I won't endorse the US player but having watched the replay several times, the Wehr player was not good. Relied heavily on lucky mines to stay alive several times. Micro was poor -- for instance laying mines multiple times in obvious full view of the enemy. Waited until after 5 CPs and then picked Defense doctrine. Given that US was blobbing nothing but rifles most of the game, Wehr should have taken Blitz long ago with blitz nades first to shutdown US player, followed up by Stuh42. Wehr already had two volks squads and a gren squad shortly after. Taking Defense solely for registered arty (as seemed to be his intent given he had ZERO bunkers) is pretty weak.
And I suggest you guys did not watch the replay very carefully if you saw nothing suspect from Wehr. Around the six minute mark, Wehr upgrades pios at HQ with minesweeper. His second pio squad, half way to enemy VP on left (with no minesweeper), divert to center of map to lay mines. And the minesweeper squad at HQ is sent to flip the VP point instead. I don't believe the order to cap the VP point was initially given because the pio squad stops immediately on the enemy mine.
Keep in mind that US had 2 VPs at the time to Wehr's lone VP. The higher priority should have been flipping the VP point. And the second priority should have been repairing the 20% health schwimm in the middle. And THEN lay mines. The enemy already knows the middle area is actively being mined and one should assume he will bring a sweeper on the next wave.
Then there are the cases of using a sniper and an MG squad to cap non-crucial sectors on the front line. Now maybe exposing his sniper to cap was a calculated decision because he assumed that the US player would not back tech to WSC. But capping with his lone MG on front line when repeatedly facing rifle blobs was either very foolish or very insightful. Snipers were quite often uncloaked or exposed themselves to take shots on the front line with no support. In fact the cloaking was very inconsistent in that sometimes they were cloaked in very low risk situations while in very high risk situation they remained uncloaked. There were two very bizarre schwim pushes towards the end. One at the M8 and another at the US base MG bunker. Almost as if to say "look I'm on a recon mission".
This is not proof of wrongdoing. Wehr may just be an inexperienced player. In fact there were multiple occasions that Wehr was late turning the MG which is inconsistent with having a maphack. This replay alone is inconclusive imo.
Read tittle and description, please. I didnt't ask someone to analyze strategic components.
are u saying to bulat a bad player,then we wanna see how u play.Man everyone can capture points with sniper and mgs(which i am doing that too)and without support .Because most of the time us player was pushed from the field completelY and finally dont talk again pls when u dont know about anything.
Capping with lone MG on front line is asking to get routed in a big way when rifle blob returns due to delay in setting an MG. Capping with sniper on front line was unnecessary risk even if unlikely that US had WSC. A jeep could have run that sniper down easily.
Read tittle and description, please. I didnt't ask someone to analyze strategic components.
Your title was a rant and mocked your opponent. So who was the previous accuser(s)? Since Arash was *another* accuser.
How well one plays and if it's consistent with one's win ratio and rank (if applicable) is entirely pertinent in determining the probability that someone is a maphacker. Those who show poor micro but achieve substantially better results than expected (typically through opportunistic flanking and precision arty) are suspect. Not saying that is the case here; simply countering your assertion that analyzing your playing skills/strategy is irrelevant.
Also, the three most widely-used phrases by hackers are: (1) L2P (2) U MAD BRO??? (3) NO HACKS ON STEAM!
In fact, I'm astonished that no one has yet piped in and claimed that hacking is impossible on Steam CoH. (Generally another self-incriminating statement unless they are truly new to the game).
Were you looking for validation by posting this replay? Because as a legit player, I encourage my accusers to go ahead and post replays and report me. Unfortunately, no ill consequences will come to hackers from Sega. Your worry about being reported and/or banned, in addition to being unfounded, is odd.
@djw2104 - Has the precedent been set to comment on any posted replay and argue a case for whether or not maphacking is present? Because I can think of several (not this one) that fall into this category.
And I suggest you guys did not watch the replay very carefully if you saw nothing suspect from Wehr. Around the six minute mark, Wehr upgrades pios at HQ with minesweeper. His second pio squad, half way to enemy VP on left (with no minesweeper), divert to center of map to lay mines. And the minesweeper squad at HQ is sent to flip the VP point instead. I don't believe the order to cap the VP point was initially given because the pio squad stops immediately on the enemy mine.
Keep in mind that US had 2 VPs at the time to Wehr's lone VP. The higher priority should have been flipping the VP point. And the second priority should have been repairing the 20% health schwimm in the middle. And THEN lay mines. The enemy already knows the middle area is actively being mined and one should assume he will bring a sweeper on the next wave.
Then there are the cases of using a sniper and an MG squad to cap non-crucial sectors on the front line. Now maybe exposing his sniper to cap was a calculated decision because he assumed that the US player would not back tech to WSC. But capping with his lone MG on front line when repeatedly facing rifle blobs was either very foolish or very insightful. Snipers were quite often uncloaked or exposed themselves to take shots on the front line with no support. In fact the cloaking was very inconsistent in that sometimes they were cloaked in very low risk situations while in very high risk situation they remained uncloaked. There were two very bizarre schwim pushes towards the end. One at the M8 and another at the US base MG bunker. Almost as if to say "look I'm on a recon mission".
This is not proof of wrongdoing. Wehr may just be an inexperienced player. In fact there were multiple occasions that Wehr was late turning the MG which is inconsistent with having a maphack. This replay alone is inconclusive imo.
Read tittle and description, please. I didnt't ask someone to analyze strategic components.