Why is the Roland 3 still 4 per card?

[Random]

If we talk about balance you first have to make an argument why it should be done.

On the OSA-AKM vs. Roland 3 comparison: Mobility, amphibious capabilities and missile firing speed vs. accuracy, armor and missile quantity is a fair trade-off in my opinion. So an increase to OSA levels would be alright for the Roland 3s in my opinion. Also, HE power is not to forget. The OSA can one-shot planes and (most) NATO helicopters, while the Roland is always needing two hits on a plane and struggles against Hinds quite a bit.

It's not fair that it gets the availability of systems like Buk and Tor while it's far from their capabilities.

Enough?

red units do not have to be balanced with blue units.

Red coalition deck have to be balanced with blue coalition decks.

So for this to be enough you would have to show that these two units lead to bad red v blue balance.

And even if that would not apply the Roland 3 has a lot more armor, so you can just ignore this argument if you say that armor is valued as x, which is almost impossible to disprove.

So, no, not even close to "enough".

[Forimar]

This is completely anecdotal, but I have gotten a lot better results using the Roland than the Osa AKM because of the acc and armor. Osas have the advantage in mobility and ROF, but they die when anything looks at them funny and they are much less reliable against NATO planes that tend to have higher ECM anyways. If the roland 3 were to get more per card, I think it would also ned a bit of a price nerf.

[FoxZz]

Well,

EC doesn't have long range AA, it's one its weaknesses, the Roland 3 being the system with the longest range, it's a key asset of the deck. Hence, losing one is a big blow.
With its limited range and firepower and vulnerability to SEAD, killing a Roland 3 is quiet easy, it's also very vulnerable to Hinds.
That's why its current low availability is problematic.
And keep in mind that we're talking about +1 availability, nothing games breaking.

Finally, stop fooling people, units are balanced between each other mainly.

[Markenzwieback]

This is completely anecdotal, but I have gotten a lot better results using the Roland than the Osa AKM because of the acc and armor. Osas have the advantage in mobility and ROF, but they die when anything looks at them funny and they are much less reliable against NATO planes that tend to have higher ECM anyways. If the roland 3 were to get more per card, I think it would also ned a bit of a price nerf.

And I myself, have had great success with both OSA-AKM and Roland 3 most of the times I use them. My OSAs manage to shoot down planes pretty reliably.

EC doesn't have long range AA, it's one its weaknesses, the Roland 3 being the system with the longest range, it's a key asset of the deck. Hence, losing one is a big blow.
With its limited range and firepower and vulnerability to SEAD, killing a Roland 3 is quiet easy, it's also very vulnerable to Hinds.
That's why its current low availability is problematic.
And keep in mind that we're talking about +1 availability, nothing games breaking.

This basically. Roland 3s have such a low reach, that any player using SEAD planes will either prevent a Roland from shooting down the strike aircraft or kill them in the process.

red units do not have to be balanced with blue units.

This is interesting to say the least.

[Random]

Well,

EC doesn't have long range AA, it's one its weaknesses, the Roland 3 being the system with the longest range, it's a key asset of the deck. Hence, losing one is a big blow.
With its limited range and firepower and vulnerability to SEAD, killing a Roland 3 is quiet easy, it's also very vulnerable to Hinds.
That's why its current low availability is problematic.
And keep in mind that we're talking about +1 availability, nothing games breaking.

Then take two cards of anti-plane AA. If you run out of Roland 3s on a regular basis you can take up to 4 cards in EC, if you wish.

Roland 3s can be protected against hinds very easily with crotales and flakpanzer.

Killing roland 3s is actually really hard if its owner knows what he is doing.

just because something is a small change does not mean it s a good change, also this +1 is equal to +20%, and it is not the same as suggesting +1 availability to many other units.

Finally, stop fooling people, units are balanced between each other mainly.

dont even know what this means... with what would units be balanced if not other units, tomatoes?

[Random]

Roland 3s have such a low reach, that any player using SEAD planes will either prevent a Roland from shooting down the strike aircraft or kill them in the process.

But that is true about all radar-AA, as long as your opponent keeps his SEAD around until the strikeaircraft evacs, I dont see how this is something specific to the roland 3.

red units do not have to be balanced with blue units.

This is interesting to say the least.

Official policy ever since EE.

[Mako]

Ah yes, the l2p argument and the asymmetrical balance argument.

A twofer if you will.

[Random]

Ah yes, the l2p argument and the asymmetrical balance argument.

A twofer if you will.

Thing is about the things I made these arguments against they do apply.

Or maybe your position is that a l2p argument is never apropriate? Is that the case?

Just because some people missuse the asymmetrical balance argument does not mean that the argument is invalid. If the units is UP, how about you find an example to support that from bluefor, shouldnt be too hard.

(or maybe give an example of a bad argument instead of making some hurt noises from the corner.)

[Markenzwieback]

Roland 3s have such a low reach, that any player using SEAD planes will either prevent a Roland from shooting down the strike aircraft or kill them in the process.

But that is true about all radar-AA, as long as your opponent keeps his SEAD around until the strikeaircraft evacs, I dont see how this is something specific to the roland 3.

But you still have the chance with longer ranged systems to either shoot at the incoming strike aircraft when the SEAD is not directly flying with it, or get missiles flying out at the SEAD plane itself. The Roland has not enough range to do either of the two, because most bombers and some ATGM planes start to release their payload at the maximum engagement range of the Roland 3.

red units do not have to be balanced with blue units.

This is interesting to say the least.

Official policy ever since EE.

Okay, whatever. But it can still be used as an argument when discussion availability, right? Because it cannot only be assymetrical balance when the top tier AA systems of (almost) all REDFOR coalitions are sitting at the same availability as the Roland 3. Actually, most of the BLUFOR systems (high-end Hawks) are at the same level.

[Wildschwein]

Please compare EB to Landjut. They have the same 15% bonus so should be the same.

Osa availability 7
vs
Roland 3 availability 5

Fla SFL 256 availability 6
vs
Gepard A2 availability 5

on the other hand:

Sopel availability 7
vs
Gepard 1 availabilty 9

Seeing this, I assume the differences are not intentional, but have simply developed over time. I really do not see a reason for the differences. Availability per card, should be in line with the respective availability bracket. If a faction is in need of more availability, this can be achieved by either raising the % bonus, or giving them an additional card.

The basic problem with AA is, that the bracket between 65 and a 100 points is too big. There should be a bracket in between.

To standardize all factions, I suggest the following brackets:

>100 availability 2/1
100-80 availability 4/3
60-80 availability 5/4
40-60 availability 7/6
20-40 availability 8/7