Page 1 of 2

Few things

Posted: Thu 24 May 2012 20:05
by Gopblin
1. I played the campaign (zipped through most of the last Soviet campaign with a straight helo rush, lolwut), played a few practice games vs Hard AI, figured it's time to try playing online.

And what I have to say is "Reading this forum works". I spent a couple hours reading the Tactics, built a decent WP deck, my first game I performed better than any of the other players, gained like 6 levels at once.

Was at a loss of what to do, so basically denied the entire airspace with ~four BukM1's and set up mini-doom fortresses in a few likely forests plus VPSU scouts creeping everywhere. Of course, I was spread around the map and the enemies could penetrate the screen with a big enough force, but the points the spent in doing so were more than the points the defenders cost. Ended up losing like 450 pts to 1500 kills, mostly Buks downing enemy choppers and VPSUs ambushing stuff. Also retard enemies ran expensive tanks into mini-doom fortresses, nothing like raping 4 Abrams with a couple VPSU and two TO-55.

2. This brings me to a few new questions -
- Why use Tunguska over a BukM1 in the open? Sure, Tunguska can rape up close, but ATGMs still outrange its autocannons, so it will come down to who has better missiles anyway. I know a Buk can be overwhelmed with a blob, but it will likely kill 1-2 choppers that cost more than it does. Plus if you use 2-3 spaced Buks the enemy is shafted.

- What's the difference between BMP-2 and the next variant (BMP2D?). The stats are exactly the same in the browser, except the second one is 5 pts more. Is this a bug?

- Are the units more visible when moving? I presume not, but I haven't seen any statements about it.

- Any point to using flame infantry instead of flame tanks?

- My tactic was mostly vulnerable to a mass tank rush, avoiding forests, down into capture zones. I had teammates deal with those, but realistically, what's the best way of derailing those in the open (assuming you don't have the points or time for a tank blob of your own, and the rush includes AA)? Arty or flanking harassment from extreme range with helo / ground-based ATGMs?

- Any counter to SF + flamers in the forests aside from arty + assaulting with SF and flamers of your own?

Best wishes,
Daniel.

Re: Few things

Posted: Thu 24 May 2012 20:34
by Orange
A tunguska got autocannons a buk doesn't. Means a Tunguska can shoot at ground threats which is helpful against lets say vab or some other light vehicle attack where the buk is entirely useless. So for example tunguska AA support can defend your cv against sneak attacks and other ground threats.

What if enemy arty kills your supply? Your Buk will be empty and you have a useless 85p unit to worry about. While a tunguska can still shoot with autocannons. Tunguska is also cheaper and got great AA missiles just not as great as a buk but still top.

As for the BMP-2 BMP-2D the D version is better armored, same with the BMP-1D which btw got an awesome grenade launcher.

Flame infantry rape enemy infantry hard as well as light vehicles, pact sapeur also got HE 2 rifles. They are not much liked in the forum, I had success with them they also rape Spetznas. Think of it like this, Zippo a slow short range traveling awesome flameweapon, Sapeur in vab a speedy inf raper.

Re: Few things

Posted: Thu 24 May 2012 20:59
by Xeno426
Orange wrote:Flame infantry rape enemy infantry hard as well as light vehicles, pact sapeur also got HE 2 rifles. They are not much liked in the forum, I had success with them they also rape Spetznas.

Must be a fluke, then. The Spetsnaz can shoot its RPO a good 200 meters before the Sapeurs can use their flamethrower, and the Spetsnaz have a much better rifle to boot. The only flame infantry worth even considering are the Polish Saperzy.

Re: Few things

Posted: Thu 24 May 2012 21:18
by Cygnus
Personally, I like taking a Buk and a tunguska together. The buk snipes recon choppers and anything else at big range, whilst the tunguska takes care of other choppers when the Buk is out of missiles. Also, tunguska seems to aim faster than the Buk.

Re: Few things

Posted: Fri 25 May 2012 01:09
by Hidden Gunman
Buks have the range advantage, but the Tunguskas have the autocannons.

I'm having a lot of success with a mix of aa units to create a layered anti-air defense, when I can get the points to do so. Although, I must admit that probably the most successful anti-air system I've seen is the humble igla...dismount in forest, reposition vehicles away from the unit, wait for ambush kills to happen. Set up properly, a couple of iglas can dominate a zone from helo sneaks or small groups of helo...if they send a larger group, then you are sucking air regardless of what you had there anyway. The iglas are very hard to spot without vehicles, and with a couple of units mutually supporting you can generally take out 3 or 4 helo's before they can react...and if they sneak in singly or in a pair, then it's unlikely that they will spot where the fire is coming from.

The funny thing is that the game is posed in the '70s and '80s, yet the stand-alone Buks didn't appear until the late '90s early 2000s...up until then they required a co-ordinating command and radar net, and needed to be tied into it. But saying that, they also weren't developed as a tactical aa system, but a medium range one, designed to engage cruise missiles and fixed wing aircraft at ranges of many tens of kilometres. With that range, reloading and zone coverage wasn't really a problem in that technically one or more units would cover while one unit reloaded, and stockpiles of reloads could be kept available in-situ, generally without fear of artillery counter-battery fire, although the threat of anti-radar missiles was entirely probable.

Re: Few things

Posted: Fri 25 May 2012 03:23
by ChrisJ
If you never had to worry about spending too much on AA - the BUK would be a fantastic choice. It is also slow, which hinders your initial push to the high-point objectives. The Tunguska gives you a few extra seconds to move it if it is being artilleried, and if you use OSA AKMs you are losing less when you forget to move it out of artillery.

Re: Few things

Posted: Fri 25 May 2012 10:57
by Toot
Indeed , BUKS are better but they are too expensive.

Tunguska is borderline too expensive at 112 for vet 2.

Re: Few things

Posted: Fri 25 May 2012 11:44
by Riisto
SF+flamers in a forest:
-Arty to demoralize and then attack with your own troops
OR
-Avoid the forest and go somewhere else - just some 50-60pts to win there with hard resistance so why bother, go pick an easier fight :)

http://www.wargame-wiki.com/Main_Page
Unit Price Armor
BMP-2 40 1/1/0/0
BMP-2D 45 2/2/1/1

-So for 5 pts more you get 1 more armor ALL AROUND your vehicle - very much worth it!

AA:
-I use both, 1 Buk-m1 for long range sniping (killing) paired with 1-2 tunguskas (no vet)/afganski for close range AA (support) to scare away choppas + IGLA inf to support my fast small attacks around the map

Flame inf vs. flame tank:
-no brainer imo - always get the tank for the longer range and better survival in a forest being bombarded with arty (NEEDS MICRO: use attack target/ground to shoot at targets where you think or now are enemy units)

Against rushes:
1) Recon far, fast and wide!
2) Get the counters needed to swing the odds to your favor (you did save 200pts for reserve at the start, right?)
3) Attack opponents CVs (most likely poorly defended)
4) Avoid the blob with your units and CVs until you have proper units in the field
5) Use ambushes to get cost-efficient trades with the opponent if you can't stop the rush dead to its tracks

Re: Few things

Posted: Fri 25 May 2012 19:51
by Oliver
- Why use Tunguska over a BukM1 in the open? Sure, Tunguska can rape up close, but ATGMs still outrange its autocannons, so it will come down to who has better missiles anyway. I know a Buk can be overwhelmed with a blob, but it will likely kill 1-2 choppers that cost more than it does. Plus if you use 2-3 spaced Buks the enemy is shafted.


Generally spoken a Tunguska is an offensive AA while the BUK is a defensive AA. The BUK needs to be resupplied to stay effective and is insanely slow which is why they can rarely keep up with fast tank attacks (which I love and that's why I use the Tung). The Tung also has double the ammunition, that means that I don't have to stop my attack to resupply my AA that often. Not everyone is a fan of doom fortresses.

The NATO equivalent to that are the Marder Roland 2 and the Chap...just that they're worse.

Re: Few things

Posted: Fri 25 May 2012 22:49
by Gopblin
So far played 7 games, only lost one (a team ~lvl 10s against level 40s). Generally I focus on distributed defense, relying on strong AA, mini-doom fortresses and holding capzones.

While this means I'm pretty weak in any individual point, all enemy gains by getting a tank blob and crushing a sector is ~350 pts for the CV and a bunch of cheap inf / couple flame tanks, while sustaining quite a few losses. That is, if I don't manage to reinforce in time and if I don't manage to run away with CV.

In general, after a battle my kill list is much shorter than the loss list, but because I use cheap units I have a big advantage point-wise, e.g. I trade Motostrelci and TO-55 for Apaches and Abrams.

Problems:
Can't find an alternative to Motostrelci as cheap AT inf. Everyone else has either much worse AT or higher price. Motostrelci are awesome, I just wish I could stick more of em in every damn town and forest on the map. Inf combat is generally not a problem as I use flame tanks and VPSU.

Flame inf are indeed useless.

Countering tank blobs in the open remains a problem. Guess I just gotta practice more and spot them earlier.

Best wishes,
Daniel.