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.