TheFluff wrote: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:
- 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.
Motostrelki are cheap expendable units with BMP-1P ATGM carrying IFVs and a number of times i threw into attacks 4x of them vs 4x legion famas with vabs in forests, the bmps stunned them with 4 to 6 shots and my motos then went in and raped them.
I wont even speak about the nastiness of spetznats or vdv troops which come with real ARMED helos and not come crap you use than for suicide scouting.
- 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.
And whats the problem, why would i use expensive recon for combat, in no way i will pay for example 140 pts for kiowa with 4 helfires, AMX 10 rc are good i use them too in my NATO deck (and fast becoming my NATO lovechild) but if PACT player allowed that to happen its a testimony to his incompetence.
Mi9 can survive AAA hits, NATO choppers cannot.
- 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.
Nope wrong, NATO just has to be more suicidal aka try to get into range somehow to use its gun accuracy, guess what, they fail again, with proper recon (mi9 or even a UAZ) NATO will lose a lot of Tanks to ATGMs, and when it finally gets to range, the sheer number of pact firing will panic if not kill them in less than a minute. Get even closer and even my BMP1s can kill Abramses, with their gun.
- 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.
Buk is devastating and its prices is right here it should be, its a stationary area denial AA for keeping your enemies away form supplies, command vehicles, reinforcements, while tunguskas are there with your tanks and APCs combine them and its mission impossible for NATO to use any helicopter or transport.
You ignoring PACT arty just shows how NATO is screwed in that respect, so you use ... mortars.
Pact has a lot of cheap non dedicated ATGM AFVs, not only flimsy jeeps and overpriced IFVs like the Bradleys, or Marders coming with crap ATGMs, or no atgm at all.
TheFluff wrote: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.
Actually my opinion is the other way around NATo with their crappy AA and arty has to camp with heavy outbursts of aggressiveness, focusing on infantry, AT jeeps and similar light AFVs vs Pact which can choose what to do, when to do it, and HOW to do it. Logistics, lol its far cheaper to call 4 urals or a Mi26, then a bunch of elite infantry and Jeeps smerched to death or 4 urals for my bmp 1ps and shturms than 3 Leo2A4s i just fried.