Warrior General Games

Its not a big secret how we're building the defensive line. I've put my thoughts on defensive linemen out in the FAQ forums before.

Peter Griffin's build on Air Raid would probably shock some folks. Its slightly different from ground assaults build plans, but reasonably close. He's a little stronger and slower. You don't need skills in the 90s to have a good player.

Ultimately, I hope the biggest takeaway from ground assault is that you can have a bunch of success with a small and focused playbook executed by a roster tailored to operate it.

Ground Assault is probably the cheapest team in GLB2 from a flex cost perspective.

Smaller roster loaded with cheaper positions.

Originally posted by Galithor
Ultimately, I hope the biggest takeaway from ground assault is that you can have a bunch of success with a small and focused playbook executed by a roster tailored to operate it.

Ground Assault is probably the cheapest team in GLB2 from a flex cost perspective.

Smaller roster loaded with cheaper positions.

Wait, so the secret is you build your players a specific way, find out which plays works, and just run them over and over??? I feel like you've been trying that small and focused playbook, aka spamming, before with limited success.

Originally posted by Parab00n
Wait, so the secret is you build your players a specific way, find out which plays works, and just run them over and over??? I feel like you've been trying that small and focused playbook, aka spamming, before with limited success.

who does that on defense though? Ground Assault effectively has 2 plays on defense. McGruff mixes in another play or two occasionally just to keep himself from getting too bored.

And we just happened to pick 5-2. Could've done the same thing with 3-4 or 4-3. 5-2 was the cheapest by virtue of only 2 LBs.

Besides paraboon, you're hardly a noob that'd gain anything from threads like these discussing "how to build a team".

So shush Mr. Snarky Veteran agent/owner

Further discussing 5-2 stuff, I actually immediately regretted not going 3-4 or 4-3 as the base plan once trash talk was proven to be so useful. If you assume to rush 5, having that dedicated TT LB to work in would be huge. 3-4 would be more suitable for a team that wanted to only rush 4 and use 7 in coverage while still leveraging TT.

As it is, ground assault likely won't ever be able to use trash talk effectively, nor are we likely to try.

Originally posted by Parab00n
Wait, so the secret is you build your players a specific way, find out which plays works, and just run them over and over??? I feel like you've been trying that small and focused playbook, aka spamming, before with limited success.

When im running an offense it is the opposite of spammy. i run 12 plays (i run all of them i dont use fillers like some people do) in my offense and will probably expand it a few play more down the road, ground assault isn't simple in its playbook but in its identity in that you know were running 2 wr or less with our formations but we are so confident in our builds and scheme that it works and that we will also be running a 5-2 defense all game.

Originally posted by Parab00n
Wait, so the secret is you build your players a specific way, find out which plays works, and just run them over and over??? I feel like you've been trying that small and focused playbook, aka spamming, before with limited success.

You have never done anything else with original DD