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

urogard
Brigadier
Posts: 3062
Joined: Sun 4 May 2014 13:31
Contact:

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

Postby urogard » Sun 18 Dec 2016 14:43

QUAD wrote:
Medan wrote: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.

If removing atacms and patriot would mean giving USA some decent infantry and aa options and a few adjustments in the tank department then I'd jump at that opportunity immediately

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 14:59

QUAD wrote:
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.


You mean the same six people circling around the same logic in a different thread? I am not here to hijack this thread, but you can send me a PM if you wish.

I would agree that Priyad is making the best out of US's position in 1v1s, but not every deck is viable in every format. Nor will every deck be viable in every format. As you add players, US simply gets better and better.
Image

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 16:33

Medan wrote:Not everyone agrees with your analysis of the US deck and the importance of "reshaping" it.
Of course not everyone agrees. A lot of people also think the US is the best deck in the game and the Bushmaster is a god tier autocannon (OMG 60% accuracy nothing possibly could be wrong with this!). Not to say only ignorant people think the US is fine, but generally, people agree that the US is not a great deck for answering to meta without the support or massive point saturation that a team game can provide.

I don't claim the US is completely inept, but it's also far from being in a great place. I'd be happy to discuss it further in PMs with you or even in my thread. I would point out that the changes I've listed in that OP are compromises, and don't really represent any single opinion.

Ribar
Warrant Officer
Posts: 479
Joined: Fri 7 Sep 2012 09:27
Location: Belgrade,Serbia
Contact:

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

Postby Ribar » Sun 18 Dec 2016 18:33

I will only point out the biggest weakness, there are others :
Spoiler : :
Image
Image :mrgreen:

User avatar
HrcAk47
Colonel
Posts: 2788
Joined: Sat 3 May 2014 18:00
Contact:

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

Postby HrcAk47 » Sun 18 Dec 2016 18:54

Ribar wrote:I will only point out the biggest weakness, there are others :
Spoiler : :
Image


It's a perfect "flavor" weakness, if compensated by a good plane tab.
The SEAD never bothered me anyway.

SMB Yugoslavia Retexture Mod, now released, v.1.0

Ribar
Warrant Officer
Posts: 479
Joined: Fri 7 Sep 2012 09:27
Location: Belgrade,Serbia
Contact:

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

Postby Ribar » Sun 18 Dec 2016 20:28

HrcAk47 wrote:
Ribar wrote:I will only point out the biggest weakness, there are others :
Spoiler : :
Image


It's a perfect "flavor" weakness, if compensated by a good plane tab.


It's not a weakness of a nation though, rather it is a weakness of this deck ;) US has quite reliable AA against most of the air forces in game. I can only imagine any minor helicopter spreading havoc while chaparral is on duty :lol: not gonna happen anytime soon, while an apache longbow is a force to be reckoned with using most of the minor's AA assets :) . The soviets come to my mind as the only ones who could pose a challenge, but again could be dealt with.
Image :mrgreen:

User avatar
Coletrain
Staff Sergeant
Posts: 85
Joined: Tue 7 Oct 2014 20:25
Contact:

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

Postby Coletrain » Sun 18 Dec 2016 21:23

Ribar wrote:
HrcAk47 wrote:
Ribar wrote:I will only point out the biggest weakness, there are others :
Spoiler : :
Image


It's a perfect "flavor" weakness, if compensated by a good plane tab.


It's not a weakness of a nation though, rather it is a weakness of this deck ;) US has quite reliable AA against most of the air forces in game. I can only imagine any minor helicopter spreading havoc while chaparral is on duty :lol: not gonna happen anytime soon, while an apache longbow is a force to be reckoned with using most of the minor's AA assets :) . The soviets come to my mind as the only ones who could pose a challenge, but again could be dealt with.


They don't have good all-round motorized AA like the OSA and ROMB units, which are particularly powerful in the opening stages of the game.

With that said, I've been experimenting with using 4 cards of AA including PIVADS, Avenger, 55 point Chap, and 70 point chap — foregoing the Patriot all together because it's such an expensive unit for 1v1. It's been working well so far.

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 21:37

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.


I intend to balance the conversation with, "US isn't as bad as it has been made out to be." because while I am an outlier, my results should be taken into account. I want to see Greyhound's results with US in 1vs1 as he is giving it a shot.

When many US/NORAD players rely on the Longbow and quit immediately if it doesn't pay off something is wrong from a game play perspective. Much like the helicopter rush problem which has been addressed incrementally over time. I haven't said not to change US; I question the focus of the change.

I find it admirable that Eugene has been keeping US competitive almost across the board (from my perspective) and have looked forward to each patch they release. I don't think the same can be said of some previous Meta decks.

Coletrain wrote:They don't have good all-round motorized AA like the OSA and ROMB units, which are particularly powerful in the opening stages of the game.

With that said, I've been experimenting with using 4 cards of AA including PIVADS, Avenger, 55 point Chap, and 70 point chap. Foregoing the Patriot all together because it's such an expensive unit for 1v1. It's been working well so far.


Can you expand on that - what rank of play do you find yourself in and where do you see difficulty? I've had trouble with an avenger because it typically trades with a rocket pod helo. I also wondered about the 55 point chap but my problem has been dealing with planes - chaparral hasn't been reliable for me.
Image
Making #US Great, One Ranked Match At A Time.

Ribar
Warrant Officer
Posts: 479
Joined: Fri 7 Sep 2012 09:27
Location: Belgrade,Serbia
Contact:

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

Postby Ribar » Mon 19 Dec 2016 00:19

ThePriyad wrote:
Coletrain wrote:They don't have good all-round motorized AA like the OSA and ROMB units, which are particularly powerful in the opening stages of the game.

With that said, I've been experimenting with using 4 cards of AA including PIVADS, Avenger, 55 point Chap, and 70 point chap. Foregoing the Patriot all together because it's such an expensive unit for 1v1. It's been working well so far.


Can you expand on that - what rank of play do you find yourself in and where do you see difficulty? I've had trouble with an avenger because it typically trades with a rocket pod helo. I also wondered about the 55 point chap but my problem has been dealing with planes - chaparral hasn't been reliable for me.


I would go for the 70 and 40 point chap, i-hawk PIP III and Patriot. No place for pivads in my deck. But most certainly I would take a card of Stinger C. That 70% accuracy cannot be ignored. Pair them up, and they almost guarantee a hit against any aircraft that flies over. The other 5 HPs can be dealt with Patriot or I-HAWK.

As for the fast opening : who needs a ROMB and OSA when you have DAPs? Asymmetrical balance my friend :mrgreen:
Redfor has OSA and ROMB to keep enemy early helicopter attack, while you have DAPs and OH-58s.
Image :mrgreen:

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 » Mon 19 Dec 2016 00:24

Out of curiousity, have you ever thought about dropping one of the attack planes (deagle or prowler) in favor of the Tomcat?

I've found that it completely shuts down most air tabs when paired with a blk52, and gives you some flex if you lose the Patriot for whatever reason.

Return to “Wargame : Red Dragon”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 37 guests

cron