PACT has so many advantages

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 12:28

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:

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.


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.





TheFluff wrote: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.


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.
TheFluff wrote:
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.


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.


TheFluff wrote: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.


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.
Last edited by OpusTheFowl on Thu 8 Nov 2012 16:29, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: EDIT: Language ("$" count too)

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 12:34

DeuZerre wrote:
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.


Would love to see it, these replays i mean.

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 13:02

http://escalation.eu/

Seek a bit: Tigga's replays for example.
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.

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 13:19

Alter wrote: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.


You're providing these example situations like they take place in a vacuum where neither side has any other unit in the game besides tanks and recon.

For example in this case, why wouldn't the NATO player use his mortars to stun/frighten the ATGM tanks to make their acc terrible? Mortars are part of the "support" tree for a reason.
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 14:01

Alter wrote: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.

A squad of motostrelki plus a BMP-1P or BMP-1D costs more than a squad of Legion FAMAS plus a VAB, so I'm not sure why you make such a big deal about the results.

Alter wrote: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.

Spetsnaz are a quite specialized unit that are only good against other infantry and unarmored vehicles; I don't use them. I have yet to figure out a reason for transporting regular rifle infantry in armed helicopters (special forces or AA/ATGM teams, maybe, but not regular rifle infantry), and if you use 30-point helicopters for suicide scouting I really don't know what to say to you.

Alter wrote: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.

I really don't know why you bring up the Kiowa. It's not a combat recon and nobody uses it.
The Mi-9's ability to survive a missile hit is sort of academic in practice, since it handles like a bathtub with wings and certainly isn't going to going to outrun a followup.

The reason for using combat recons rather than jeeps is cost efficiency. For 60 points I can buy two MUTT's. That is good, but maybe I don't think I need two units with very good optics? If I settle for one, I can get an additional gun for my army, and instead of those 60 points being pure support, I also get some combat value for my money. Jeeps have their place, but when I'm conducting an all-out attack I'd rather take a combat recon. Every gun counts.

Alter wrote: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 even know what to say to this. There are usually some, you know, obstacles, on most maps? Also, getting in range of an ATGM with 2600m range using a tank with 2100m range really isn't hard. Especially not since the ATGM unit can't fire on the move at all.

Alter wrote:You ignoring PACT arty just shows how NATO is screwed in that respect, so you use ... mortars.

I don't use tube arty as PACT either. I don't think it's cost-effective, at least not in my play style. I do use rocket artillery, and while the M270 is worse than the Smerch it's also considerably cheaper and the difference isn't huge.

The entire thing with PACT's supposedly gigantic arty advantage is also debatable; it mostly seems to consist of the Malka and the Smerch. I'd say the difference is pretty marginal.

Alter wrote: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.

If you're referring to the BMP-1P, it suffers from the same problem as all other PACT ATGM carriers: it's really slow. Speed is sort of important for a unit that needs to leverage its range to stay alive and needs to stop to fire. That's why the VAB Mephisto is so good. The BMP-1P also only has five missiles, which really doesn't last long.

Alter wrote: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.

I really, really, really don't understand how you manage to work out that having inferior artillery encourages camping, and that last sentence makes no sense at all.

User avatar
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 14:45

Ok now,those who are for the fact that WP has many advantages,what level and elo are you,and those who say that both sides are balanced through series of advantages and disandvantages tell me your lvls/elos?
I am lvl 81 and have elo of 1897(65% ratio) and say that both sides were balanced through hours of my combat experience.
Image :mrgreen:

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 14:54

Graphic wrote:
Alter wrote: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.


You're providing these example situations like they take place in a vacuum where neither side has any other unit in the game besides tanks and recon.

For example in this case, why wouldn't the NATO player use his mortars to stun/frighten the ATGM tanks to make their acc terrible? Mortars are part of the "support" tree for a reason.


And somehow you are not, besides mortars arent that good, at least not mythical weapons ppl make out of them.

We can enter a hundred more variables into this example but it wont decrease the advantage in first strike capability of 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 15:31

TheFluff wrote:A squad of motostrelki plus a BMP-1P or BMP-1D costs more than a squad of Legion FAMAS plus a VAB, so I'm not sure why you make such a big deal about the results.


UUU, yeah for a whooping 5 pts and that 5 point price increase is due the fact the BMP-1P version has acc 7 Konkurs ATGM in all other aspects its the same BMP1 Obr. 1970 IFv for 20 points same gun same armor etc.

So much about that.


TheFluff wrote:The reason for using combat recons rather than jeeps is cost efficiency. For 60 points I can buy two MUTT's. That is good, but maybe I don't think I need two units with very good optics? If I settle for one, I can get an additional gun for my army, and instead of those 60 points being pure support, I also get some combat value for my money. Jeeps have their place, but when I'm conducting an all-out attack I'd rather take a combat recon. Every gun counts.


Maybe for Nato but i prefer having more eyes and not suddenly being ambush or flanked a thing i did many times i am starting to understand why it was i so.

And if you need cheap guns you have a ton of other options, Marder VTSI for example.

TheFluff wrote:If you're referring to the BMP-1P, it suffers from the same problem as all other PACT ATGM carriers: it's really slow. Speed is sort of important for a unit that needs to leverage its range to stay alive and needs to stop to fire. That's why the VAB Mephisto is so good. The BMP-1P also only has five missiles, which really doesn't last long.


I have yet to experience issue with pact slowness, and the bmp is dirt cheap its first and foremost cheap attacking unit to throw into the nasty close combat where you will take serious losses, more often high, than not. It can also take out almost anything quite quickly, saying it should stay out of range is wrong its not a specialized 60 pts TD, or some NATO ATGM IFV like Bradely, for that matter.

TheFluff wrote:I really, really, really don't understand how you manage to work out that having inferior artillery encourages camping, and that last sentence makes no sense at all.


Well if i know that i can stun and panic the enemy in advantageous positions before i even make direct contact with him why the hell no to exploit it and get his point/CV

Ppl will camp arty or not doesnt matter.

zervostyrd
Lieutenant
Posts: 1245
Joined: Sun 18 Mar 2012 21:12
Location: Probably North
Contact:

Re: PACT has so many advantages

Postby zervostyrd » Sat 20 Oct 2012 19:12

Alter wrote:Maybe for Nato but i prefer having more eyes and not suddenly being ambush or flanked a thing i did many times i am starting to understand why it was i so.

And if you need cheap guns you have a ton of other options, Marder VTSI for example.


He meant that to him a Recon vehicle is more cost effecient if it have a gun. Jeeps can just stand and watch, While a recon with a cannon is another cannon. 10 cannons has more chance of hitting a target than 9 cannons and two jeeps.

Alter wrote:I have yet to experience issue with pact slowness.


I have, i'm very much a newbie but getting my Mi 9 out of the way from NATO AA is a constant pain and then there's the cobras and gazelles which just love huniting them resulting in no LoS of my enemy. And i won't use Bmp 1 (nor 2) for attacking inf other than in the open I don't use D model bmp 1 (taste really G launcher is good though) but P model i use as ATGM carrier but they can't hunt anything so I use them for "ambushes".

Alter wrote:Well if i know that i can stun and panic the enemy in advantageous positions before i even make direct contact with him why the hell no to exploit it and get his point/CV

Ppl will camp arty or not doesnt matter.


Please elaborate this. Bad accurracy artillery is quite terrible with corrected shots but if you are talking about bad accuracy arty spam it's even worse to do without corrected shots. You won't hit anything of significance it just a waste of supplies that you sureley need later.

Last okay people will camp. but less competent campers are simple "advanced campers" who might actually know to protect all flanks should know that competent use of arty will crush them anyway.

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

Re: PACT has so many advantages

Postby Orange » Sun 21 Oct 2012 08:11

Alter, really like this guy 8-)

How many of you guys remember the Nato playstyle from before the ATGM patch? The AMX30 was said to be a tank that needs to ambush out of a forest or hillside, now all Nato tank are sneaky ambushers. A frontal engagement with Pact? Impossible. Some sneaky ninja style attack followed by mass arty and helos? Possible.

In 1vs1 you can play much more hideous and sneaky hence why Nato ain't that weak there, at 3vs3 4vs4 it gets near impossible as you are forced into frontal engagements.
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 10 guests