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

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 » Sat 17 Dec 2016 19:21

The lack of a cheap all-round FSV really shows. This is actually not an unusable deck but I'm not entirely sure how you intend to counter BMPs without sinking at least 45 pts or running a 5 man SMAW team. I do find using Rangers as your combat inf to be rather interesting after all, even if they don't actually have FSV options. Personally, I don't actually use the CEV that often anymore, I find anyone worth their salt doesn't actually bunch enough to make the thing worthwhile after the aim time nerf.

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

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

Postby ThePriyad » Sat 17 Dec 2016 19:59

kiheerSEDMAN wrote:The lack of a cheap all-round FSV really shows. This is actually not an unusable deck but I'm not entirely sure how you intend to counter BMPs without sinking at least 45 pts or running a 5 man SMAW team. I do find using Rangers as your combat inf to be rather interesting after all, even if they don't actually have FSV options. Personally, I don't actually use the CEV that often anymore, I find anyone worth their salt doesn't actually bunch enough to make the thing worthwhile after the aim time nerf.


That lack of cheap FSV is why US isn't meta, but it has the tools to have a decent chance to beat it. US is fine after 2vs2 and its mainly because of the consolidation of units instead of dealing with the majority of the map at all times. Given those two things, the play style required is revealed.

Dealing with enemy FSV comes down to positioning on the map. In the ranked match I refer to in the OP you'll see a push work stunningly well and also a push get completely stomped due to not bringing any FSV over 30 points; nor did I use smoke to force enemy movement.

CEV is still worth it because of the map pool. A single 8 HE shell landing near enemy infantry fighting your Riflemens is very helpful. Granted, a mortar can handle a similar role, but CEV shines more so when the enemy is pushing into your forest from the open field. The CEV gets moved up to deal with them and it won't get shot by auto-cannons either with 12 F.AV. The CS, ONTOS or any other <40 point FSV option will get demolished by auto-cannon transports.

Remember, the sheer presence of a CEV can impact an enemy player to turn off their MGs to make sure RPGs fire off before its too late. That can help Riflemen '90 win on its own.

CEV is less helpful the more players there are as tanks are almost always joining pushes.
Image
Making #US Great, One Ranked Match At A Time.

User avatar
Greyhound
Sergeant Major of the Army
Posts: 377
Joined: Sun 9 Aug 2015 16:47
Location: Czech Republic
Contact:

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

Postby Greyhound » Sat 17 Dec 2016 20:16

Great guide. I have been recently playing some USA in ranked and had great fun playing it. :D
Image

User avatar
Sir Typhoon
Chief Warrant Officer
Posts: 517
Joined: Sat 30 Jan 2016 13:17
Contact:

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

Postby Sir Typhoon » Sat 17 Dec 2016 20:49

1 Patriot :|, Did you think about martars? I mean, mortars can do panic your patriot, stun it, and kill it too easy? I think, only 1 Patriot is too risky.

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

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

Postby ThePriyad » Sat 17 Dec 2016 21:05

Sir Typhoon wrote:1 Patriot :|, Did you think about martars? I mean, mortars can do panic your patriot, stun it, and kill it too easy? I think, only 1 Patriot is too risky.


You're right; scoot and shoot. Hawk line doesn't move too fast either so its harder to avoid the mortar counter barrage.
Image
Making #US Great, One Ranked Match At A Time.

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

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

Postby ThePriyad » Sat 17 Dec 2016 21:16

Greyhound wrote:Great guide. I have been recently playing some USA in ranked and had great fun playing it. :D


I look forward to seeing what you learned since last time.
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 » Sat 17 Dec 2016 21:28

ThePriyad wrote:That lack of cheap FSV is why US isn't meta, but it has the tools to have a decent chance to beat it. US is fine after 2vs2 and its mainly because of the consolidation of units instead of dealing with the majority of the map at all times. Given those two things, the play style required is revealed.

Dealing with enemy FSV comes down to positioning on the map. In the ranked match I refer to in the OP you'll see a push work stunningly well and also a push get completely stomped due to not bringing any FSV over 30 points; nor did I use smoke to force enemy movement.

CEV is still worth it because of the map pool. A single 8 HE shell landing near enemy infantry fighting your Riflemens is very helpful. Granted, a mortar can handle a similar role, but CEV shines more so when the enemy is pushing into your forest from the open field. The CEV gets moved up to deal with them and it won't get shot by auto-cannons either with 12 F.AV. The CS, ONTOS or any other <40 point FSV option will get demolished by auto-cannon transports.

Remember, the sheer presence of a CEV can impact an enemy player to turn off their MGs to make sure RPGs fire off before its too late. That can help Riflemen '90 win on its own.

CEV is less helpful the more players there are as tanks are almost always joining pushes.
Decent is really a bit of a strong word for 1v1s but 2v2s do allow you to run a support deck due to the focused push nature of them.

Anything can be countered with good positioning technically, but it's hardly a sufficient argument to call the US good enough to 1v1 with. There's a reason "just side shot it" is a meme.

Personally, LAV-Ms do that job a lot better. While their range leaves much to be desired, trying to run through all their ammo ASAP is exponentially more useful than CEVs IMO. I'd just rather buy CS most of the time.

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 » Sat 17 Dec 2016 23:04

Are LR 90 really worth it? Why not a Super M60/MBT-70 card?
Mobile Units Operational :!:

throwaway
Lieutenant
Posts: 1262
Joined: Fri 27 Feb 2015 21:23
Contact:

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

Postby throwaway » Sun 18 Dec 2016 00:50

QUAD wrote:Are LR 90 really worth it? Why not a Super M60/MBT-70 card?

If you don't have atgm then taking and holding cities is far less beneficial. With an ATGM it makes all movement in the area hard, without one there's just the passive threat of optics. And it also makes the town far easier to take.

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 01:25

kiheerSEDMAN wrote:Decent is really a bit of a strong word for 1v1s but 2v2s do allow you to run a support deck due to the focused push nature of them.

Anything can be countered with good positioning technically, but it's hardly a sufficient argument to call the US good enough to 1v1 with. There's a reason "just side shot it" is a meme.

Personally, LAV-Ms do that job a lot better. While their range leaves much to be desired, trying to run through all their ammo ASAP is exponentially more useful than CEVs IMO. I'd just rather buy CS most of the time.


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.

QUAD wrote:Are LR 90 really worth it? Why not a Super M60/MBT-70 card?


Yes. Light Riflemen '90 are fantastic at holding cities currently. 9 ammo, 1925m 15 AP can 1 shot 1 F.AV vehicles and 2 shot up to 7 F.AV. Recognize that FSV from meta have up to 4 armor, and max 1925m range with bad optics. Therefore 2 LR 90 can do a lot to stop a push. Add in combined arms and you got an efficient holding force.

Super M60/MBT-70 are explained at the OP. Essentially too pricey to combat current meta tanks.
Image
Making #US Great, One Ranked Match At A Time.

Return to “Wargame : Red Dragon”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 48 guests