why m48a1 is not prototype

User avatar
[EUG]MadMat
More than 10 000 messages. Soldier you are the leader of all armies!
Posts: 15486
Joined: Thu 30 Jun 2011 13:31
Location: Paris, France.
Contact:

Re: why m48a1 is not prototype

Postby [EUG]MadMat » Sun 14 Jul 2013 16:33

diaos wrote:it is so funny that T80U is prototype but L2A4 isn't

Because Leo2A4's counterpart is not the T-80U, but the T-80BV. And both are from 1985, and not prototype.
Cease to consider that because one is at the end of family tree, it is per se the equivalent of another end-of-line: T-80U has no equivalent ingame, USSR got it as a bonus because it was cool & iconic.
If you really want to even things, we can remove it completely from the game ...

Pact has more prototype vehicles because each Pact nation has access to more vehicles than their NATO counterparts! So, Pact isn't cheated in any way, it has actually access to more (20 to 25% more if you take only EE's nation, more than 33% if you take ALB's newcomers into consideration) units and more modern vehicles in the form of more prototypes than NATO.

diaos
Sergeant
Posts: 55
Joined: Tue 21 May 2013 03:41
Contact:

Re: why m48a1 is not prototype

Postby diaos » Sun 14 Jul 2013 17:03

Kamrat Roger wrote:
diaos wrote:
DeuZerre wrote:Becaue the T-80U is borderline in terms of the timeline, while the Leo2 isn't?

leopard2 isn't
leopard2A4 is


The first batch of Leopard 2A4 got delivered in 1985.

so does T80U

diaos
Sergeant
Posts: 55
Joined: Tue 21 May 2013 03:41
Contact:

Re: why m48a1 is not prototype

Postby diaos » Sun 14 Jul 2013 17:23

[EUG]MadMat wrote:
diaos wrote:it is so funny that T80U is prototype but L2A4 isn't

Because Leo2A4's counterpart is not the T-80U, but the T-80BV. And both are from 1985, and not prototype.
Cease to consider that because one is at the end of family tree, it is per se the equivalent of another end-of-line: T-80U has no equivalent ingame, USSR got it as a bonus because it was cool & iconic.
If you really want to even things, we can remove it completely from the game ...

Pact has more prototype vehicles because each Pact nation has access to more vehicles than their NATO counterparts! So, Pact isn't cheated in any way, it has actually access to more (20 to 25% more if you take only EE's nation, more than 33% if you take ALB's newcomers into consideration) units and more modern vehicles in the form of more prototypes than NATO.

19AP 10 accuracy19front vg stabilizer vs 18AP 7accuracy 17 front normal stabilizer with a useless ATGM?
you called it "counterpart"?
I hope you are not joking
T-80U has no equivalent ingame?
Seahawk has no equivalent ingame
F117 has no equivalent ingame
OH58 Wr has no equivalent ingame
Draken has no equivalent ingame
10 points helicopters have no equivalent in game
The only reliable anti-helicopter AA is Tunguska-M which only available in Soviet deck,consider this fact plz.
If you want a reliable anti-helicopter AA :
1000kg bomber has no equivalent ingame
cheap AA helicopter has no equivalent ingame
...........
do you want more?

otherwise,T80U vs L2A4 within 2000m is half to half.if get closer,L2A4 has higher chance to win, because T80U usually get panic first.

User avatar
[EUG]MadMat
More than 10 000 messages. Soldier you are the leader of all armies!
Posts: 15486
Joined: Thu 30 Jun 2011 13:31
Location: Paris, France.
Contact:

Re: why m48a1 is not prototype

Postby [EUG]MadMat » Sun 14 Jul 2013 18:32

diaos wrote:otherwise,T80U vs L2A4 within 2000m is half to half.if get closer,L2A4 has higher chance to win, because T80U usually get panic first.

But since the T-80U will usually engage first with its ATGM without fear of reprisal, it will be the Leo2A4 which will get stuned/panicked most of the time.

The fact that we are French and based in a "NATO country" holds no relevance to us. Funnily enough, while you are treating us of being "NATO henchmen", others (mostly Americans) usually refers to us as "NATO quiters" because De Gaulle removed us from NATO Central Command. So, apparently, either side we're screwed ... :lol:

So, here is an official statement: we don't care about NATO or Pact. It is irrelevant to us in terms of balancing, modeling, ... We hold no bias toward USSR, Warsaw Pact, ... hell, not even against the British! :D
Now that this statement has been made, any further accusation, although ironical, implied, ... from you or anyone repeatedly calling us bias (any side) on this privately-owned & run forum, will be taken by us as an insult and get you (or anyone) banned.

Therefore, you are free to discuss the Chaparral's stats, maybe it is indeed overpriced, but that isn't a reason why we'll classify a 1984 unit (from memory) as a prototype when it doesn't belong there.

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: why m48a1 is not prototype

Postby Mitchverr » Sun 14 Jul 2013 18:43

[EUG]MadMat wrote:So, here is an official statement: we don't care about NATO or Pact. It is irrelevant to us in terms of balancing, modeling, ... We hold no bias toward USSR, Warsaw Pact, ... hell, not even against the British! :D



Bias is a strong word, more like shoehorn nationalities into narrow decks that simply doesnt work for their organsiation and aquisition systems historically (can be applied either side imo though the UK moreso from what i know due to the sheer difference in deployment of british forces at the timeframe and the aquisitions of new kit) and just some balancing needing sorting.

Bias, never would i say you guys are bias, just, get some things wrong or apply rules of balancing/realism in a very random way :p
Image

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

Re: why m48a1 is not prototype

Postby Gopblin » Sun 14 Jul 2013 18:59

[EUG]MadMat wrote:
diaos wrote:otherwise,T80U vs L2A4 within 2000m is half to half.if get closer,L2A4 has higher chance to win, because T80U usually get panic first.

But since the T-80U will usually engage first with its ATGM without fear of reprisal, it will be the Leo2A4 which will get stuned/panicked most of the time.

...

So, here is an official statement: we don't care about NATO or Pact. It is irrelevant to us in terms of balancing, modeling, ... We hold no bias toward USSR, Warsaw Pact, ... hell, not even against the British! :D
Now that this statement has been made, any further accusation, although ironical, implied, ... from you or anyone repeatedly calling us bias (any side) on this privately-owned & run forum, will be taken by us as an insult and get you (or anyone) banned.

Therefore, you are free to discuss the Chaparral's stats, maybe it is indeed overpriced, but that isn't a reason why we'll classify a 1984 unit (from memory) as a prototype when it doesn't belong there.


My 2c:

Madmat, I think a lot of the confusion comes from people looking at the mixed deck instead of the national. Due to the way rules are designed, NATO mixed comes out very strong. In my opinion it's stronger than any PACT deck, others seem to vehemently disagree but at the very least it's a lot more flexible than any PACT deck. This is also why at least 50% of players I meet seem to be using mixed decks.

People look at that deck and start whining about how NATO has this and that whereas PACT mixed and USSR both lack some useful units.

You guys seem to be more focused on national decks and really from a national standpoint the balance is fine, heck it's arguably in favor of USSR deck (US is strong but somewhat limited tactics).

All that needs to happen to fix the balance whine is make mixed decks somewhat harder to build. It can be as simple as -3 Activation points to mixed decks, or better yet -1 point for every nation you add, start with 35 points. Or prototype more units (which is what the OP is whining about), so that NATO mixed can't have the best of the best from ~seven nations.

Spoiler : To put things in perspective, here's a crosspost of my recent whine on CatC decks: :
By comparison [to PACT Cat C], NATO Cat C has:
- Better supply truck
- Far and away better mortars and arty, comparable AA with the Ihawk in huge numbers
- Arguably much better tanks with 40+ Harpoons and 40+ Strv103
- Far and away better planes with F14, Aardvark, Mirage 5F, Draken, Jaguar A, etc. etc.
- Somewhat better vehicles(crap ATGMs with more AP, armor and for cheaper) and helos (Heavy Hog FTW)
- Overall, the only areas where PACT Cat C is not painfully inferior are AA and recon

In short, NATO Cat C is a viable and fun deck to play, PACT Cat C not so much - far fewer viable tactics, and even those it does worse than NATO. Similar to how non-era decks play, but more so.


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

User avatar
Hartmann
Lieutenant
Posts: 1163
Joined: Thu 30 May 2013 18:31
Contact:

Re: why m48a1 is not prototype

Postby Hartmann » Sun 14 Jul 2013 19:00

diaos wrote:
[EUG]MadMat wrote:
diaos wrote:it is so funny that T80U is prototype but L2A4 isn't

Because Leo2A4's counterpart is not the T-80U, but the T-80BV. And both are from 1985, and not prototype.
Cease to consider that because one is at the end of family tree, it is per se the equivalent of another end-of-line: T-80U has no equivalent ingame, USSR got it as a bonus because it was cool & iconic.
If you really want to even things, we can remove it completely from the game ...

Pact has more prototype vehicles because each Pact nation has access to more vehicles than their NATO counterparts! So, Pact isn't cheated in any way, it has actually access to more (20 to 25% more if you take only EE's nation, more than 33% if you take ALB's newcomers into consideration) units and more modern vehicles in the form of more prototypes than NATO.

19AP 10 accuracy19front vg stabilizer vs 18AP 7accuracy 17 front normal stabilizer with a useless ATGM?
you called it "counterpart"?
I hope you are not joking
T-80U has no equivalent ingame?
Seahawk has no equivalent ingame
F117 has no equivalent ingame
OH58 Wr has no equivalent ingame
Draken has no equivalent ingame
10 points helicopters have no equivalent in game
The only reliable anti-helicopter AA is Tunguska-M which only available in Soviet deck,consider this fact plz.
If you want a reliable anti-helicopter AA :
1000kg bomber has no equivalent ingame
cheap AA helicopter has no equivalent ingame
...........
do you want more?

otherwise,T80U vs L2A4 within 2000m is half to half.if get closer,L2A4 has higher chance to win, because T80U usually get panic first.


Nice going with the direct insults towards team members that actually bother to reply to the incoherent garbage that you and your buddies keep posting.
ATGM useless? Give us a fricking break, learn to play instead of trolling the forums.
Last edited by Hartmann on Sun 14 Jul 2013 19:07, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
orcbuster
More than 10 000 messages. Soldier you are the leader of all armies!
Posts: 12362
Joined: Fri 7 Sep 2012 21:04
Contact:

Re: why m48a1 is not prototype

Postby orcbuster » Sun 14 Jul 2013 19:01

agree that mixed NATO should get a few minus AP compared to mixed PACT
Image
Viker for ingen!

Doeko
Master Sergeant
Posts: 158
Joined: Wed 15 May 2013 16:48
Contact:

Re: why m48a1 is not prototype

Postby Doeko » Sun 14 Jul 2013 19:15

on-topic I think the chapparal is annoying to come up agaist but it is balanced and there's a reason I don't have it in my deck. With low availability a poor accuracy and, no survivability at all against infantry and very low survability against artillery it is pretty much balanced. I could see it costing 40-50pt though.

Compared to the tunguska which will often survive artillery (Like rolands), can easily kill a squad of infantry as long as it doesn't hit it first and has much more munition it is a very poor unit. The only good thing about it, is that it can outrange the Akula (which is so fast that it doesn't really matter anyway except on very small maps).

User avatar
[EUG]MadMat
More than 10 000 messages. Soldier you are the leader of all armies!
Posts: 15486
Joined: Thu 30 Jun 2011 13:31
Location: Paris, France.
Contact:

Re: why m48a1 is not prototype

Postby [EUG]MadMat » Sun 14 Jul 2013 19:17

Gopblin wrote:Madmat, I think a lot of the confusion comes from people looking at the mixed deck instead of the national. Due to the way rules are designed, NATO mixed comes out very strong. In my opinion it's stronger than any PACT deck, others seem to vehemently disagree but at the very least it's a lot more flexible than any PACT deck. This is also why at least 50% of players I meet seem to be using mixed decks.

People look at that deck and start whining about how NATO has this and that whereas PACT mixed and USSR both lack some useful units.

You guys seem to be more focused on national decks and really from a national standpoint the balance is fine, heck it's arguably in favor of USSR deck (US is strong but somewhat limited tactics).

NATO mixed deck has more choice, therefore may be easier to compose than Pact deck. That is a given, ingame or IRL. This goes with the historical over-standardisation in Warsaw Pact armies, something we can't hardly change ... but by giving those countries access to more prototypes. Which we did.

NATO mixed offers more diversity, but Pact national decks all offer more choices of units than any (major/minor counterparts): not only does every Pact nations, including minors, have access to all-around units (no gaping holes like NATO minors' air defense) but they also have access to more prototypes and high-end units.
Therefore, facing a mixed NATO deck with a Pact national deck offers Pact to field more units (more activation points) AND better prototypes/post-1985 units.
And of those national decks, Soviet one is indeed the best. But is that so disconcerting that USSR rules over other Pact nations? We've always said that facing a "national" major with a "national minor" would always be a challenge.

Return to “Wargame : AirLand Battle”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 24 guests