[Commentary] US Unit Choices In 1vs1 Ranked (Dec 2016)

User avatar
RoadkillRodger
Lieutenant
Posts: 1148
Joined: Fri 9 May 2014 07:24
Contact:

Re: [Commentary] US Unit Choices In 1vs1 Ranked (Dec 2016)

Postby RoadkillRodger » Sun 18 Dec 2016 02:11

Awesome post! 2 questions:

A) why not NORAD? The wolverine is pretty good in an open, to say nothing of the less meta 495 or adats.

B) have you tried the base M1 for forests at all? I've found it to fill a similar role to the bmpt in practice.

ThePriyad
Corporal
Posts: 45
Joined: Sat 15 Oct 2016 23:37
Contact:

Re: [Commentary] US Unit Choices In 1vs1 Ranked (Dec 2016)

Postby ThePriyad » Sun 18 Dec 2016 04:40

RoadkillRodger wrote:Awesome post! 2 questions:

A) why not NORAD? The wolverine is pretty good in an open, to say nothing of the less meta 495 or adats.

B) have you tried the base M1 for forests at all? I've found it to fill a similar role to the bmpt in practice.


A) NORAD loses 5 activation points and doesn't have an availability bonus. You gain possibility of ADATS... and some RPG trooper? Not worth the trade.
Wolverine isn't useful against airplanes, which will be called in to kill all your 80+ point units.

B) Base M1 can't fight tanks. Super M60 can at least fight tanks for a similar cost.
Image
Making #US Great, One Ranked Match At A Time.

User avatar
KattiValk
General
Posts: 6320
Joined: Tue 19 Nov 2013 03:39
Location: Houston, Texas (CST)
Contact:

Re: [Commentary] US Unit Choices In 1vs1 Ranked (Dec 2016)

Postby KattiValk » Sun 18 Dec 2016 05:09

ThePriyad wrote:Playing US like a meta deck is like forcing a square into a triangle. The infantry on an individual basis doesn't compare. When the deck is made with the 1vs1 ranked map pool and opposition in mind, it has a decent chance because the tools are certainly there.

As for positioning, choosing where to fight is very important to deciding what to bring for an opener. Its pretty easy to argue a poor opener as US is incredibly hard to recover from compared with meta decks.

I'm all for you adjusting the cards to fit your needs. Isn't it nice to have so many tools? I tend to use the CS more than the CEV too.
Sure, but I still don't see the point in trying to be so adamant that the US is still worth it being the special snowflake it currently is. It may still be playable, but it just seems terribly unproductive pointing that out when people are trying to reshape the deck.

Choosing where to fight isn't exactly a choice you can make oftentimes. Trying to bait the enemy into losing IFV advantage is much easier said than done.

Of course, having tools is nice, but the deck still is in need of reshaping.

User avatar
RoadkillRodger
Lieutenant
Posts: 1148
Joined: Fri 9 May 2014 07:24
Contact:

Re: [Commentary] US Unit Choices In 1vs1 Ranked (Dec 2016)

Postby RoadkillRodger » Sun 18 Dec 2016 06:15

ThePriyad wrote:


Have you tried Atacms?

codextero
Lieutenant Colonel
Posts: 2334
Joined: Sat 13 Dec 2014 02:52
Contact:

Re: [Commentary] US Unit Choices In 1vs1 Ranked (Dec 2016)

Postby codextero » Sun 18 Dec 2016 07:47

RoadkillRodger wrote:
ThePriyad wrote:


Have you tried Atacms?


not a viable ranked unit.

kiheerSEDMAN wrote:Sure, but I still don't see the point in trying to be so adamant that the US is still worth it being the special snowflake it currently is. It may still be playable, but it just seems terribly unproductive pointing that out when people are trying to reshape the deck.

Choosing where to fight isn't exactly a choice you can make oftentimes. Trying to bait the enemy into losing IFV advantage is much easier said than done.

Of course, having tools is nice, but the deck still is in need of reshaping.

I on't think Priyad is saying US is great, but rather good enough to be useable against the top tier meta decks.

User avatar
RoadkillRodger
Lieutenant
Posts: 1148
Joined: Fri 9 May 2014 07:24
Contact:

Re: [Commentary] US Unit Choices In 1vs1 Ranked (Dec 2016)

Postby RoadkillRodger » Sun 18 Dec 2016 07:54

codextero wrote:
RoadkillRodger wrote:Have you tried Atacms?


not a viable ranked unit.


You'd be surprised.

I've had decent results against Col and under, the heavy tank meta makes it more useful than it used to be- I'm curious to see what Priyad's experience has been (if any).

User avatar
QUAD
Colonel
Posts: 2766
Joined: Sun 10 Nov 2013 21:17
Contact:

Re: [Commentary] US Unit Choices In 1vs1 Ranked (Dec 2016)

Postby QUAD » Sun 18 Dec 2016 08:10

so USA seems like a super amount of combined arms with units that have high ammo counts and a general recon advantage.

IMO it would be cool if every coalition was forced into a more unique playstyle, as opposed to every coalition deck being made to fit the meta of cheap shock, FSV, tank recon and so on.

Edit: I still think all the INF tab Bradleys should have medium optics at least.
Mobile Units Operational :!:

ThePriyad
Corporal
Posts: 45
Joined: Sat 15 Oct 2016 23:37
Contact:

Re: [Commentary] US Unit Choices In 1vs1 Ranked (Dec 2016)

Postby ThePriyad » Sun 18 Dec 2016 12:20

RoadkillRodger wrote:
codextero wrote:
RoadkillRodger wrote:Have you tried Atacms?


not a viable ranked unit.


You'd be surprised.

I've had decent results against Col and under, the heavy tank meta makes it more useful than it used to be- I'm curious to see what Priyad's experience has been (if any).


And there lies the issue; Col and under. Wargame is incredibly different at the different skill levels. When a super heavy is fielded by a player, it should be in action, moving to action, or repairing behind the lines in an undisclosed location.

150 points means a longbow, a plane (e.g. Nighthawk), or even almost a super heavy to contest their super heavy. All those options provide more of a likelihood of being useful than an ATACMS at high level play. The risk isn't worth it. 150 points to have 2 chances at sniping whatever threat is in a cloud of smoke may be fun though for an alternate account.

QUAD wrote:so USA seems like a super amount of combined arms with units that have high ammo counts and a general recon advantage.

IMO it would be cool if every coalition was forced into a more unique playstyle, as opposed to every coalition deck being made to fit the meta of cheap shock, FSV, tank recon and so on.

Edit: I still think all the INF tab Bradleys should have medium optics at least.


i don't think there is a recon advantage, but certainly it has a plethora of options to pick from.

I got to play 9 ranked matches today. 6 against Faust and 3 against others. I intend to cast all 9 matches after I fix my screen capturing software problems.

All 3 randoms were NORAD. Oddly enough they all opened with at least:
Longbow, (2) DAP, (2) Patriot or Patriot & ADATS. Its quite funny because they had so few units that taking the map or even flanking to kill the AA was simple. Needless to say they lost very quickly.

Is there something going on?

Edited for additional thoughts on ATACMS.
Image
Making #US Great, One Ranked Match At A Time.

User avatar
Medan
Warrant Officer
Posts: 420
Joined: Tue 18 Jun 2013 23:06
Contact:

Re: [Commentary] US Unit Choices In 1vs1 Ranked (Dec 2016)

Postby Medan » Sun 18 Dec 2016 14:21

kiheerSEDMAN wrote:Sure, but I still don't see the point in trying to be so adamant that the US is still worth it being the special snowflake it currently is. It may still be playable, but it just seems terribly unproductive pointing that out when people are trying to reshape the deck.


Not everyone agrees with your analysis of the US deck and the importance of "reshaping" it.
Image

User avatar
QUAD
Colonel
Posts: 2766
Joined: Sun 10 Nov 2013 21:17
Contact:

Re: [Commentary] US Unit Choices In 1vs1 Ranked (Dec 2016)

Postby QUAD » Sun 18 Dec 2016 14:33

Medan wrote:
kiheerSEDMAN wrote:Sure, but I still don't see the point in trying to be so adamant that the US is still worth it being the special snowflake it currently is. It may still be playable, but it just seems terribly unproductive pointing that out when people are trying to reshape the deck.


Not everyone agrees with your analysis of the US deck and the importance of "reshaping" it.


Its pretty a common point of view that ATACMS and Patriot are really dumb, longbow holds the deck together, and the infantry tab is pretty much barely cost efficient soft counters and/or fodder. Also that the vulcan is overperforming.
Mobile Units Operational :!:

Return to “Wargame : Red Dragon”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Shifu and 52 guests