PACT has so many advantages

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 03:57

Orange wrote:
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.


Infantry and tanks are different but overall even. NATO has more and cheaper auto-cannons. And you forget that the reason Pact has such good AA is because NATOs airpower is so much better. The Apache could be considered the single best unit in the game and when I play Pact I'd sell my soul to trade my clumsy, fat Mi-8s for Huey Hogs.
k

User avatar
TheFluff
Lieutenant
Posts: 1483
Joined: Mon 13 Aug 2012 03:07
Location: Stockholm, Sweden
Contact:

Re: PACT has so many advantages

Postby TheFluff » Sat 20 Oct 2012 05:59

I primarily play NATO, but I don't hesitate to play PACT in ranked games, nor in casual 2v2+ matches. Here are some problems I have with PACT:

Infantry
- Choosing regular rifle infantry is sort of annoying. Mot.-schützen are good but their transports are both bad; spados are great against infantry and have great transport choices but are painfully bad against vehicles. Motostrel[ck]i are both just bad and mostly only useful for buying BMP's. Vysadkari are great but 8 availability is a liability.
- PACT really doesn't do this recon infantry thing. NATO has a whole slew of choices catering to every possible need, from BGS via 2e REP and Green Jackets to Fernspäher, and what does PACT have? 4 VPZU (which are great, but not something you'd want to stick in a risky bush to get a chance at getting your eyes on an enemy CV) and Grenzer.

Recon
- PACT combat recons are terrible, so it's either jeeps or the BRM-1, and I really don't like the BRM-1 (availability 2, slow, terrible weapon that you're better off disabling). Jeeps it is. Meanwhile, on the NATO side, I've lost count on how many CV's I've killed with AMX-10RC's.
- The Mi-9 sucks. It's more expensive than a Gazelle, but slower and bigger and handles worse. And no, I will not buy a Mi-2 instead.

Tanks
- This really requires more words than I'm prepared to write right now (this post is already long as it is) but suffice to say it's much harder to actually be aggressive with PACT tanks than it is with NATO tanks. PACT tanks are generally slower and require stopping to be really effective.

Support/other
- I don't really use tube arty other than mortars so I don't really care about PACT's supposed advantage there. They don't have any mortars though.
- People just love to complain about the BUK, but it's a pain in the ass. First off it costs 85 points, and if you want to shoot down more than two choppers ever you also need a supply truck or two. For that price I can buy 2-3 decent medium tanks! The real problem is the Tunguska, which is miles better than the Roland 2 for just 15 points more. I'd be completely happy with NATO AA if the Roland 2 got +350m range or so.
- PACT's only really good dedicated ATGM carrier is the Shturm-S, which sure is awesome, but it's also really slow and fires slowly. I actually prefer the VAB Mephisto even though it's objectively worse.
- RARDENs. Wiesels. They own. PACT doesn't have them.
- The Buratino owns, but it's so hard to use right. You're paying 150 points for it, (almost enough to buy 4 Rise Pattons) and you'd better make sure you use that one salvo you get well, because if your opponent is playing his cards right, you will probably not get another one until much later. Also, the short range means you have to amble around with a 150-point 55 km/h sign that says PLEASE KILL ME just outside I-TOW range. Way too risky for me.

Big picture issues
Overall, PACT is a lot more supply reliant than NATO is and generally moves slower (except with infantry). It's harder to play aggressively with PACT; the faction favors a more "reactive" play style, and while they have the advantage in such play, it also leaves the initiative to your opponent.

tl;dr: they play differently, and one faction probably fits your play style better than the other. IMO, overall they're pretty balanced, but they have different strengths.
Last edited by TheFluff on Sat 20 Oct 2012 06:09, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
JBravo
Lieutenant Colonel
Posts: 2419
Joined: Thu 17 May 2012 16:07
Location: Plymouth Rock
Contact:

Re: PACT has so many advantages

Postby JBravo » Sat 20 Oct 2012 06:06

Honestly though, to me, the Apache isn't worth the 160 points because one shot from a BUK can take it down... and they shoot quite fast, and don't often miss twice.

I don't think that PACT is overpowered, but I do feel NATO AA is severely impaired, especially considering many PACT helicopters have 10hp.

What I wouldn't give to have a BUK or a Tunguska in my NATO deck sometimes.


Also, PACT supply trucks are much more numerous.
Image

Max_Damage
Lieutenant
Posts: 1351
Joined: Sat 14 Jul 2012 00:41
Location: Forgotten Realms

Re: PACT has so many advantages

Postby Max_Damage » Sat 20 Oct 2012 08:31

NAtO is stronger then pact.. atgm on pact tanks are more often then not a useless, even harmful (because of costs) gimmick if you re playing with people who move their units. infantry/apc/ifv is better on nato with vab/fuchs/marder/spartan: there is no comparison to btr/bmp/skot. recon are infinitely stronger on nato side. mortars and itow are imba. Also nato is easier to play: more quality(more expensive) = less numbers to control, stabs mean that you still hit if you forgot to stop. pzgrens are my personal favourite and playing against not so good opponents they + marders stopped anything being thrown at them. best tank is amx 32. 10 9 normal stab gun for 80? olololo. with bradley you dont need other tank destroyers anymore.
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 08:44

Max_Damage wrote:NAtO is stronger then pact.. atgm on pact tanks are more often then not a useless, even harmful (because of costs) gimmick if you re playing with people who move their units. infantry/apc/ifv is better on nato with vab/fuchs/marder/spartan: there is no comparison to btr/bmp/skot. recon are infinitely stronger on nato side. mortars and itow are imba. Also nato is easier to play: more quality(more expensive) = less numbers to control, stabs mean that you still hit if you forgot to stop. pzgrens are my personal favourite and playing against not so good opponents they + marders stopped anything being thrown at them. best tank is amx 32. 10 9 normal stab gun for 80? olololo. with bradley you dont need other tank destroyers anymore.


Dude I have seen one of your bragging replays. Using 12 autocannon vehicles against 8 unarmed skots... then bragging about it... :? :lol:
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

ikalugin
More than 10 000 messages. Soldier you are the leader of all armies!
Posts: 10430
Joined: Sun 6 Nov 2011 01:00
Contact:

Re: PACT has so many advantages

Postby ikalugin » Sat 20 Oct 2012 08:57

Nato tank side armor.
Armored commands.
Image
Spoiler : :
We need more missilez code for the missilez god.
Praslovan:
"Tactical Ikalugin inbound on this position in 10... 9..."
Image

Ribar
Warrant Officer
Posts: 479
Joined: Fri 7 Sep 2012 09:27
Location: Belgrade,Serbia
Contact:

Re: PACT has so many advantages

Postby Ribar » Sat 20 Oct 2012 11:30

I see some of you people say that factions are not balanced,I disagree.I prefer to play with NATO because that is my way of waging war-attack is the only defense.NATO is more of a agressive style of playing faction than defensive WP which is more based on camping.Do not think that you can not attack with WP or defend with NATO equally good,skill is what makes diffrence-almost always. This is my analysis for NATO units(do not read this if you are not really interested):
1)They can move fast(evade artillery)
2)Engage different unit types(look at autocannons,they can shoot infantry,tanks,enemy apcs,helicopters at very close range and they are deadly because of superior firepower)
3)Mortar Aml60 comes with aml90 lynx which is a small,very fast and solid gun for anti infantry-light vehicle purpose while on the other hand aml 60 can stun enemy units with mortar,and use 84mm gun for self defense.Overall NATO mortars are very good low budget replacement of artillery that you need on front to react fast.
4)All NATO units that you need for the attack are cheap,and can be replaced at low cost
5)Speed gives faster reinforcements
6)Infantry is balanced due to the fact that you have better aa infantry(Iglas OWN!!!) on WP side while you have atgm milan f2 which has only 1 point of accuracy less while on the other hand has 3 points more at AP than konkurs which gives you advantage over more armored targets.Infantry to infantry combat depends on many factors,you can use mortars as short range mortar support while on the other hand you can use t55s to kill enemy infantry.Battle of special forces:NATO has deltas that are better than spetsnaz in AT role but you have VDV(paratroopers) which can replace AT infantry while stay sharp in close quarter combat,chasseurs famas are only good quality to price unit in infantry world if you ask me(but they deal less morale damage to enemy despite the fact that they kill them equally as fast as fusiliers or jaegers).4VPZU are great,but not godlike...you can use Fernspaehers equally effective.
7)NATO transports come at a price of 10,have 90+ km/h speed off road and have mgs or you can buy more expensive autocannon transport or ultra expensive bradleys while on pact you have bmps which are kind of waste of transport as much as bradleys
8)NATO atgms...Milan f2 infantry?Vet 3=60 price and you can kill the toughest of tanks.Bradley recon has I-TOWs or simple TOW,normal bradley without recon capabilites is also excellent,then comes in vab mephisto which is fast and very good,wiesel tows...
9)Tanks are in my presonal opinion quite balanced,NATO has amx tanks which have very good speed,autocannons and excellent gun without stabilizers and armor but come at a price of only 50 per units and you don't care about armor if you ask me if you have shturm in front of you.Your tanks will die of any atgm if it hits him...MBT 70 has very good atgm if you want atgm tanks you can also use sheridans but I don't like them they are like PACT atgm tank counterparts with thin armor....NATO has better stabilizers and guns on most tanks.Bmp 685?Yet NATO M8 AGS cavalry prototype tank is better.
10)NATO AA can be effective as WP one if you vet 4 your chapparals you have long range firing platform that can rarely miss.I never see any helicopters as threat be it mi 28 or mi 24 with kokon because they can only hit cheap,massively deployable units that I use and losing one of them represents nothing to me.
11)Logistics...I say equal as you can deploy 1 fob and just resupply your supply trucks and send them back into action.Mi 26 is very big and slow target,ideal for artillery or aa.Chinooks may carry less but are faster and can be more deployed.Caring about mgs on supply trucks?Just kill them and earn 25 points :)
12)NATO helicopters are without doubt better killers but also fragile ones.
13)Artillery...Malkas problem?Use amx auf1 with better rate of fire and armor which gives it better odds of survival.
Tube artillery,Smech is more expensive than m270 mlrs.NATO mortars?None WP unit has short range mortars but has buratino instead but buratino is risky to use because of short range...
Image :mrgreen:

Urobulos
Sergeant Major
Posts: 279
Joined: Fri 27 Apr 2012 14:39
Contact:

Re: PACT has so many advantages

Postby Urobulos » Sat 20 Oct 2012 11:45

Err... when I look at replays of high level players, whether 1v1 or team games it is almost always Nato winning. Idk where some of you guys are getting the idea that most top players use Pact.

Alter
Sergeant First-Class
Posts: 115
Joined: Tue 2 Oct 2012 16:47
Contact:

Re: PACT has so many advantages

Postby Alter » Sat 20 Oct 2012 11:48

The issue is that overall Pact combines cost and advantages far better than NATO, imho it looks like Nato advantages get negated by Pact ones every time, like in the game of paper rock scissors, except there is no rock, Nato is paper and Pact has twice as much scissors :twisted:

AA systems are the best examples you have, option of Chapparels, Rolands, and Gepards all 3 being inferiror to pacts Buks and Tunguskas in every respect.

Example
If you want to have the heavy AA umbrella vs hard AI on the Nato side similar to Pacts in a 1500 game you will spend at least 100 points more and, even then you will be in fear, which are a must and than leaving you with outranged AAs, not to mention the munition supply dependence as Nato AA needs to use twice as much missiles either due to inaccuracy or Pact helicopter HP advantage.
Someone said Mi-9 is crap being slow and unmanouverable, well my Mi9 more than once survived a shot from Nato AA missiles, but Gazelles werent saved by their speed, so much about that....

Tank gun accuracy wow so suppresion is so big it doesnt matter not ot mention pact has affordable missile armed tanks you are not afraid to get into close combat neutering nato accuracy and possible (but rare) armor advantage).

Hell is use basic t72s to abuse ppl after their precious amx32s, Leos, m60s, Abramses, panicked its not even hilarious, even if they fail (t72) i dont care as my atgm vehicles (everything from jeep to a tank) have enough time to kill them 3 times.

Oh btw cheap T55s have better acc than most Nato tanks in range of 20 -50 pts


NATO Infantry advantage, well maybe in basic infantry but thats it and, the problem is they mostly come in glorified armored trucks, not real ATGM carrying death machines with a still a decent gun, and cheaper than any IFV plus inf combination on NATO side.

I cant see any other possible nato advantage tha gun acc and basic infantry.

So yeah Nato guys are the underdogs, any time i loose to Nato it means i screwed something terribly and he exploited my mistakes to the max.

User avatar
DeuZerre
More than 10 000 messages. Soldier you are the leader of all armies!
Posts: 11125
Joined: Mon 27 Feb 2012 23:17
Location: Universe, Galaxy, Solar System, Earth, Ground, Eurasian Continent, Main Landmass.
Contact:

Re: PACT has so many advantages

Postby DeuZerre » Sat 20 Oct 2012 12:09

Urobulos wrote:Err... when I look at replays of high level players, whether 1v1 or team games it is almost always Nato winning. Idk where some of you guys are getting the idea that most top players use Pact.


That's because High level play is hardly the same as usual play: Nato's effectiveness grows exponentially when you have a high APM, where it's just regularly with PACT.
Image
Marshal honoris causa
FLX wrote:Removing the weaknesses from the divisions leads to all divisions being the same in the long run. We won't proceed like that.

Return to “Wargame : European Escalation”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests