wore wrote:I'm reading the 100500th post about "NATO is OP, NERF NERF NERF NERF IT!!!!!!!!111", when some random events or idiotic tactics taken as a basis of such claims. And I'm personally tired with that.
What goddamn NATO advantages are we talking about? Currently, 09.07.2013, NATO don't have any advantage over USSR in any field, except of a few minor and highly situational. Yes, the entire NATO over USSR only. Just open the armory and look at the stats.
I can't believe I have to go over this again, I'm pretty sure we've discussed this in other threads.
Infantry? The only NATO infantry that can be compared to VDV and Soviet Marines are Royal Marines and Kustjagare respectively. Norvegian Stormers and RiMA are pretty good too. However, any NATO infantry (which is useful in forests and towns only) always easilly wiped out by Mighty Glorious Soviet Spetsnaz with 6 dam 10 acc Rys, pretty good CQB weapons, optics and 33 km/h speed. After the Assault Ingeneers were nerfed, NATO simply don't have any unit to counter these beasts. And btw, can Eugene explain, pls, what is this unit? Soviet and Russian army don't have any corps called Spetsnaz.
Assault Engis still beat spetsnaz every time in towns. Forests, the one defending wins.
Oh, and they are half the price and double the availability.
Infantry = even.
Tanks? Clear USSR advantage in tanks. Top - tier NATO tanks - Challenger, Leo2A1 have slightly better armour or a bit more accurate gun, than T-64BV. For 4 Leo2A4 Soviets have 4 T-80U with better armour and better AP. M1A1 is just a joke, the only their advantage over T-64BV is 2 more acc, and US have 4 of them. At the same time, all top Soviet tanks have ATGMs, which allow them to easilly counter NATO tanks while they come closer to gun range. This is a critical advantage of USSR tanks, making NATO heavies useless in 1 vs 1 fights. Moreover, USSR player can deploy significantly more tanks, than NATO player. And, the last, but not least, all USSR heavies have MEDIUM (!!) size, making them a lot harder to hit (with the same or better armour, than NATO BIG tanks have).
USSR has some advantage in tanks, true, mostly T80U though. Mixed PACT, not so much.
ATGMs? Yes, NATO have a few ground - based ATGMs with he stats a bit better, than Soviet ones (which is a source of the countless whine threads), but their carriers are made of paper.
Lolwut someone uses ATGM vehicles? Waste of a slot IMO, especially for PACT. MilanF2 are very useful as a reaction force or to hold buildings, expensive/low availability/low vet ATGM vehicles not so much.
If you have to, use ITOW Bradleys/Obr 1986.
Soviets have their BMPs too, don't forget that.
3 ammo 9ACC 19AP? Please. Only useful for harassment really.
And Soviets have ATGMs on their tanks, so they can either rush these paper NATO ATGM carriers or wait for them and kill them with ATGMs. You need at least 3 missile hits to kill 1 Soviet heavy tank, and only 1 hit to kill 1 NATO ATGM carrier. Soviet players easilly break through NATO ATGM lines most of the times because of that.
You forgot the part where Soviet tanks only have 3 ATGM ammo. Anybody not brain-dead will just post 15-point tanks to soak ATGM and that's it.
Oh, and Soviet heavies also cost way way more than NATO platforms.
And you can't target Milan F2 with an ATGM.
Support? USSR has the best 155mm, 203mm and rocket arty in the game,
Skillfully dodged the part about heavy mortars, the most cost-effective arty in the game, being much worse.
Also, 155mm (MSTA) is the same as NATO (Bkan, AUf1).
203mm is indeed better but a supply hog.
the best IR AA (Tunguska and Tunguska M1) and radar AA (Buk and Buk-M1). Nothing to discuss there.
Lolwut? Marder Roland is much better due to defeating both planes and helos very effectively and 2 cards * 6 per card plus heavy armor making it very hard to kill with arty, clusters, rockets, etc. It's basically all the AA you'll need.
Oh, and don't forget 8 Chaps to only 4 Tunguskas. For less than half the price.
And Ihawk having the same missile as Buk, but being 6 per card.
Helos? USSR Mi-24 are the most heavy armored helis in the game, with 2800m ATGMs for such price and quantity. Mi-28 has 16 (!!) good ATGMs and Ka-50 is just a cheat with its stealth (lolwhat? Ka-50 and stealth technology?) and 3325m 28 AP missiles, allow him to attack even AA. Clear USSR advantage in all the fields, the most powerful NATO attack heli - AH-64 - has only 8 missiles, which are just slightly better, than Atakas.
You clearly don't know what F&F and SALH tags mean. Hellfire is light years ahead of Kokon and even Ataka.
And it's available on 8 choppers in NATO mixed deck.
And don't forget Lynx TOW2 for dealing with cheaper stuff.
And the fact NATO mixed gets a good AA helo.
And the cheap chopper transports.
Sure, PACT's got armor, but it's not like it saves the choppers, just makes the enemy waste one more missile.
In other words, NATO is way better at actually killing things, PACT choppers are harder to kill when they decide to commit suicide once they shoot all their ATGM and fail to kill one heavy.
Recon? Let's start with Soviet armored BRM-1 with exceptional optics and finish with Spetsnaz described above.
Lolwut? NATO's got far cheaper recon infantry (Hussards), 10-man recon infantry (Rangers, you can crashland them in forest and they'll survive), armored recon that can kill stuff (CFV), flying recon that can kill stuff (Kiowa Wr.), etc.
Spetsnaz is only Good Optics and they're way expensive. And only good against people who guard their stuff by infantry not backed up by 15pt tanks/APCs.
As for armored recon, if the enemy is any good, they'll see it coming. If they see it coming, it's dead. That's why having cheap infantry recons is much more important than BRMs and such.
Planes? In Beta, NATO had an advantage in planes. Not anymore. Now USSR have the planes unmatched in their stats. They have the best fighter - Su-27s, with better range and acc than F-15c,
One per slot, shoulda bitched about the Bis instead. Even so, NATO's got far better cannons for dogfights and more planes per card.
the best multirole - MiG - 29 and MiG -29m with their heavy AA missiles and 4 500 - kg clusters,
These clusters now only do as much damage as 250kg before. Sucks against anything other than Armor1 point targets. Basically an overpriced plane.
the best CAS - Su-25T with better range, accuracy and missile quantity, than A-10
Novice XP though, and the missiles aren't F&F IIRC. May be wrong there though.
Su-24MP with "very good" ECM and 10 250 kg bombs
Aardvark blows in out of the water for killing vehicle/AA spams. 24mp is only better if someone challenged decides to make a huge blob of infantry.
better SEADs (Su-24 has the missiles, more accurate than Raven, and a gun
Raven is better stealth which is a huge deal for SEAD. And higher XP I think? May be wrong here.
MiG-25BM has a lot better missiles, than Wild Veasel)
Wild Weasel should be spammed in 1975 as a dogfighter with SEAD on the side. If you use it as SEAD... Why?
and MiG-31M, which is a carbon copy of F-14.
Less XP, again not available for 1975 spam.
Skillfully dodged mentioning the Nighthawk, F16A 1T bombs, Super Entendard, Jaguar A, etc.
But USSR has MiG-31 also. So, W:ALB is the first game, where Soviets have the best, totally unmatched airforce in the game. Congradulations.
Just 1 PACT country - USSR - has more capable forces than the entire NATO, but loosers are still crying "NATO OP NERF NERF NERF". Ridiculous.
I don't play as Pact anymore, because it's just boring. While NATO players have to control their every unit and make impossible things to outfight USSR, USSR players just spam their tanks and send them to the enemy. No need of manuevers, micro, etc. Just click and win. I played 5 games as USSR with a deck full of tanks, and won all 5 games without any efforts. I never got such easy victories as NATO. But looks like spam&click gameplay is still too hard for the most of Pact players: they want to win the game against excellent NATO player without doing anything.
I play both on a regular basis. NATO's easier ATM; sure PACT is very capable but NATO can do all the same things better, T80U being the only exception.