Broken Stuff that Needs Fixing ASAP

[Shifu]

Applied two minor edits. Keep it civil folks.

[GARGEAN]

Extra, extra! Razzmann is biased and knows nothing about game!

[Guggy]

Extra, extra! Razzmann is biased and knows nothing about game!

He'll be the sole consultant for the next DLC

[Shika]

Don't worry dude, we all know you're just a crybaby who loses all the time and blames a 5 point cheaper unit for your hilarious failure. Go 'fix' the game by making a mod that forces symmetrical balance because you cannot stand the tiny assymetrical balance in Wargame, any unit that you don't match or beat is OVERPOWERED!!!!1

Let me do some 'splainin' buddy; you come here and start talking smack about balance issues that you clearly have no perspective or knowledge on and then start trying to insult one of the better players of the game. Any valid point you may had (however unlikely that is) is now considered irrelevant due to the fact that your ability to communicate is ham-stringed by your petulant attitude.

Five point price differences at the low end of the spectrum can be quite significant, just look at Jaeger and Gevaermenn '90; when they were ten points, they were some of the best line infantry around because they could one-shot 2AV and had better MGs than everybody else. Now look at Jaakari '90, they are ten points, have glorious M72A4 and have an above average machine gun making them the best ten point line infantry squad by a large margin which when combined with their transport options, makes them quite the outlier when compared to similarly priced unit combinations.

You mean exactly like Razz did? If someone does nothing but trash talk instead of argue over actual information then I'm going to do it back. If you're butthurt by my responses to him, but not his responses to me, you may need to realize you're a fanboy here

point 1 conflicts with point 2

If the range is standardized how come they're so elusive in your eyes? They just get a second missile off quicker, if you go head to head you will beat it unless it gets both hits. Short range missiles matter absolutely because it means if you get in close you win, if you try to sit back or go head to head from distance it's just a coin toss. MiG wins if both hit, if not, you win

The point is that getting those two missiles off at the same time instead of a 2-3 second delay will save you from flying over enemy ADN, which is a big part of the air game and a huge advantage. Further, "just get a second missile off quicker" isn't really cutting it. Either all planes with such a capability should be allowed to ripple fire or none. All interceptors got that ability, but only one ASF, making it far more effective than its counterparts.

The Hawk is comparable to the ROK Dragonfly, the American A-6A, AV-6B, and the CF-116. That's if you want to compare it to planes with conventional bombs and not rockets or napalm. If you include those, it is similar to many on both sides

Did you really cite the Dragonfly as a viable plane? LMAO. 600km/h vs. 900km/h. Worse bombs, worse missiles and higher price for that.

The A6-A always flies over the target dropping in a line. A major disadvantage.

What is the AV-6B? I don't know and cannot find such a plane.

CF-116 is worse again. No ECM vs. 10% (pretty significant difference), worse speed and worse turn time (hence longer stay over target). Okay it gets another bomb, but again pays extra for being way less survivable.

When did I argue against point 5? If you connect 2 missiles on an ASF the MiG-29 is dead, and you could do the same on any ASF. Fire and evac, it's always how it's been done. The MiG-29 just gets 2 missiles off quicker

The speed of missile use is exactly the problem here. It gives you 100% more instant lethality over any other ASF in game. Such a capability should not exist in section as streamlined as planes. Every F&F long-range missiles capable fighter has a two second "reload" before being able to fire the second missile. The same principle should be applied to the Finnish MiG.

I honestly don't get your argument. We both agreed the MiG-29 needs a tweak, but now you're arguing things that are blatantly false if you take a look at the armory

Please name by blatantly false arguments. If you are hinting on that plane comparison, you should reconsider quite a bit.

Ah so it's one of those posts where despite me showing you plenty of competitors to the Hawk none of them are good enough. The Dragonfly is more versatile because it also carries cluster bombs, they come in handy at times and are useless in others. It's slower because it can kill 2 types of units. I mean really dude, you're worried about loiter time and turn time on a plane primarily used for bombing flanking units, if you are using these as front line bombers you're not using them efficiently, all of them will die including the Hawk.

Sorry, I typod. It's the AV-8A. It's the same exact unit as the Hawk but 300km/h slower and 10% less ECM. However you get them at a higher veterancy, the Hawk is only available in trained, you get the AV-8A in veteran in a base deck. You're missing the point in my MiG-29 explanation. You make them sound like they're invincible, they're too strong but I'm explaining to you their downsides still. They will lose out to any close battle or if one of their missile misses, that doesn't make them balanced, but you're acting like it's impossible to kill them and that's dishonest.

Your plane argument was blatantly dishonest. If you're going to argue over competitors you need to know the units in the game. If I have to explain to you the units that match it only for you to look for things that lead to your predetermined conclusion, I'm wasting my time

The Hawk is the same as its competitors besides the A6 which has 20% ECM and a higher payload, and the CF-116 which has a higher payload and both are 10-15 points more expensive. For its direct competitors it's basically the same exact unit but faster, and given a negligable 10% ECM(if you want to argue about ECM on a PACT plane you should realize the hypocrisy there. There are NATO planes with 30% ECM at 75 points. If you don't have a problem with that but have a problem with 10% ECM, you are delusional) while coming in with 2 lower veterancy over the AV-8A. Should the AV-8A be nerfed because it's the same unit as others but it has a higher veterancy? I mean come on, it's just silly nitpicking units to be so copypasted that nobody has a leg up in any way. I would pay the extra 15 points and buy the A-6A because it kills more and survives more over the 60 point option. Is the world going to end because the Hawk and AV-8A are better than other 60 point conventional bombers? Is this really something we need a thread over? Seems pointless

[Markenzwieback]

Tons of replies.

Spoiler : :

Ah so it's one of those posts where despite me showing you plenty of competitors to the Hawk none of them are good enough.

All of them have quite the disadvantages over the Hawk. Be it speed, ECM, drop pattern, etc.

It's the same exact unit as the Hawk but 300km/h slower and 10% less ECM.

Making it stay over target way longer and therefore easy prey even for worse AA systems.

However you get them at a higher veterancy, the Hawk is only available in trained, you get the AV-8A in veteran in a base deck.

You loose one plane per card for the veterancy bonus, so your argument doesn't really make sense. Especially since the veterancy is hardly notable on dumb bombs in game.

that doesn't make them balanced, but you're acting like it's impossible to kill them and that's dishonest.

Nothing is impossible to kill. Yet the Finnish MiG-29 trades way to favorably and cost-effectively against high-end ASFs due to ripple-fire and veterancy combination.

Your plane argument was blatantly dishonest. If you're going to argue over competitors you need to know the units in the game. If I have to explain to you the units that match it only for you to look for things that lead to your predetermined conclusion.

I know these units and consider them way inferior to the Hawk. First because of speed bonus, second because of the ECM, or third because of the highly retarded drop pattern (A6-A). The Hawk simply is underpriced by 10 points compared to these units.

The Hawk is the same as its competitors [...] For its direct competitors it's basically the same exact unit but faster, and given a negligable 10% ECM

See the point just above.

while coming in with 2 lower veterancy over the AV-8A

Veterancy is a non-argument on dumb bombs. Especially since both the AV-8A and the Hawk have the same availability @ 3 on trained.

Should the AV-8A be nerfed because it's the same unit as others but it has a higher veterancy?

No it shouldn't, because it already gets one less plane per card due to higher veterancy levels.

Is this really something we need a thread over? Seems pointless

Its one of many aspects discussed in this thread, which combined form a too strong coalition deck. I don't consider that pointless.

[Shika]

Tons of replies.

Spoiler : :

Ah so it's one of those posts where despite me showing you plenty of competitors to the Hawk none of them are good enough.

All of them have quite the disadvantages over the Hawk. Be it speed, ECM, drop pattern, etc.

It's the same exact unit as the Hawk but 300km/h slower and 10% less ECM.

Making it stay over target way longer and therefore easy prey even for worse AA systems.

However you get them at a higher veterancy, the Hawk is only available in trained, you get the AV-8A in veteran in a base deck.

You loose one plane per card for the veterancy bonus, so your argument doesn't really make sense. Especially since the veterancy is hardly notable on dumb bombs in game.

that doesn't make them balanced, but you're acting like it's impossible to kill them and that's dishonest.

Nothing is impossible to kill. Yet the Finnish MiG-29 trades way to favorably and cost-effectively against high-end ASFs due to ripple-fire and veterancy combination.

Your plane argument was blatantly dishonest. If you're going to argue over competitors you need to know the units in the game. If I have to explain to you the units that match it only for you to look for things that lead to your predetermined conclusion.

I know these units and consider them way inferior to the Hawk. First because of speed bonus, second because of the ECM, or third because of the highly retarded drop pattern (A6-A). The Hawk simply is underpriced by 10 points compared to these units.

The Hawk is the same as its competitors [...] For its direct competitors it's basically the same exact unit but faster, and given a negligable 10% ECM

See the point just above.

while coming in with 2 lower veterancy over the AV-8A

Veterancy is a non-argument on dumb bombs. Especially since both the AV-8A and the Hawk have the same availability @ 3 on trained.

Should the AV-8A be nerfed because it's the same unit as others but it has a higher veterancy?

No it shouldn't, because it already gets one less plane per card due to higher veterancy levels.

Is this really something we need a thread over? Seems pointless

Its one of many aspects discussed in this thread, which combined form a too strong coalition deck. I don't consider that pointless.

Veterancy matters on bombers, it's the difference between one hit stun making them miss their drop and lead to almost certain death.

Card count vs veterancy means fragile planes in high quantity vs more survivable planes in lower quantity. That's a tradeoff. Not every unit needs to be exactly the same to be balanced. I'll take 1 less with higher vet any day

Really the Hawk is underpriced? Because at 60 points it outclasses the others besides the AV-6A. However when you get to 70 points like you say it belongs at, it now is 5 points off from planes with 2 types of bombs and 20% ECM with 1k km/h on Yugo, and NATO planes with 30% ECM & 20 ECM with higher payloads in between 70 and 80 points with 150-300km/h slower speeds. I would not say that's where it belongs. You raise it 10 points and its competing poorly with the planes on that level. The Hawk has a copypasted unit with 300km/h slower speed for the same price. Eugen clearly did not think that speed is worth an extra 10 points. It may be a fact of life that they wanted the Hawk to be slightly better than its competitors just like they wanted the AV-8A to be slightly better. That doesn't mean you need to come to a 'broken shit' thread and complain about a unit that in the grand scheme is far from an issue compared to some of the plane configurations in game for their price.

If you think BF is a too strong coalition deck you need to take a look at the existing ones in this game. I've explained earlier on deaf ears. The MiG-29 needs to be fixed and the Mi-8T KT ROF needs to be fixed. Don't overstep your boundaries and try to make the nation become another pile of trash, let it be a good coalition and fix the things that are clearly too strong. You're trying to remove everything good about the coalition here and that's stupid and childish, there are coalitions with good units but instead of complaining play one that can compete with them. As I said before if you are playing BD vs BF/Entente I feel for you, if you're playing EC or Israel vs these guys, I have no sympathy for you besides the MiG-29 being too strong.

[GARGEAN]

Extra, extra! The whole forum is Razzmann fanboys! Veteransy on bombers matters! New revelations every monday!

[HrcAk47]

Yugo L-15M is not 5, but 15 pts more expensive and comes at way less per card, also has no A2A missiles. And your idea of veterancy on bombers being whatsoever important leads me to believe you stopped playing this game somewhere mid-ALB.

[Markenzwieback]

Don't overstep your boundaries

lol

[XanderTuron]

You mean exactly like Razz did? If someone does nothing but trash talk instead of argue over actual information then I'm going to do it back. If you're butthurt by my responses to him, but not his responses to me, you may need to realize you're a fanboy here

It's funny that you mention actual information; actual information has been provided to you, and yet you keep attacking people and making unsupported claims, so either step up, or sit down.