Brutoni wrote: tiago wrote:
Radioshow wrote:Really? NATO is not OP, and never said PACT was OP.
But this is a game and regardless of reality it needs to be playable from both sides. And I beg to differ that the Soviet equipment should be better on every front.
NATO should not be better either. But from reading these post some people seem to think its ok to have one side supremely OP just because, well, they think they were in reality.
NATO had supremacy in deliverable Nuclear warheads and Solid fueled missiles(soviets had mostly liquid fueled), this is not modeled and is a reason NATO was not too worried as they were expected to have to nuke them anyway.
This is a game that only models some aspects of a greater picture. Some units like T80u's should be beasts, but not every friggin unit in PACT's arsenal was godlike!
Was not worried? That is why they spend more on weapons than in education , health etc?
Your twisting the words of his post. I notice a lot of people who are arguing for no changes what so ever to the game often do that. NATO operated trip wire policy until quite late in the Cold War. Due to this the strength of conventional PACT forces while concerning was not a critical component. Instead the capability of PACT to react in the nuclear scale was more important. This did change when policy went back to nuclear escalation in the hope that a diplomatic resolution could be achieved before convention warfare and tactical nuclear went to strategic nuclear.
The main part of this persons post was concerning balance. This is a game. We can argue the merits of cold war policy from each country and the respective military and who had the best strategic vision and direction (Arguably NATO as they won the cold war because PACT collapsed). However that is not the point. We need to achieve a balanced game.
Currently USSR is very close to being OP or IS OP. The selection of good quality units that out perform NATO with ease of "chaff" means that it is very difficult to stop a competent USSR player from achieving total dominance due to the limitations of game engines and micro management coupled with certain NATO strengths in the game (air) not being modelled particularly well with issues like those seen on the F-15 Strike Eagle and the range of air launched weapons compared to the godly BUK choice. Time will tell if we just need to get used to a new game but the sheer hostility and general refusal to look at balance changes in a BETA (the whole point of a BETA) from PACT players while moaning about things like swingfire ATGM's so they get balanced changed (funny yet another option to stop your tank rush reduced!!) makes me believe you just want to sit fat, dumb and happy.
Exactly Brutoni. If Fri13 had his way it would be impossible to beat PACT. NATO may have not been able to beat PACT in a conventional war, we will never know for that period. But to say you know for sure is arrogance of the highest order. Half of all this is speculation.
You want total realism for one part of the game, then throw it out for others. You cannot simulate everything in this "game" therefor you have to make compromises, approximate or remove features altogether.
If someone made a game where one side was completely OP you would never have any opponents regardless of whether or not it's realistic. Alot of this game is not realistic, but If you think it should be then oh my it better be.
And telling me a unit is ok to be OP because it can be killed is bullcrap. I have no issue with units being close to reality and the T80U being the best tank is fine. But there has to be parity in other areas to compensate. We should not have to use and co-ordinate every tool at our disposal to kill every tank.