PACT has so many advantages

Demonic Spoon
First Sergeant
Posts: 210
Joined: Mon 16 Apr 2012 04:27
Contact:

Re: PACT has so many advantages

Postby Demonic Spoon » Sat 20 Oct 2012 00:39

I don't know that PACT artillery is really better.

PACT helicopters are tougher, but also less agile, larger (= easier to hit), and more expensive.

PACT does not have longer range ATGMs. Tows, I-tows, and Shillelagh - Cs all have equal range to Konkurs.


Yay, I get tons more Tanks and Vehicles with No ATGM and therefore shorter ranges


I'm guessing that the crux of the problem you're having is that you think ATGMs are some sort of god-weapon and thus the faction that has ATGMs on everything is automatically better than the faction that doesn't.

User avatar
DelroyMonjo
Colonel
Posts: 2604
Joined: Sun 6 May 2012 19:20
Contact:

Re: PACT has so many advantages

Postby DelroyMonjo » Sat 20 Oct 2012 00:43

I used to think PACT was OP as well, especially after the last few 'balancing' tweaks. I don't know how long Stryker has played this game nor at what levels, but after nearly 300 hours ingame and over 200 hrs in MP playing mostly as NATO, I thought it would behoove me to see the game from the PACT side. The first thing I noticed was that PACT helos fly like garbage trucks trying to turn around in a narrow alley, sloowww. Fortunately, it seems the PACT helos can continue to take hits from other helos while waiting for what seems an eternity to bring it own guns to bear in air to air combat, but I'll still take an Apache over any PACT helo for that role. PACT really has it all over NATO when it comes to surface to air combat though. As for tanks, it seems that most PACT tanks are just ATGM carriers with a bit higher armor than most NATO ATGM carriers. And autocannons? Fuggeddaboudit! Give me those NATO Bradleys and Marders and they will kick some serious PACT hardware butt! PACT recon units are just plain crappy for the most part compared to the selection in NATO. Even with the price bump, I'll take a Luchs A1 anytime over the PACT offerings. NATO and PACT infantry can go toe to toe when you select from the many units available on either side. Artillery, same, IMHO, but those NATO mortars can be real pain!
I'm hardly an expert in either faction, but until you play a fairly significant number of battles, just saying that one side is overpowered is the weak excuse of a sore loser... :o
Illegitimi non carborundum.

Misfit
Captain
Posts: 1615
Joined: Fri 20 Apr 2012 20:02
Contact:

Re: PACT has so many advantages

Postby Misfit » Sat 20 Oct 2012 00:51

stryker468 wrote:
Misfit wrote:Imo NATO has a much broader and better selection of vehicles, choppers and artillery. And the TOW is nothing to sneeze at, considering you can get it for just 20 points.


A much broader selection of inferior vehicles? Yay, I get tons more Tanks and Vehicles with No ATGM and therefore shorter ranges :D

And yes TOW jeeps are great. Almost non-optional right? You have to spam the damn things to have any chance of stopping PACT atgm vehicles. And even then it only works because they are cheap...you can count on 50+% of them to get wiped out :(


Thats odd, how can the pact ATGMs cause you so much trouble when yours, which are vastly superior in stats, arent able to deal with theirs at even numbers? And how are NATO vehicles inferior and to what? Are you using them against MBTs?
You know i can drive a BUK into infantry and say BUK is useless.
Perlen vor die Säue.

User avatar
untilted
Master Sergeant
Posts: 189
Joined: Sat 1 Sep 2012 13:27
Contact:

Re: PACT has so many advantages

Postby untilted » Sat 20 Oct 2012 00:53

stryker468 wrote:I am only expressing the opinion that right now the game is a bit unbalanced in favor of PACT. It's still playable, and a player can still win as NATO.


as others already pointed out - both factions play different. but at the same time they are actually quite balanced.

in your OP you're downplaying the strengths of NATO quite a bit.

-) infantry: good basic infantry with jäger/chasseur famas/fusiliers; efficient airborne troops (cheaper than equivalent pact troops, faster helicopters); on average better transports

-) tanks: while lacking ATGM, gun characteristics in relation to price are excellent, you get quite a few tanks that a.) got good to excellent accuracy b.) decent to good AP power at c.) quite a low cost. sure, for defensive tree-line camping soviet tanks certainly are better, but if you want to actually push on an enemy position the high base accuracy and often quite decent stabilizer help tremendously. not to mention that the ATGM have the problem that the firing unit has to stay stationary for the missile to have a chance to hit - which means: against mobile enemies you're prone to get overrun, against arty you give the enemy time to aim/zero in on the target.

-) autocannons: wiesel/rarden@15pts, amx-10p@20pts, marder 1@25pts (not to mention that you can get the amx-10p with excellent infantry) ... PACT has the BMP-2 series which starts at 40pts, and if you want to use them with infantry you're bound to lackluster motostrelki. that's a HUGE advantage for NATO. oh yeah .. and there's still the bradley.

-) recon: big advantage for NATO, very good optics are quite common for combat recons (luchs, CFV, AMX-10RC) - all of them are decently fast, with the CFV you also get a potent hunter-killer, the recon helicopters are either fast (gazelle) or heavily armed (kiowa series) - NATO combat recons are actually worth the slots and the point investment.

-) helicopters: NATO has excellent low-budget helicopters with the gazelle 341F@25pts, the heavy hog@30pts and the cobra AH-1S@40pts. yes, they die quick if looked upon funny ... but at the same time they give you lots of flexibility when it comes to deployment as they are quite potent air support for low cost.

-) mortars/abbot: what they lack in punch, they make up in flexibility. fast aim time, high rate of fire and quite low supply drain make them a decent solution. just like the low-budget helicopters these units allow you to use specific assets without having to sink lots of points into them.
Image

Orange
Chief Warrant Officer
Posts: 738
Joined: Thu 1 Mar 2012 13:45

Re: PACT has so many advantages

Postby Orange » Sat 20 Oct 2012 02:17

Sorry but to me Pact is way more stronger than Nato in pretty much everything just as it is for that guy. I am not going to explain why, I look at Buk and Chap and if you can't see it then :?
Hey Ya
Mighty-I-dee-I-dee-I (Mighty-I-dee-I-dee-I)
Odee odee odee oooo (Ode odee odee oooo)
Mighty-I-dee-I-dee-I (Mighty-I-dee-I-dee-I)
Odee odee odee oooooo (Ode odee odee oooo)

Mighty ighty ighty ighty ighty ighty O

Demonic Spoon
First Sergeant
Posts: 210
Joined: Mon 16 Apr 2012 04:27
Contact:

Re: PACT has so many advantages

Postby Demonic Spoon » Sat 20 Oct 2012 02:19

Orange wrote:Sorry but to me Pact is way more stronger than Nato in pretty much everything just as it is for that guy. I am not going to explain why, I look at Buk and Chap and if you can't see it then :?


No one ever claimed that individual unit groups of the factions were balanced. They're not intended to be...Just that the factions themselves are.

Orange
Chief Warrant Officer
Posts: 738
Joined: Thu 1 Mar 2012 13:45

Re: PACT has so many advantages

Postby Orange » Sat 20 Oct 2012 02:22

Demonic Spoon wrote:
Orange wrote:Sorry but to me Pact is way more stronger than Nato in pretty much everything just as it is for that guy. I am not going to explain why, I look at Buk and Chap and if you can't see it then :?


No one ever claimed that individual unit groups of the factions were balanced. They're not intended to be...Just that the factions themselves are.


Oh really?
Then how come Pact got 3 times as many anti air units which are all better than what Nato got?
Hey Ya
Mighty-I-dee-I-dee-I (Mighty-I-dee-I-dee-I)
Odee odee odee oooo (Ode odee odee oooo)
Mighty-I-dee-I-dee-I (Mighty-I-dee-I-dee-I)
Odee odee odee oooooo (Ode odee odee oooo)

Mighty ighty ighty ighty ighty ighty O

User avatar
DelroyMonjo
Colonel
Posts: 2604
Joined: Sun 6 May 2012 19:20
Contact:

Re: PACT has so many advantages

Postby DelroyMonjo » Sat 20 Oct 2012 02:24

W0W! Maybe you're correct, Orange! I can't remember how many times my Sheridans have just been CRUSHED by Buks :roll:
BTW, you DO know that those PzFlaks can shoot on the move and aren't just limited to air targets.....
Illegitimi non carborundum.

User avatar
Graphic
More than 10 000 messages. Soldier you are the leader of all armies!
Posts: 10588
Joined: Mon 30 Apr 2012 10:18
Location: Battle Born
Contact:

Re: PACT has so many advantages

Postby Graphic » Sat 20 Oct 2012 03:06

Orange wrote:
Demonic Spoon wrote:
Orange wrote:Sorry but to me Pact is way more stronger than Nato in pretty much everything just as it is for that guy. I am not going to explain why, I look at Buk and Chap and if you can't see it then :?


No one ever claimed that individual unit groups of the factions were balanced. They're not intended to be...Just that the factions themselves are.


Oh really?
Then how come Pact got 3 times as many anti air units which are all better than what Nato got?


What a weird exchange.

Orange: NATO and Pact aren't balanced in this one category.
Demonic Spoon: No one said each category was balanced between the two.
Orange: Oh yeah? If that's the case, then WHY ARE PACT BETTER IN THIS ONE CATEGORY?
k

Orange
Chief Warrant Officer
Posts: 738
Joined: Thu 1 Mar 2012 13:45

Re: PACT has so many advantages

Postby Orange » Sat 20 Oct 2012 03:25

Graphic wrote:WHY ARE PACT BETTER IN THIS ONE CATEGORY?

Long range Arty, Tanks, Infantry, logistics... Srsly apart from armored cv and mortars everything Nato can do Pact can do better or even.
Hey Ya
Mighty-I-dee-I-dee-I (Mighty-I-dee-I-dee-I)
Odee odee odee oooo (Ode odee odee oooo)
Mighty-I-dee-I-dee-I (Mighty-I-dee-I-dee-I)
Odee odee odee oooooo (Ode odee odee oooo)

Mighty ighty ighty ighty ighty ighty O

Return to “Wargame : European Escalation”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests