the balance

tiago
Captain
Posts: 1667
Joined: Wed 22 Feb 2012 16:14
Contact:

Re: the balance

Postby tiago » Mon 8 Jul 2013 16:34

Hartmann wrote:I play French national deck as Nato, so I use F2s and HOTs. F2s don't come on any vehicle, making them pretty redundant in the current meta. No good player relies heavily on foot AT teams. You want wheels under your ATGMs. I'm coming to a point where I'm considering removing the F2s from my deck, they're just not useful in the current meta. Too vulnerable to artillery, especially due to them having only 2 health. Konkurs foot teams it's pretty much the same thing, except it takes much longer for artillery to root them out of buildings. This is a huge advantage in the artillery centric meta right now if you do insist on using foot AT. But neither units are particularly amazing atm.

HOTs have power but the 1 less accuracy is pretty huge, I find them unreliable unless you go with really high vet. At which point the availability becomes painful. Using both HOT and Konkurs extensively atm, Konkurs have a noticeably higher hit ratio.

I don't know what player actually consistenty loses heavy tanks to ATGMs from NATO, but if that's a problem for you then you need to rethink your playstyle. ATGM cars don't have remotely the utility against Pact tanks as they do the other way around, they simply get countersniped even if they manage to hit their first shot.

Post some replays though, I'd love to see you play high ranked players and proving me wrong. What team do you play with? For some replays of my play just check the replay repository for those tagged with EPIC. If you want more I can throw some at you.

http://alb-replays.info/#/browse/?searc ... ked=0&ai=0



When you state that the good ATGM is not worth usign in current meta, you are jus tproovign the point that ALL IS WRONG! That poves that URSS Tank avilability nerf was TOO much. Because NATO shoudl be mostly worried with URSS TANKS, not with their mig-23s

User avatar
Mako
General
Posts: 7352
Joined: Sun 5 May 2013 20:00
Location: Cascadia
Contact:

Re: the balance

Postby Mako » Mon 8 Jul 2013 17:19

NATO Potato wrote:
Hartmann wrote: :lol: You have got to be kidding.


Nah, don't worry. Won't happen because people like you don't want to be on a equal playing field with pact.. You might lose.



24AP konkurs.

"Micro is too hard, just give me an ATGM that can hardcounter all heavy armour frontally from extreme range"

If you need this to 'even' the field you must be an absolutely atrocious player.[/quote]
*looks at Milan F2s*[/quote]

*Looks at unrealistic I-TOW ranges*

Seriously, if you're going to make the TOW weapons superior to real life, then make their counterparts better as well.

NSWP is struggling still, the T-72s are now good at close range, but thats it. Nothing can hurt a heavy tank at range. (Cost effectively against an equally skilled opponent)
If there's two kinds of players, those that like challenges and those that want a fair game, pubstomps should make everyone happy.

User avatar
Halfbodied Jish
First Sergeant
Posts: 206
Joined: Wed 26 Jun 2013 19:16
Contact:

Re: the balance

Postby Halfbodied Jish » Mon 8 Jul 2013 17:22

Radioshow wrote:
mrl0ve wrote:give leopard 2a4 12 aviabillity


:lol: You have got to be kidding.


:lol: You crazy?

mrl0ve wrote:and make it a prototype


I do agree with this however.
Image

HarryD
Master Sergeant
Posts: 183
Joined: Thu 7 Jun 2012 12:15
Location: Central Russia
Contact:

Re: the balance

Postby HarryD » Tue 9 Jul 2013 11:21

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.

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.

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 are MEDIUM (!!) in size, making them a lot harder to be hit (with the same or better armour, than NATO BIG tanks have).

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. Soviets have their BMPs too, don't forget that. 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.

Support? USSR has the best 155mm, 203mm and rocket arty in the game, the best IR AA (Tunguska and Tunguska M1) and radar AA (Buk and Buk-M1). Nothing to discuss there.

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.

Recon? Let's start with Soviet armored BRM-1 with exceptional optics and finish with Spetsnaz described above.

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, the best multirole - MiG - 29 and MiG -29m with their heavy AA missiles and 4 500 - kg clusters, the best CAS - Su-25T with better range, accuracy and missile quantity, than A-10, Su-24MP with "very good" ECM and 10 250 kg bombs, better SEADs (Su-24 has the missiles, more accurate than the Raven ones, and a gun, MiG-25BM has a lot better missiles, than Wild Veasel) and MiG-31M, which is a carbon copy of F-14. 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.
Last edited by HarryD on Tue 9 Jul 2013 19:05, edited 2 times in total.
Furthermore I consider that Buratino must lose it's NPLM trait.

HarryD in Steam and Wargame RD

Previously known as Wore on the forums

User avatar
wargamer1985
Brigadier
Posts: 3305
Joined: Sat 4 May 2013 00:36
Contact:

Re: the balance

Postby wargamer1985 » Tue 9 Jul 2013 15:54

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.

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.

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).

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. Soviets have their BMPs too, don't forget that. 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.

Support? USSR has the best 155mm, 203mm and rocket arty in the game, the best IR AA (Tunguska and Tunguska M1) and radar AA (Buk and Buk-M1). Nothing to discuss there.

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.

Recon? Let's start with Soviet armored BRM-1 with exceptional optics and finish with Spetsnaz described above.

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, the best multirole - MiG - 29 and MiG -29m with their heavy AA missiles and 4 500 - kg clusters, the best CAS - Su-25T with better range, accuracy and missile quantity, than A-10, Su-24MP with "very good" ECM and 10 250 kg bombs, better SEADs (Su-24 has the missiles, more accurate than Raven, and a gun, MiG-25BM has a lot better missiles, than Wild Veasel) and MiG-31M, which is a carbon copy of F-14. 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 actually find the M1A1 Superior to many tanks due to great gun and stabilizers (I actually think it is superior to the Leo2A4 )
And I find that while the SU-27S gets the first shot it has a longer reload (because it is. SA)
APPLY TO THE GLORIOUS CULT OF THE WARHAWK! LIBERATING NAZIS SINCE 1939!
Image

HarryD
Master Sergeant
Posts: 183
Joined: Thu 7 Jun 2012 12:15
Location: Central Russia
Contact:

Re: the balance

Postby HarryD » Tue 9 Jul 2013 17:23

wargamer1985 wrote:I actually find the M1A1 Superior to many tanks due to great gun and stabilizers (I actually think it is superior to the Leo2A4 )
And I find that while the SU-27S gets the first shot it has a longer reload (because it is. SA)

Bot M1A1 and Leo2A4 will likely be stunned and destroyed before they can attack in 1v1 fight vs Soviet godlike tanks. Stabilizer doesn't matter in this game as I see.
And Su-27S also has better acc and likely will hit F-15C with his 1st shot.
Furthermore I consider that Buratino must lose it's NPLM trait.

HarryD in Steam and Wargame RD

Previously known as Wore on the forums

User avatar
HEROFOX
First Sergeant
Posts: 214
Joined: Mon 24 Jun 2013 08:24
Contact:

Re: the balance

Postby HEROFOX » Tue 9 Jul 2013 18:32

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.

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.

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).

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. Soviets have their BMPs too, don't forget that. 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.

Support? USSR has the best 155mm, 203mm and rocket arty in the game, the best IR AA (Tunguska and Tunguska M1) and radar AA (Buk and Buk-M1). Nothing to discuss there.

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.

Recon? Let's start with Soviet armored BRM-1 with exceptional optics and finish with Spetsnaz described above.

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, the best multirole - MiG - 29 and MiG -29m with their heavy AA missiles and 4 500 - kg clusters, the best CAS - Su-25T with better range, accuracy and missile quantity, than A-10, Su-24MP with "very good" ECM and 10 250 kg bombs, better SEADs (Su-24 has the missiles, more accurate than Raven, and a gun, MiG-25BM has a lot better missiles, than Wild Veasel) and MiG-31M, which is a carbon copy of F-14. 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.


Holy cow, someone who knows what he's talking about. Minus some of the Helos, man-based ATGM and Planes, I agree with you.

Anyone who thinks USSR is actually at a disadvantage in competitive play must be crazy, or bad, or crazy bad.
Image

User avatar
homerfcb
Lieutenant
Posts: 1199
Joined: Mon 24 Sep 2012 16:33
Contact:

Re: the balance

Postby homerfcb » Tue 9 Jul 2013 19:08

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.

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.

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).

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. Soviets have their BMPs too, don't forget that. 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.

Support? USSR has the best 155mm, 203mm and rocket arty in the game, the best IR AA (Tunguska and Tunguska M1) and radar AA (Buk and Buk-M1). Nothing to discuss there.

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.

Recon? Let's start with Soviet armored BRM-1 with exceptional optics and finish with Spetsnaz described above.

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, the best multirole - MiG - 29 and MiG -29m with their heavy AA missiles and 4 500 - kg clusters, the best CAS - Su-25T with better range, accuracy and missile quantity, than A-10, Su-24MP with "very good" ECM and 10 250 kg bombs, better SEADs (Su-24 has the missiles, more accurate than Raven, and a gun, MiG-25BM has a lot better missiles, than Wild Veasel) and MiG-31M, which is a carbon copy of F-14. 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.


Your problem is that you just pick up the stats, where pact is better... What somebody just have said, you cannot mention the M1A1 without mentioning its stabalizers. Or talking about AA without to mentrion its availability. Don't misunderstand me, I don't really think that NATO is that superior, but if somebody reald your post, he will think that pact is ultra overpowered. That's just wrong... And yes, you've said some wrong things...
Moreover you should be fair enough to say, that the same cries came from NATO players according pact armory, and here the devs reacted..
The big nerf whiners thread, much controversal stuff, some suggestions and some more stuff, also with a big Patriot range explanation Just klick me, or go here viewtopic.php?f=155&t=48184

Gopblin
Major-General
Posts: 3620
Joined: Thu 24 May 2012 19:10
Contact:

Re: the balance

Postby Gopblin » Tue 9 Jul 2013 19:16

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.
Just no.

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.

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.


Skillfully dodged mentioning the Nighthawk, F16A 1T bombs, Super Entendard, Jaguar A, etc. Congratulations.

Just 1 PACT country - USSR - has more capable forces than the entire NATO, but loosers are still crying "NATO OP NERF NERF NERF". Ridiculous.


viewtopic.php?f=91&t=32510

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.

Best wishes,
Daniel.
Nationality? - Russian.
Occupation? - No, no, just visiting.

rrev
Sergeant First-Class
Posts: 140
Joined: Mon 27 Feb 2012 20:19
Contact:

Re: the balance

Postby rrev » Tue 9 Jul 2013 19:21

Lol Gobplin you truly disciplined that one :D
All kinds of NATO fanboys are coming out from their caves now that they realize (maybe) Eugen no longer tolerates one deck to have the best units in every single category

Return to “Wargame : AirLand Battle”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 guests