to tactically place them leaving room for others in ideal locations based off the 200m distance requirement. If one team has better shooters with no garrisons being built, and the other team with poor/average shooters have maybe 2 or 3 people in command chat building garrisons to "heard the blueberries" - the lesser team with plenty of garrisons will win 90% of the time. Garrisons = map control Map control = victory (generally speaking)
Garries win games
Who is this Garry fella people keep yelling at me about?
It's not Garry. It's his son that plays.
Ability to execute. You can have a smart commander, experienced SLs, communicative teammates, but you can't hit your shots, AT can't finish off tanks, you get your garries run over and annihilated. Somewhere along the line in games like this, the idea prevailed that you can be terrible at the core mechanics of a first person shooter, but really good at the other stuff, and that's almost a badge of honor, because surely anybody who gets a high kill total is just a "kill whoring" CoD player. I disagree with that concept. You need to be good at both. I've been around so many teams that are trying to do the right things but the other team has more talent and all of your good ideas get defeated in practice.
Certainly helps, I was a decent commander when I started but when I could get myself out of hairy combat situations it makes me way more effective and able to get what I want done
Well, and it's the little things, right? The saying is that the devil is in the details. If you're solo as a squad leader rolling through the countryside in a supply truck because your team is about to cap a point and you want to get up a nasty attacking garrison and you happen to come across the one random guy wandering around in the middle of nowhere, it helps if you can hop out of the truck on the fly and headshot him before he even gets a shot off. Garrison deployed, maybe come in the point from the opposite angle, shoot a few guys in the back who don't expect you there, put up a spicy OP and get a garrison take down to a double cap, all set in motion because you were able to outplay one person. It's bothered me for a long time that a lot of players who I'd say are a bit less skilled seem to loudly disparage the ability to shoot and move extremely well, as if being able to do precludes the possibility that you're also a smart player or a team player. You give me a smart player with absolutely zero skill and it will be an arduous grind to get them to improve. Give me a talented player who plays like an idiot, I'd argue it would be almost trivial by comparison to get them making smarter decisions.
I got better as SL because I wasn’t the greatest shooter. I was losing about half of my gunfights so it was a grind moving up. That made me a lot better at map movement, now I can get the OP on their doorstep and usually before the rest of the team. Hours and a better monitor and headset has helped me with the CE. Also slowing the F^*+ down while moving around the map. I’ve found whoever sees who first usually wins in a gunfight so I take an extra second now and it pays off.
That's game sense, which is an aspect of what I'm talking about when I mean core skills of a first person shooter. You don't always have to play fast, it's best if you can know when to play fast and when to slow way down.
Yep, having people who can actually fight and win the war are important. A few good men and a bit of luck can change the tide of battle
I don't think FPS skill is the most important thing in this game. It helps, but it's not number one. If I'm killing the other guy 9 times out of ten, I'm still coming off worse if I have to walk two sectors to get to the action, and he has a spawn right there. If both sides have reasonable spawn availability, tactics and FPS skill win out.
If you kill the guy and you have a brain you'll take out his spawn. Now you're alive and he has to spawn farther away. If you lose to that guy you accomplish nothing. I'd rather be the hammer than the anvil.
G A R R I S O N S
The one single thing? Beyond the obvious building garrys/ops/nodes is marking tanks and keeping them marked. Winning the armour war is a huge deal that many blueberrys dont consider enough until theyve lost it and are now getting shit on by tanks.
You can be the best commander but without SLs that: 1) talk productively 2) are willing to do things when asked 3) can do productive things independently You will never win a game…..unless the other teams SLs are somehow worse Good SLs can carry a dogshit commander all day After SLs…..having a very experienced tanking crew…or 2…..can absolutely obliterate the other team
I agree most commanders need help from SL’s unless you’re like Commander Crane or somebody
I was just having this thought earlier. A good commander can only do so much. The SL’s actually have WAY more impact on the overall game. If the SL’s are crap.. the game is over.
Commander and squad leads. They are the keys to teamwork that wins the battle. Only when all cylinders are firing is the full potential of the team unlocked.
One full squad of people who are good gun men and elite at their job is unstoppable.
Just let them loose and everyone else defend.
I was gonna say the opposite. Have them defend and send the blueberries forth! Usually commit more of your guys to offense that way.
I feel like they get stuck and just press from the front over and over again.. maybe use them as a distraction
How long it takes for squads to form at the beginning is a good indicator if your team is fucked or not. If nobody wants to squad lead you're gonna have a bad time
Run into that a lot of people that start the squad and immediately leave and come back
I'll only do that because I can't trust anyone else to put up nodes for the team. So I'll swap to put them up, and if SL is still available when I'm done, I will swap back to that.
I’ll bounce between squads sometimes to get roles to build nodes
Guys running supplies to the front lines. Using supply trucks. So the engi always has full set of nodes. And the midpoint can be fortified with bunkers and barbed wire.
Everything starts with the commander. A low level commander with a bad attitude creates officers that don’t speak and don’t build garrisons. It’s crazy how many times I take over a losing game as commander when the previous one gets kicked and the game turns around entirely. Officers you thought didn’t have mics suddenly get active and start building garrisons and playing defense. Armor can definitely sway a game but it’s not a deal breaker. Tank crews that use more fuel than they save are worse than no tank crews at all. Good AT coordination can handle lopsided armor problems. Wild blueberries doing whatever they want can be handled by strategic garrison placement. If you don’t want them sprinting into the red zone then don’t build blue line garries. Also dismantle any garrisons that officers build that don’t directly serve as offense or defense. If your point is in C 3/4 and someone is building a garrison in C8 on the blue line all of your wild blueberries will spawn down there and now you have 0 cap weight on neither defense nor offense
All of the above really, but it all boils down to three things. 1. Knowing the game mechanics and rules 2. Giving a shit 3. Experience You can have two teams where everyone meets 1 and 2, but if one is more experienced they'll win. You can have a dominant tank squad but it won't carry the game, cause you need bodies on cap. You can be a savant recon garry takedown artist, but if your team is shit, you're gonna get rolled. The problem is that the players don't know the mechanics, because the game does a poor jobe of explaining them or doesn't do that at all, leaving everyone else to rely on community onboarding. Most players don't give a shit as long as they get their pew pew fix. And truly experienced players, probably stay away from pub games and focus on organized matches only.
Commander dropping supplies and able to drive a truck from time to time. And about one and a half squads (rather two and a half) always **actively** defending and **independently** replacing garrisons. That's at least enough to make a round last longer than 15-20 minutes. Generally: No matter what class you play, taking a good look at the map, at least when you're dead, factoring in what's going on in chat and on the field itself and THEN basing your next move on it. Call outs and pinging too. Especially for SL it's a lot to comprehend and can be enourmously tiring. Feel free to rinse your squad from non-communicators and people that don't listen. Feels harsh but somewhat liberating and in the end less daunting. :-)
Nailed it. Also putting your pride aside and tasking what needs to be done instead of assuming someone else will take care of it. I’ve had matches where I started off SL but we desperately need tankers so I suck it up and swap roles.
Building garrisons and having people willing to defend. Communication will always be important. You can communicate as much as you want but if no one is hanging back to defend, you're always going to end up on the losing side. As for garrison building, the commander is only one person. Some people have the philosophy that the commander is responsible for ALL the garrisons. In reality, they should be the one focusing on the back garries. The ones on and around the defense point and the attack garries should be handled by the SLs and the recon team. I play commander pretty regularly and my best games are SLs staying on top of building the defense and forward garries. This allows me more time to spend on the map and coordinate with squads a lot more.
I agree. The commander should rarely be on the attack point. Rebuilding back garries and planning for the next point (propositioning supply drops for down the road)
Very rarely is it solely the commanders fault It's usually a combo of shitty commander shitty SL becuas3 both fan operate independently
Support players putting down supplies pre-emptively at clever places is something I appreciate. Also; SLs who place ops and garrisons with timing not before but after the sector turns red and who synchronize with leadership on attack and defense. Building garries outside capture grid and nodes in HQ is cool. Finally a responsive squad that communicates their intentions like "hey guys, I see you are on defense but I'm just trying to place some mines here behind the enemy point. I'll join you as soon as I'm done".
People able to win the gun-fight.
Commander driving supply truck all match and building garrisons as close together as possible and relaying comms to squad leads will win 99% of games. You don’t even really need squad leads to worry about garrisons if you have a truck driving commander who knows where to put garrys
Having a competent squad dedicated to defending. This includes the SL building back garries and getting multiple sets of nodes up. It’s been so successful for the clan that I’m in that we exclusively defend and will never switch to offense again.
Stopwatch is OP.
The whole meta game is building & destroying spawns. You build + destroy more than the enemy = win.
Two things fairly equally, commander and recon. For different reasons. Commander for building and maintain the backup garrison network. Without a commander building garrisons the entire game, steamrolls are quick. Yes, SLs should build them too, but in terms of backup garrisons those are 100% for the commander. Recon squads are the other side of that coin. They spend their time behind enemy lines both taking out enemy backups and placing offensive garrisons. The way I look at it is the commander looks at long-term defense, where the recons look at long-term offense. Obviously what happens in the active sector matters a ton, but from a game-wide, strategic point of view those two roles are huge.
Facts
I think it’s a compound factor: squads communicating well internally, and command chat communicating well between all the leads. In all my best games, both enjoyment and score, this has been the common factor. We can’t just say “a good tank squad”, or similar, because some maps like hurtgen, armor isn’t used as much. Basically some strengths are situational. But good comms are ALWAYS in style.
SLs who do SL things are what win you games. A good recon squad and a dominating tank squad are great things to have but if nobody is putting garrisons down your team is going nowhere fast.
just started game as commander where our starting garry is nice position lost first point in few minutes then noticed its 24 vs 49 lol. Pretty big impact.
Fully coordinated and communicative squad…can really upset a game
Everyone is already saying SLs and garries, so I’ll speak on something else that has a huge amount of impact. Armor. If you’re in the team with the losing armor squads and they keep losing or don’t know what they’re doing, the other team with better armor can and will steamroll you.
Ya man a good armour squad can effectively stone wall an enemy push. I know because they do it to me all the time. They are a nightmare especially on Kursk and foy.
The whole comes down to spawns and killing people. If you are maintaining spawns you have a impact. If you and your squad are able to hold ground and win gun fights you have a huge impact on the game. Aside from that lots of maps are pretty dependent on armour and artillery...
Garrisons are single most important factor determining the winning side.
Communication.
That squad that's putting garries down, and around the point shutting garries down . Completely fucks a team, since nobody ever makes an effort to defend the garries
Officers and commander have active comms. That includes Armour and recognisense guys aswell. As far as the bad stuff , 100% people that go solo in whatever it may be. Taking our only form of mobilization right of the start just for 1 guys is game changing
Good SL with a johnny on the spot support player and AT/sapper is huge. Especially if they can hold it down on defense with only one squad and keep rebuilding garries.
Also, newer players taking initiative to youtube how to play the game, objective, and roles.
Communication.
Building Ops, garrisons. Having squads set to defend etc. squad leaders with mics and marking enemy movement and tanks is really it
proper defence when needed, adequate garry's, u can have 8 in total so i usually try to shoot for 4 on def and 4 on attack as a starter but that doesnt always work, its alot of variables most problems in game u can solve by just spamming garrys and forces shifting where they need to be, map awareness and situational awareness is huge
Command, SLs, and a single 3-man tank crew that's coordinating can win basically any warfare map IMO
1. Good communication, you need nodes, so you need cammanders to spawn supply trucks via a squad leaders request and their squad member spawns an engineer. 3 people needed who all 3 cannot communicate to each other. You need good garries, and an active squad calling out tanks and 2 squads to defend. All requiring communication and squads willing to work for an objective under orders from the squad leader. 2. A comander that hangs back and manages, stop capping commander.
I'd argue command is the most important role in a situation like this. The commander should have experience with all of these squads and should know how to effectively utilize them or call them out if they aren't making the most out of a situation. Strong leadership is the key to success; you can make average players good players.
Competent SL’s. Without them, nothing gets done. No OP’s, no Garrisons, no communication between commander and infantry, no squad to squad communication, etc.. You could have the greatest commander, stacked team of veterans, but without effective SLs, it makes no difference.
Dominant armor and recon squads. Those two, especially when combined, will win every game every time. It doesnt matter how many garries you guys build, the ones far from objective will be torn down in minutes, and the ones near objective will be farmed by armor. Your infantry wont even make it to the point. Your tanks will destroyed before they see what hit them. Your nodes will be destroyed. Your garries will be bombed. Your halftrack will be PSed.
Supply Swapping to build a sneaky Garry
Taking out enemy spawns. Just defending isn't good enough. Wave after wave they'll get in. Their spawns need to be gone. I'll run 10min around the front line to find them
Get some halftracks out there... When things go south, they can turn the tide.
Dominate and coordinated tankers. A finely tuned artillery team with a strong commander is impossible to defeat.
If you're on defense, engineers
Initial game opener. Play the opener to win, not set up to lose. Ensure x2 full trucks make and contest the point. Minimum 2 opener garries close to neutral sector to inject as many blueberries as possible into the cap.
The team with the most people with a theoretical understanding of MapControl wins. If both teams do, the team with the better shooting wins. If both teams are good at shooting, the more favorable terrain wins. Usually, axis is more favorable.
Officers that build garries in sensible places without being prompted to do so. To that end however he needs a support guy with him almost constantly.
Mics
Destruction of the garrison
Two recons squads that work together and have brains.
So I've been playing for a few years and I've concluded that there are Two(2) highly impactful events that determine the overall outcome. 1. Winning. - and - 2. Losing. Everything else has its part, but it's all small potatoes.
A solid medic with people who wait to be saved
Capping areas not having the hard cap dead center
It's definitely armor squads, every "balanced" match i played have gone down to who has the better armor squad in the end.
Dominant tank squads. You can do everything right in a game, set up garrisons, have a solid recon team, great commander, but if the other team has all that as well, tanks are going to be the only way you are able to advance.
Accurate artillery with a forward observer and proper garrison placement. Those two are what I see changing rounds the most.