the balance

v-snejok
Chief Warrant Officer
Posts: 656
Joined: Sat 25 May 2013 12:03
Contact:

Re: the balance

Postby v-snejok » Tue 9 Jul 2013 19:56

good answer to NATOboy

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

Re: the balance

Postby HEROFOX » Tue 9 Jul 2013 20:12

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.


In what? 10v10 Randoms?

What about 3v3 organized vs. skilled players? Pure USSR has all the tools for the job fighting against NATO. There's a huge difference between PACT and USSR National. It's PACT that needs buffs, but none of which directly affecting pure USSR.
Image

v-snejok
Chief Warrant Officer
Posts: 656
Joined: Sat 25 May 2013 12:03
Contact:

Re: the balance

Postby v-snejok » Tue 9 Jul 2013 20:14

HEROFOX wrote:
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.


In what? 10v10 Randoms?

What about 3v3 organized vs. skilled players? Pure USSR has all the tools for the job fighting against NATO. There's a huge difference between PACT and USSR National. It's PACT that needs buffs, but none of which directly affecting pure USSR.

USSR need buff too, buratino, smerch, bmp-3, change some planes loadout and etc.

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

Re: the balance

Postby HEROFOX » Tue 9 Jul 2013 20:20

v-snejok wrote:
HEROFOX wrote:
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.


In what? 10v10 Randoms?

What about 3v3 organized vs. skilled players? Pure USSR has all the tools for the job fighting against NATO. There's a huge difference between PACT and USSR National. It's PACT that needs buffs, but none of which directly affecting pure USSR.

USSR need buff too, buratino, smerch, bmp-3, change some planes loadout and etc.


Sure, maybe down the road, but nothing serious enough to warrant immediate buffs.

Mixed PACT needs some love sure, but this doesn't change the fact that pure USSR is doing just fine in high-level matches.
Image

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

Re: the balance

Postby Gopblin » Tue 9 Jul 2013 20:52

HEROFOX wrote:
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.


In what? 10v10 Randoms?

What about 3v3 organized vs. skilled players? Pure USSR has all the tools for the job fighting against NATO. There's a huge difference between PACT and USSR National. It's PACT that needs buffs, but none of which directly affecting pure USSR.


Still the same problems, just to a lesser extent.
Actually e.g. NATO's more cost-efficient mortars, infantry ATGMs, recon, cheap armor, and better air/AA are a bigger deal in smaller, lower points matches, but OTOH PACT's problems with availability don't come into play as much.
Basically 4 T80U on the field of 20 tanks is a bigger deal than 4 T80U out of a 100 tanks; but the same is true of Nighthawk and MilanF2.

Also, while I agree that PACT mixed is in a sore need of a buff, it's actually efficient in 10v10 as an artyspam deck (well, this has more to do with the fact USSR can't do a proper artyspam so you're stuck doing it with an otherwise inferior mixed deck).

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

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

Re: the balance

Postby HEROFOX » Tue 9 Jul 2013 21:02

Gopblin wrote:
HEROFOX wrote:
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.


In what? 10v10 Randoms?

What about 3v3 organized vs. skilled players? Pure USSR has all the tools for the job fighting against NATO. There's a huge difference between PACT and USSR National. It's PACT that needs buffs, but none of which directly affecting pure USSR.


Still the same problems, just to a lesser extent.
Actually e.g. NATO's more cost-efficient mortars, infantry ATGMs, recon, cheap armor, and better air/AA are a bigger deal in smaller, lower points matches, but OTOH PACT's problems with availability don't come into play as much.
Basically 4 T80U on the field of 20 tanks is a bigger deal than 4 T80U out of a 100 tanks; but the same is true of Nighthawk and MilanF2.

Also, while I agree that PACT mixed is in a sore need of a buff, it's actually efficient in 10v10 as an artyspam deck (well, this has more to do with the fact USSR can't do a proper artyspam so you're stuck doing it with an otherwise inferior mixed deck).

Best wishes,
Daniel.


Except you can't compare units in vacuum for the sake of game balance.

Can we have a little activity between you and me?

Look through the categories that this game has to offer: Logistics, Infantry, Tanks..etc. And then use this rating system: Strongly favors, favors, tied, followed by USSR National vs. Mixed NATO. Explain why briefly in each category on why you feel this way. Example: Planes, greatly favors NATO, here's why.

For now, please leave out FR Nat, USA Nat and Mixed PACT. We can do those later.
Image

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

Re: the balance

Postby Gopblin » Tue 9 Jul 2013 21:05

I did that not long ago, you can probably just use that thread. I'll admit explanations there are not the best, but we can identify areas where we disagree and discuss.

viewtopic.php?f=91&t=32510

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

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

Re: the balance

Postby HEROFOX » Tue 9 Jul 2013 22:09

Gopblin wrote:I did that not long ago, you can probably just use that thread. I'll admit explanations there are not the best, but we can identify areas where we disagree and discuss.

http://wargame-ee.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=91&t=32510

Best wishes,
Daniel.


You have too many categories that are not really relevant in higher-level play, and some other categories outweigh others.

Can you do the exercise again with my above example?

I invite everyone to try this exercise :)
Image

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

Re: the balance

Postby Gopblin » Wed 10 Jul 2013 00:01

HEROFOX wrote:You have too many categories that are not really relevant in higher-level play, and some other categories outweigh others.

Can you do the exercise again with my above example?

I invite everyone to try this exercise :)


I think if we just go by categories in the deck, there are too few categories, i.e. Support includes all sorts of AA, arty, and a some multipurpose vehicles. Same deal with Planes, Helos, infantry, etc. Even Tanks should be sepated into cheap medium and heavy ones as those are used for different things.

If you absolutely must have it, here we go:
Logistics = Even
Infantry = NATO (because ATGM)
Tanks = USSR (because T80U)
Support = NATO (because PzM113 and Marder Roland)
Vehicle = USSR (because BMPT, although Raketjag is useful)
Recon = NATO (because Hussards and Kiowa Wr.)
Helo = NATO (because Seahawk, TOW2, and OH58)
Plane = NATO (because F16A, JagA, Aardvark, F14, Entendard, etc)

But this doesn't paint a complete picture e.g. USSR only has better tanks in the 90+ point range, and USSR has just as good infantry outside of ATGM.

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

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

Re: the balance

Postby HEROFOX » Wed 10 Jul 2013 01:28

Hmm, you didn't play the game correctly. It was supposed to be greatly favors, slightly favors, or even.

For me, Logs is even.

Infantry, slightly in USSR.

Simply because Spetsnaz exist and they're the best infantry in the game. You cannot fight them at all and they give Russians the ability to go anywhere they want on the battlefield. If you need MANPADs setup somewhere, Spetz can make sure its clear of infantry. They rule the hills, any forests and most town fights because of their weapon combination, speed and optics. This allows the Russian player to dominate various areas of the map that NATO can't. This gives USSR a huge edge in map control, placement of units, and recce locations. You literally cannot fight Spets without multiple units (because 1 huge unit of 60 Marines will die to one Spetz unit), or Assault Engineers, or both. If Spetz weren't so dominating, I would say Infantry would be equal, and this would give Kustjaeger a different role than just dying in the woods.

Man-led ATGMs, on the other hand, NATO has it better. They get the MilanF2 and RBS56, but this not to say that USSR doesn't have ATGMs. Their ATGMs are located on their tanks, and their tanks are better at destroying armor. In that sense, Russian ATGMs are more mobile, very durable (because they're on a tank), and do the same thing: Destroy enemy armor.

Tanks, greatly in USSR, because their tanks actually have ATGMs and focuses on destroying other heavy armor. Russian armor is just more diverse, easily obtained and easily outmatches that of NATO.

Support, slightly in USSR, because of better and more flexible artillery Malka/Mista/Smerch, and solid/multi-purpose AA options via the TanguskaM/Buk. TanguskaMs allow you to answer Helo, Buks are just as good as Hawks/Roland2s, Tangsukas can double-up as guns while saving you a slot of support, IGLAs/Strellas are your IF spammers.

Vehicle, greatly in USSR, because BMPT is a rape machine on wheels. NATO doesn't have anything close to the BMPT. Best of all, if anything outmatches the Spetsnaz in the jungle, the BMPT make sure it'll never happen again. Again, you dominate sections of the map that are just not possible with NATO.

Recon, even, because in both sides have Exceptional Optics on Helo, 27km and 33km Infantry for scouting purposes.

Helo, even, because of the options you mentioned. AA and Hellfire are very good, but the price of the Mi-24V/P for a fast, durable opening stunner, the Akula's AA and punching power, and the Mi-28's ability to point and click and remove tanks should not be undermined. The reliable AA OH-58 and Hellfire really does stand out that much.

Planes, greatly NATO, because of better and more flexible options, although the USSR options are still pretty solid: Su-24MP, Su-24 SEAD, MiG-31M, Yak-38M, and Su-27S. All the options here rival that of NATO's planes but are slightly worse; just slightly.

To sum it up:
Logs and Recon = Even
Infantry, Support = Slightly in USSR
Tanks, Vehicles = Greatly in USSR
Helo = Even
Planes = Greatly in NATO

In conclusion:
You can have all the ATGM infantry you want. I lose nothing because I get free ATGM infantry attached to my much superior tanks, and I'm using my tanks to bash on you tanks in the first place. I essentially double-up on a role, do it with mobility, armor and a ton more health. What really stands out is that I have the Spetsnaz, and if you can't fit me in locations throughout the map, I will have more opportunities to plant MANPADs, recon/vision on what you're doing, and opportunities for ambush and taking out passerbys.

Planes will greatly favor NATO and that's perfectly fine with me. What really stands out is how much of a diminishing effect Planes have on the game once a competent player sets up a viable AA net. He floods the field with IGLA because you know, he can and you can't fight him in the woods, sets up multi-role Tangsukas, Buks and MiG-31Ms, and all of a sudden all those planes are a waste of activation slots and deck space, and to call them in feeds the opponent points.

NATO Helos are great. I think the Hellfire and the OH-58 AA is a prime example of powerful units. They're truly the hallmark of high-level NATO play but that doesn't mean USSR doesn't have anything to compare. Good thing USSR have ways to deal with the Seahawk/Lynx in the form of the TangsukaMs, or else they would be trouble for sure.

In short, while NATO and Planes are great, they don't play that big of a factor in high-level matches. If anything, the interaction between 3500m AA vs. Seahawk Hellfires is the biggest fun factor. Planes are powerful in the beginning, but rapidly loses its effectiveness as players setup their AA nets, and the more competent players that can overlap their defenses, the weaker the planes get. I know this, I'm a Plane heavy player myself. The biggest problem with relying on Planes is not because they're a points sink later game, but to invite them onto the battlefield simply feeds points. In the current game mode, which is Destruction, this is just crap.

I would much rather have map control via Spetz/BMPT, flexible Support so I can save more cards on activations and call in less units, and have the tanks that can double up as ATGMs and kill-everything-on-the-ground, than just strong Helos/Planes. Think about it, the war is won on the ground every time. Only cheese strats look for opportunities to win via air dominance because frankly, it doesn't exist in higher-level matches.

This also brings up something about how easy a faction is to play vs. how strong they are. With USSR, you can win entire battles with Spetz in jungles, good recon, and a solid push of Russian Tanks backed by Tungsuka/Buk/IGLA. When you compare NATO pushes, they can't do it nearly as effectively as the Russians, not even close. Their tanks are inferior, don't have ATGMs on the push, Chaps/Hawks run out of ammo really quickly, and they don't own the jungles. What they really need is Seahawks to dance with enemy AA and to even out the playing field in the armor battle, constant micro of supply and upkeep on their AA, and smart use of positioning and Assault Engineers to clear out Spetz from key locations. For that reason, NATO is much harder to use because they have to spend twice as many actions to do the same thing USSR does, which is A-move Tanks and Tanguskas.

I will say no more on this matter. This is just my experience from playing with some of the best players in the game in organized matches over TS. I don't think we're ever going to be on the same page.
Last edited by HEROFOX on Wed 10 Jul 2013 19:48, edited 1 time in total.
Image

Return to “Wargame : AirLand Battle”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 18 guests