USA: Why the hate?

Ghost993514
Private First-Class
Posts: 6
Joined: Tue 18 Apr 2017 20:48
Contact:

USA: Why the hate?

Postby Ghost993514 » Tue 18 Apr 2017 21:07

Why is the US so hated among the community?
Don't get me wrong,they aren't the best (albeit my favorite), but they aren't the worst... they can even be supplemented by Canada using the NORAD coalition.
For example, Delta Force. They are actually really good... I mean, they really only lose out with Spetznaz, or Napalm units in general. But, then again, all (infantry) units are like that.
Sure, their AT is definitely lax, but they shouldn't be engaging with enemy tanks anyways, so, yeah.
Their SMGs are really good, I think... I mean, they can actually fire at a unit with medium optic at max range and not be detected, if they are only firing their MP5s, and they have high accuracy and stability, plus since they are SMGs they have more (100% IIRC) accuracy in same sector fighting, and their LMG is makes up for their SMGs short range.
Keep in mind, they are SF, not frontline infantry. (Note: Russian SF is basically high end frontline infantry, their doctrines are different)
Meaning, they aren't meant for a lot of combat. I personally use their availability to my advantage, using them as security elements for Rangers, SEALs, and Recce when behind enemy lines. I use the Recce to get deep(ish) into the reinforcement sector, while everyone else maneuvers to CP hunt. This is, of course, if they get behind enemy lines successfully...
Another US unit is the Humvee... they are actually pretty good, especially if you escort them with the recon HMMWVs and LAV-25s. They are actually pretty decent, too... their M2s are good for infantry suppression, and can take down enemy transports/vehicles with even 1 armor.
Thoughts?

User avatar
HrcAk47
Colonel
Posts: 2744
Joined: Sat 3 May 2014 18:00
Contact:

Re: USA: Why the hate?

Postby HrcAk47 » Wed 19 Apr 2017 10:03

USA is actually really good, with no big holes, and a lot of strengths.

Only changes they "need" are reworking the M1IP to have 2275 range, and maybe introducing M60A3(TTS).
The SEAD never bothered me anyway.

SMB Yugoslavia Retexture Mod, now released, v.1.0

Ghost993514
Private First-Class
Posts: 6
Joined: Tue 18 Apr 2017 20:48
Contact:

Re: USA: Why the hate?

Postby Ghost993514 » Mon 24 Apr 2017 14:25

Everyone just hates the US... they just require more finesse and microing, I think.
I mean, Rifleman 90' aren't all too bad, they work fine against other line infantry, better even.
And Light Rifleman make great CP snipers. 90' is better still, of course...

User avatar
PzAz04Maus
Lieutenant
Posts: 1365
Joined: Sat 22 Mar 2014 01:42
Contact:

Re: USA: Why the hate?

Postby PzAz04Maus » Mon 24 Apr 2017 17:40

Delta used to be worse, with a 1970s M72 LAW which frankly made it harder for Delta to do their job. At that point in time, they were roundly considered one of the worst SF in the game. With the Carl Gustav Buff, it seems like Delta can actually do a good job at attacking enemy lines since now 1-2 armor things like the MT-LB don't incur a stun tax on them. That was Delta's problem: you got an average infantry killer that barely squeezed past their shock competitors in the same country while a mess of Lowly MT-LBs or, god forgive them, anything better armored would inevitably mean their 20RPM/30% accuracy was going to be suffering from a suppression penalty really quick. It was simply inevitable, compared to Spetsnaz or any other country with better MGs.

Suppressed guns simply don't work in 90% of battles. They have even more of a marginal use case than SMGs, which at least give a massive CQC buff if Delta can ever get in range. Having to turn off the MG on an already mediocre HE/S dealing unit so you don't get spotted from 300-425 meters is so much effort for so little payoff.

Keep in mind, they are SF, not frontline infantry. (Note: Russian SF is basically high end frontline infantry, their doctrines are different)


Without the Carl Gustav, Delta were simply inferior to Rangers because the latter could spot while doing work.

using them as security elements for Rangers, SEALs, and Recce when behind enemy lines.

If we're taking RL doctrine to heart, this should be the exact opposite. Ranger companies are tasked to Delta Detachments to operate as security while Delta does the actual work.

Another US unit is the Humvee... they are actually pretty good, especially if you escort them with the recon HMMWVs and LAV-25s.


1 Armor, KPVTs, and higher end motorized transports with autocannons basically mean the Humvee is dead on arrival. It took 2 years for them to finally buff the humvee from 5 HP to 10. 0 Armor means they take double damage from AP, while any machine gun can damage them. Any HE means they're as squishy as the infantry they carry. In addition, because of how damage works, any 0 armor vehicle that is destroyed applies the damage to the infantry inside. So, in most cases, the infantry don't survive the vehicle's destruction compared to the M113.

If you have to escort a 10 point basic transport with no additional functionality, it's not good. The M113 and MT-LB have more combat value because they don't take double damage from autocannons, full damage from LMGs, or 12 AP AT.

Additionally, the Bushmaster is an extremely underperforming autocannon. The Bushmaster performs adequately in the light vehicle killing role, but that ability to remove light vehicles hardly makes up for the disadvantage the US has compared to more effective infantry complements or massive amounts of fire support vehicles. It took 2 years for the US to fully capitalize on the amount of TOW power they can place on the field with the IFV armor buff. It took a year for the US to finally get shock infantry outside of marines, and those are low availability Rangers.

There are issues with the US deck that are not adequately substituted in my opinion. The lack of survivable motorized transports, ffective infantry ATGMs, the mediocre/high skill level ADN (Patriot excluded), and the lack of survivability in the infantry fight outside of the more recent CEV buff have undermined the US advantages in good mid-high level tanks, a solid but high priced air tab, and their fielding of delicious amounts of TOWs.

The US came out of the vanilla game as an incredibly weak faction aside from a handful of meme units ( Longbow cancer, gained patriot 1-2 years later ) and a few prototypes that were absolute junk, while losing the LAV as a transport. They were made worse with the M60/PKM changes from ALB, and many of their high end units still don't have a '90s variant. The SEALs, Delta, and Rangers all were 1970s spec. It took 2 years for the US to be pushed into a okayish state with buffs that everyone else got (which is fine, but underwhelming), but at the same time a lot of other countries gained some truly spectacular units that were actually relevant to the meta.

To summarize, the US is simply mediocre. There's some gems in there, and at this point in time the US is relevant and adequately capable. The problem is that people are tilted from how long it took Eugen to iron out the bugs, I still don't feel their flaws are justifiably substituted with enough fun advantages, a lot of their choices are still stuck in the Vietnam War, there are some major things they weren't given for balance reasons, a lot of their good stuff has passed from relevance, are roundly considered cancer by the community, or has been outcreeped by the introduction of new, meta relevant countries or the buffing of others. The US is in a similar situation to Eastern Block.

Lastly, for the longest time, the US was simply not fun to play. That, in my opinion, is the greatest failure. Right now? The US can be somewhat fun, now that the M60 isn't the 2nd or 3rd worst MG in the game, 3 armor IFVs are the standard, and the US can use Delta or Rangers to replace Marines in a specialized deck. But I still thoroughly recognize that I have some fairly major disadvantages in taking that deck.

It's telling when Yugoslavia and Finland are so much more fun to play, even when I recognize they have significant shortcomings. Even the Dutch are more fun when paired up with the Germans than the US are with the Canadians. You could make this fun argument about quite a few countries, in fact. Red Dragons, I'm sorry for you.

Ghost993514
Private First-Class
Posts: 6
Joined: Tue 18 Apr 2017 20:48
Contact:

Re: USA: Why the hate?

Postby Ghost993514 » Tue 25 Apr 2017 20:12

PzAz04Maus wrote:Delta used to be worse, with a 1970s M72 LAW which frankly made it harder for Delta to do their job. At that point in time, they were roundly considered one of the worst SF in the game. With the Carl Gustav Buff, it seems like Delta can actually do a good job at attacking enemy lines since now 1-2 armor things like the MT-LB don't incur a stun tax on them. That was Delta's problem: you got an average infantry killer that barely squeezed past their shock competitors in the same country while a mess of Lowly MT-LBs or, god forgive them, anything better armored would inevitably mean their 20RPM/30% accuracy was going to be suffering from a suppression penalty really quick. It was simply inevitable, compared to Spetsnaz or any other country with better MGs.

Suppressed guns simply don't work in 90% of battles. They have even more of a marginal use case than SMGs, which at least give a massive CQC buff if Delta can ever get in range. Having to turn off the MG on an already mediocre HE/S dealing unit so you don't get spotted from 300-425 meters is so much effort for so little payoff.

Keep in mind, they are SF, not frontline infantry. (Note: Russian SF is basically high end frontline infantry, their doctrines are different)


Without the Carl Gustav, Delta were simply inferior to Rangers because the latter could spot while doing work.

using them as security elements for Rangers, SEALs, and Recce when behind enemy lines.

If we're taking RL doctrine to heart, this should be the exact opposite. Ranger companies are tasked to Delta Detachments to operate as security while Delta does the actual work.

Another US unit is the Humvee... they are actually pretty good, especially if you escort them with the recon HMMWVs and LAV-25s.


1 Armor, KPVTs, and higher end motorized transports with autocannons basically mean the Humvee is dead on arrival. It took 2 years for them to finally buff the humvee from 5 HP to 10. 0 Armor means they take double damage from AP, while any machine gun can damage them. Any HE means they're as squishy as the infantry they carry. In addition, because of how damage works, any 0 armor vehicle that is destroyed applies the damage to the infantry inside. So, in most cases, the infantry don't survive the vehicle's destruction compared to the M113.

If you have to escort a 10 point basic transport with no additional functionality, it's not good. The M113 and MT-LB have more combat value because they don't take double damage from autocannons, full damage from LMGs, or 12 AP AT.

Additionally, the Bushmaster is an extremely underperforming autocannon. The Bushmaster performs adequately in the light vehicle killing role, but that ability to remove light vehicles hardly makes up for the disadvantage the US has compared to more effective infantry complements or massive amounts of fire support vehicles. It took 2 years for the US to fully capitalize on the amount of TOW power they can place on the field with the IFV armor buff. It took a year for the US to finally get shock infantry outside of marines, and those are low availability Rangers.

There are issues with the US deck that are not adequately substituted in my opinion. The lack of survivable motorized transports, ffective infantry ATGMs, the mediocre/high skill level ADN (Patriot excluded), and the lack of survivability in the infantry fight outside of the more recent CEV buff have undermined the US advantages in good mid-high level tanks, a solid but high priced air tab, and their fielding of delicious amounts of TOWs.

The US came out of the vanilla game as an incredibly weak faction aside from a handful of meme units ( Longbow cancer, gained patriot 1-2 years later ) and a few prototypes that were absolute junk, while losing the LAV as a transport. They were made worse with the M60/PKM changes from ALB, and many of their high end units still don't have a '90s variant. The SEALs, Delta, and Rangers all were 1970s spec. It took 2 years for the US to be pushed into a okayish state with buffs that everyone else got (which is fine, but underwhelming), but at the same time a lot of other countries gained some truly spectacular units that were actually relevant to the meta.

To summarize, the US is simply mediocre. There's some gems in there, and at this point in time the US is relevant and adequately capable. The problem is that people are tilted from how long it took Eugen to iron out the bugs, I still don't feel their flaws are justifiably substituted with enough fun advantages, a lot of their choices are still stuck in the Vietnam War, there are some major things they weren't given for balance reasons, a lot of their good stuff has passed from relevance, are roundly considered cancer by the community, or has been outcreeped by the introduction of new, meta relevant countries or the buffing of others. The US is in a similar situation to Eastern Block.

Lastly, for the longest time, the US was simply not fun to play. That, in my opinion, is the greatest failure. Right now? The US can be somewhat fun, now that the M60 isn't the 2nd or 3rd worst MG in the game, 3 armor IFVs are the standard, and the US can use Delta or Rangers to replace Marines in a specialized deck. But I still thoroughly recognize that I have some fairly major disadvantages in taking that deck.

It's telling when Yugoslavia and Finland are so much more fun to play, even when I recognize they have significant shortcomings. Even the Dutch are more fun when paired up with the Germans than the US are with the Canadians. You could make this fun argument about quite a few countries, in fact. Red Dragons, I'm sorry for you.


All good points, and I play with a Scandinavian deck rather often.
Yes, it is the opposite when it comes to real life security elements, but I use them based off their armament in this game.

What I meant when I said they were SF, they aren't supposed to engage often. They're strategical, meant for more surgical strikes on, say Arty or something.

Yeah, Humvees aren't the best, and I'll admit I'm somewhat biased on that front. I love HMMWVs, and I forgot to mention I also escort them with Avengers and Tows. As for them being 'squishy' I wouldn't agree 100%, but they aren't armored, for sure.

I think all transports need some sort of escort, except maybe the 'heavy' ones like Bradleys, Warriors, BMP/Ds, etc.

There TOW/ATGM power was always adequate to me. I always go for side/rear shots, though.

Oh my god, someone who understands the Longbow issue... I, as a primarily US player, honestly hate how OP it is. I only use it for precision strikes on CVs, paired with a DAP.

Yeah, they REALLY do need some sort of '90 variant of their special forces. I think there should be some sort of way to customize units, though. It would be interesting, you could specialize units more, and perhaps giving them bonuses in the process. For example, Marines (not '90 or regular, this is custom) could be something like ' M16, M72, Colt LMG ' would give them a speed bonus, since the M72 and Colt LMG are lighter than an AT4 and Minimi. Just a thought.

I think the US is fun to play, personally. I think it's because I'm more familiar with their weapons, but I've been trying to move away from them, actually. I started with Commonwealth, since I am fairly familiar with their weapons, too.

It all comes down to personal preference, though, which might be why you don't like them.

I'll try Yugoslavia and Finland individually, though.

Ghost993514
Private First-Class
Posts: 6
Joined: Tue 18 Apr 2017 20:48
Contact:

Re: USA: Why the hate?

Postby Ghost993514 » Tue 25 Apr 2017 20:13

Sorry for the major quote I had to do it quick.

User avatar
PzAz04Maus
Lieutenant
Posts: 1365
Joined: Sat 22 Mar 2014 01:42
Contact:

Re: USA: Why the hate?

Postby PzAz04Maus » Tue 25 Apr 2017 21:23


I think the US is fun to play, personally. I think it's because I'm more familiar with their weapons, but I've been trying to move away from them, actually. I started with Commonwealth, since I am fairly familiar with their weapons, too.

It all comes down to personal preference, though, which might be why you don't like them.


I learned wargame by using the US, and at this point I find them okay. But as far as personal preference goes, it's definitely more than just personal preference when, for example, even users don't find the Longbow to be particularly fun.

Ghost993514
Private First-Class
Posts: 6
Joined: Tue 18 Apr 2017 20:48
Contact:

Re: USA: Why the hate?

Postby Ghost993514 » Thu 27 Apr 2017 15:16

even users don't find the Longbow to be particularly fun.


I find it fun, when I micro it to 'snipe' CPs. Other than that though, it eats at supplies and on that front annoying as all hell.
I use it as a precision/surgical tool more than an attack chopper.

I don't find any particular units fun, it's more in the game for me. For example, you end up failing miserably and defending your last sector in an epic climax, or you win because of sheer tactical superiority, not because you used heli/tank spam, or something. The fun is in the game. :D

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron