the balance

tarasbulba
Sergeant First-Class
Posts: 110
Joined: Fri 26 Apr 2013 20:07
Contact:

Re: the balance

Postby tarasbulba » Wed 10 Jul 2013 02:27

Scharnberg wrote:175m is quite abit longer since you have to remember the tanks only have a 1925m, 2100m and 2275m range. I find no problem useing them at flanking, just make a fake retreat where you take all your units except your konkurs teams which you hide in the woods, cities or hedges. 2-3 teams should be hiding in front of your enemy and 2-3 teams on either of their flanks. This means after you "retreat" your Enemys units will at some point then attack and get captured in your trap. (i normaly have their ATGMS turned off untill they are a little bit inside the trap).

Since they are very small and have good stealth even the best recons have a hard time seeing them. If the flanks wood/city/hedge aint that far from the enemy then you can just use the Faktoriya´s as they do pretty good dmg to side armor and have very good stealth.

(im not sure if you can hide them well enough in a hedge, i dont remember right now).

Edit: had for some reason written others instead of enemy in the text

Edit: fixed alot of bad english xD


What flanking? This is the ALB forum, not EE :-)

tarasbulba
Sergeant First-Class
Posts: 110
Joined: Fri 26 Apr 2013 20:07
Contact:

Re: the balance

Postby tarasbulba » Wed 10 Jul 2013 02:28

Gopblin wrote:I'll just leave this here for people claiming PACT has better helos, arty, infantry, etc.:

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

I do have to say obr.1986 is good though. Try it guys, low ammo and vulnerability are the only problems. But now that T80A has been removed not like mixed PACT has much of a choice.

Best wishes,
Daniel


Isn't the Obr 1986 a prototype as well, so unavailable to mixed PACT.

tarasbulba
Sergeant First-Class
Posts: 110
Joined: Fri 26 Apr 2013 20:07
Contact:

Re: the balance

Postby tarasbulba » Wed 10 Jul 2013 02:33

wargamer1985 wrote:@Goblin

Pact has better inf AT weapons
Pact has better attack helis
Pact has terrific tanks

why do you think pact is UP?

if Madmat can see this please respond to my ideas
(want to hear your thoughts)


Pact has better inf AT weapons - FALSE
Pact has better attack helis - FALSE
Pact has terrific tanks - TRUE.

#1 and #2 is FALSE because you never say better then what... Range? AP? ACC? Availability? Transports?

#3 is TRUE, but completely useless fact. Pact has terrific tanks, NATO has terrific tanks, my car needs a wash, I deserve more money. See these are facts, but pointless in the context of this discussion.

User avatar
Mitchverr
More than 10 000 messages. Soldier you are the leader of all armies!
Posts: 10646
Joined: Sat 24 Mar 2012 18:08
Contact:

Re: the balance

Postby Mitchverr » Wed 10 Jul 2013 02:38

tarasbulba wrote:
wargamer1985 wrote:@Goblin

Pact has better inf AT weapons
Pact has better attack helis
Pact has terrific tanks

why do you think pact is UP?

if Madmat can see this please respond to my ideas
(want to hear your thoughts)


Pact has better inf AT weapons - FALSE
Pact has better attack helis - FALSE
Pact has terrific tanks - TRUE.

#1 and #2 is FALSE because you never say better then what... Range? AP? ACC? Availability? Transports?

#3 is TRUE, but completely useless fact. Pact has terrific tanks, NATO has terrific tanks, my car needs a wash, I deserve more money. See these are facts, but pointless in the context of this discussion.


Overall better for the basic infantry i assume for the anti tank weapon.

Better helis, depends what you base it on, i personally would say a heli with a cannon, missiles going to 2800m and rocket pods as a troop transport is a damn good craft.
Image

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

Re: the balance

Postby Gopblin » Wed 10 Jul 2013 02:55

HEROFOX wrote: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.


Personally don't use spetsnaz in favor of assault engis for both NATO and PACT.
They're half the price and have greater hitting power, running speed don't matter because honestly how far would I need to go from disembark location?
And I have recon inf for recon.

I personally think the whole Spetsnaz thing is sort of the same as T80U syndrome from WEE, where one side overuses a unit because they think its cool, and the other side thinks the unit is OP because they see it used against them all the time. As NATO, here are the things I used to defeat Spetsnaz, in no particular order:

- 15 pt Centurions
- 20 pt Harpoons
- 5pt reservists
- Jager spam
- Mortars
- 1T bombs
- Killing them in transports enroute
- Assault Engis stationary
- Arty barrage to stun + infantry/tank attack

And honestly how can you say a unit is OP when it's high cost, low availability, and you get the same thing only with greater hitting power, more availability, and with half the cost at the expense of slower running speed?

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.


Except they cost 130/170 points as opposed to 20-30. And they have less ammo. And they're vulnerable to enemy ATGM. And much easier to detect with recon.

Basically no, it's not quite the same.

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.


Heavies only. Well, T80U only. Everything else is sort of on par.
ATGM heavies are only a problem for people who haven't discovered that they can, in fact, screen their heavy tanks with cheaper stuff or use smoke. Seems to be 90% of NATO players.

Support, slightly in USSR, because of better and more flexible artillery Malka/Mista/Smerch


Malka is better, MSTA is about the same (can't be spammed like BKAN though), Smerch is meh annoyance machine.
Skillfully dodged the question that the best arty in the game, heavy mortars, is way way better for NATO.

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.


Wait, I think you're being serious.

USSR at minimum needs to have 3 AA cards: 4 BukM1 to wound planes, 6 OSA-AK to screen Buks and finish off planes, 4 TunguskaM1 to kill helos.

NATO can do the same with just two cards of 6*Roland 2, they will have much better PK against pretty much any target, and the system would be far less fragile because all the components are interchangeable.

And NATO gets more modern MANPADs, although Igla is slightly better than Stinger/RBS70/Javelin.

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.


Again, I acknoweledge BMPT is good but I haven't actually had much problem with it. STRV103 seems to beat it in a stand-up fight every time, just don't send infantry against it. But maybe I was just lucky.

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


Except NATO infantry is half the price (Hussards, again) and NATO helo comes with Hellfires.

Helo, greatly NATO, because of the options you mentioned. AA and Hellfire are very good, but the price of the Mi-24VP 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.


Agreed on planes, and that's why I'd say planes are "somewhat for NATO".

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


Only agree on Helos, really.
And maybe tanks, but as long as you mean heavy tanks only. NATO actually has better tanks below 90 points I think.

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 and I don't think USSR can offer any alternatives. 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.


4 units, priority targets for everything, kill em and PACT can do nothing against Seahawks.

NATO has 30+ AA units capable of dealing with PACT 2800m choppers.

In short, while NATO and Planes are great, they don't play that big of a factor in high-level matches.


Agreed, NATO plane advantage is really not that big a deal in large, well-organized games.

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,


False, as said above. NATO, at minimum, needs 2 AA cards and 1 PzM113 card, that's it.

PACT, at minimum, needs 3 AA cards, 1 Malka card for sniping, 1 82mm card for close support, and a truck card or two to feed Malkas. That's 6-7 cards and arguably still worse at everything except long-range sniping.

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.


USSR only gets 8 Reflex tanks, they carry 3 ATGM each IIRC, those ATGM only hit about half the time and you need 3-4 hits to kill a heavy. In short, USSR tanks are better, but not nearly as much as you're saying.

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.


Just not the same way.
1. Rely on heavy mortars to kill everything that isn't a tank, especially AA, and also to panic tanks and smoke everything.
2. First launch a wave of 15-point Cents or Harpoons so all PACT ATGM target them and not your heavies (they will need on average 2-4 shots to kill em, remember most PACT stuff only has 3 ammo)
3. Launch Dornier 205 and such to see if enemy has any AA left, hit it with mortars, then bring Seahawks and rape everything.
4. Have Milan F2 traveling with your heavies in APCs, when in range disembark and immediately launch ATGM - you essentially get the same deal as T80U but firing cannon and ATGM at the same time, enemy can only target one, and if you do it right Milans will be out of their range anyway.

Etc. etc.
Basically attacking with NATO is just as effective, it's just that most NATO players I see try to assault with an unsupported blob of 20 Abrams and then whine that PACT is OP because they tried to play PACT's game and lost.

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.


I think we can be, just keep exchanging arguments until we see which one of us is right. If you look at my previous balance topics, you'll see that I'm quite open to suggestions.

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

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

Re: the balance

Postby Gopblin » Wed 10 Jul 2013 02:58

Mitchverr wrote:Overall better for the basic infantry i assume for the anti tank weapon.


Yep, motos are great. That's why I always say inf is even despite many people harping on about CG and NATO rifle accuracy.

Better helis, depends what you base it on, i personally would say a heli with a cannon, missiles going to 2800m and rocket pods as a troop transport is a damn good craft.


I'd say Hind is the same place as the Starship: sure it does a lot of things, sure it's nice to have as an all-around backup, but it's tough to base a strategy around a unit that is worse at anything specific than its competition.

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 03:14

Are you seriously relating Spetsnaz effectiveness with their cool factor? They're amazing units. To argue otherwise would not be sane.

They're hardly high cost when you can get them for a good price, 35 in most cases, 6 per card at Veteran, 4 at Elite, and they absolutely invalidate every form of NATO infantry unless you outnumber in separate units to dedicate armor/air to remove them. Like I said, the BMPT is there just to stop anything you're sending to kill them, and if you dedicate air, you're just going to have them removed.

I don't need 3 cards of AA to be effective as Russia. I can take a Buk, TunguskaMs and depend on IGLAs. I currently have 4 Support choices right now: More Tunguksa, Buk, TunguskaM, and Malka. You don't need mortars with Russia, Malkas are used to snipe targets of opportunity, with suppression as only a secondary role. I actually think you're being serious when you say you NEED XYZ in any given deck when it's clear that you don't. As USSR, you can afford to place more MANPADs because you dominate jungles.

Also, I'd rather not continue the argument, simply because you think this is a game of who's right. I did see some of your previous topics, and aside from increasing viability of multi-nat PACT, I don't think we have anything else to discuss in unison. Besides, we don't play the same game. I don't play 10v10 with randoms, I play 3s in organized games with skilled players.

If you're willing to schedule a game with me where you can show me how imbalanced NATO vs. USSR is, I would like to prove this is not the case. Which is something a lot of top-level players have been saying for a while now. I think the illusion of PACT is bad, is that first, it has to apply to multi-nat PACT and not pure USSR, and second, it has to be modern and not some random 70s/80s deck.
Image

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

Re: the balance

Postby Gopblin » Wed 10 Jul 2013 04:18

HEROFOX wrote:Are you seriously relating Spetsnaz effectiveness with their cool factor? They're amazing units. To argue otherwise would not be sane.
They're hardly high cost when you can get them for a good price, 35 in most cases, 6 per card at Veteran, 4 at Elite, and they absolutely invalidate every form of NATO infantry unless you outnumber in separate units to dedicate armor/air to remove them. Like I said, the BMPT is there just to stop anything you're sending to kill them, and if you dedicate air, you're just going to have them removed.


As I said, I've yet to have a problem with em because I don't rely on expensive infantry period.
I just don't see what a squad of Marines does that 2 squads of Jagers/4 of reservists don't do better.
I also make extensive use of cheap armor for forest fighting, and always have mortars on hand.

For someone who relies on unsupported expensive infantry to hold forests, I can see how Spets /BMPT can appear OP.

I'm not saying they're not useful, simply that I rarely lose something to them that I bothered protecting, and generally don't have that much problem kicking them out if need be.

I don't need 3 cards of AA to be effective as Russia. I can take a Buk, TunguskaMs and depend on IGLAs.


You're suggesting that your entire front will be covered by a maximum of 8 (expensive, not replaceable) AA systems, only 4 of which are able to cover your forward forces (and are slow-firing and vulnerable to SEAD, basically not very good against anything other than 1-2 planes)... Good luck?

I currently have 4 Support choices right now: More Tunguksa, Buk, TunguskaM, and Malka.


1) You can't have more TunguskaM, 4 max.

2) Normal Tunguska can't kill a Seahawk (unless it flies into range and even then it's questionable; Tunguska trying to move on Seahawk will get hit first) and is MANPAD-quality (slightly more range, slightly less HE) against planes with over 4 times the cost

3) Buk is like BukM1 except worse in every way and same low availability. You don't need both, you need fast-firing numerous SEAD shields to kill planes wounded by BukM1.

See Malka below.

You don't need mortars with Russia, Malkas are used to snipe targets of opportunity, with suppression as only a secondary role.


What you mean to say is that Russia doesn't have good mortars. It certainly needs em, though.

They are a lot cheaper to shoot and can be used to destroy the most trivial targets and come out ahead on points, all the while costing no supply. IIRC to get >90% PK against armor 1-2 targets, you need 8 PzM113 or 4 Malkas.

After firing 30 salvos with 8 PzM113, 1 salvo costs 4.5 points.

After firing 30 salvos with 4 Malkas, 1 salvo costs 27.3 points. Oh, and you need like 5 slots of trucks. And Malkas reload way slower, so you won't be able to hit stuff often.

I realize Malkas are good snipers, but they don't have nearly as much impact on a battlefield as a well-micro'd mortar group, both in terms of damage and due to the fact they're too expensive and slow-firing to provide efficient smoke and suppression fire.

BTW, 8*PzM113 will even kill tanks much faster than 4*Malka due to higher ROF.

I actually think you're being serious when you say you NEED XYZ in any given deck when it's clear that you don't. As USSR, you can afford to place more MANPADs because you dominate jungles.


Well, I think some of our differences come from different playstyles you mention. You're much more likely to face plane spam in 10v10 than in 3v3, for example.

Also, I'd rather not continue the argument, simply because you think this is a game of who's right. I did see some of your previous topics, and aside from increasing viability of multi-nat PACT, I don't think we have anything else to discuss in unison. Besides, we don't play the same game. I don't play 10v10 with randoms, I play 3s in organized games with skilled players.


I do some 3v3, I just can't be bothered to organize stuff and wait for properly skilled people to show up. 10v10 is simply the quickest way to have the most fun, and I've actually been seeing some real good players as of late.

If you're willing to schedule a game with me where you can show me how imbalanced NATO vs. USSR is, I would like to prove this is not the case. Which is something a lot of top-level players have been saying for a while now.


Friend me, send invites or join me in a 10v10 :). I can try to friend you, but friending by nickname doesn't seem to work for me for some reason.

I think the illusion of PACT is bad, is that first, it has to apply to multi-nat PACT and not pure USSR, and second, it has to be modern and not some random 70s/80s deck.


Multinat PACT actually does the arty game far better than USSR. Shame it loses in other areas.

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 05:26

You play 10v10 and the majority of your analysis comes from 10v10. The same concerns you have in 10v10 does not apply in smaller games. We have nothing more to talk about.

PS - I was talking about Tanguksa and TanguskaM. And more so utilizing IGLAs as part of your air net. That's all you need as USSR. And you don't use Mortars to kill tanks, you use them to suppress.
Image

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

Re: the balance

Postby Gopblin » Wed 10 Jul 2013 06:06

HEROFOX wrote:You play 10v10 and the majority of your analysis comes from 10v10. The same concerns you have in 10v10 does not apply in smaller games. We have nothing more to talk about.


So you're basically saying you have no counterarguments and instead question my experience? Noted.

I fail to see how Seahawk will stop having a Hellfire, or Marder Roland quit being the best AA in the game, simply because you use em in 3v3; if anything, NATO in my experience is about as strong in 3v3, but for different reasons.

And more so utilizing IGLAs as part of your air net. That's all you need as USSR. And you don't use Mortars to kill tanks, you use them to suppress.


Kindly watch this replay, this is the last game I played (the labeled one).
http://alb-replays.info/#/browse/?searc ... ked=0&ai=0

It may be interesting to you, more importantly it does show that mortars are good for much more than stunning. Unfortunately my opponent didn't try a serious ground push or he would've suffered more. IIRC my mortars kill about 4-6 vehicle recons, 8 or so expensive AA, several expensive helos and a bunch of transports, and of course infantry, as well as messing with his tanks.

Also it shows that I'm very keen on using MANPADs for AA, but they're not self-sufficient IMO.

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

Return to “Wargame : AirLand Battle”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 23 guests