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









Honestly, I like your take on the subject and would love to see how you use them.
I think the difference in our approaches might come from our general way of approaching a battle. Personally, I always try to minimize losses as much as possible and take the objectives rather than exhausting the opposing force.
You may also be right about "I don't understand how to use them". Until now, I considered fixed guns more or less a relic of the early years of the war, made obsolete by infantry anti-tank weapons like the PIAT, Panzerschrek or M1 Bazooka. But you might change my point of view.
For this, however, I suggest moving on to a dedicated conversation rather than staying here, in the comments area...
Yes, you're right, you could. But honestly, even with this tactic, it's still a much better alternative to spend a few extra deployment points for a proper AFV. I've already tried to do this, but it's not very practical, since you can't occupy and fire the cannon in the same turn, as opposed to with a tank where you could move and fire in a single turn.
this is no way near nesesary in the troop to win an atack mission, and u can not get this level of majority in the troop. if u play on easy u might get dobbel as many