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
- 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.
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.
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.