buk or osa's?

[Zloba]

I keep Afghanskii (ridiculous, I know, but I'm only using them to herd enemy fighters and I also use them for ground work) and Strela-10s at/near the front line, OSAs behind them, and BUKs sitting in the rear to punish any leakers. Combined with fighter aircraft, this has always been a successful ADN for me.

Ok, that's 3 cards of AA right there, plus you *need* some form of tunguska for anti chopper, 4 cards of AA when NATO's AA is taken care by Rolands + Chaps easily?

NATO OP rage: How the hell NATO was given 12 Rolands with 3500 range, 12 accuracy and top 2 armor?? IMHO make this MONSTER a FRG prototype and possibly give a downgraded version to NATO/mixed.

[DoubleDown]

I keep Afghanskii (ridiculous, I know, but I'm only using them to herd enemy fighters and I also use them for ground work) and Strela-10s at/near the front line, OSAs behind them, and BUKs sitting in the rear to punish any leakers. Combined with fighter aircraft, this has always been a successful ADN for me.

Ok, that's 3 cards of AA right there, plus you *need* some form of tunguska for anti chopper, 4 cards of AA when NATO's AA is taken care by Rolands + Chaps easily?

NATO OP rage: How the hell NATO was given 12 Rolands with 3500 range, 12 accuracy and top 2 armor?? IMHO make this MONSTER a FRG prototype and possibly give a downgraded version to NATO/mixed.

Actually, the OSA/Strela/Afghanskii combo generally makes short work of any helos dumb enough to come into their radius (still an issue with many players, they don't have their helos stand off properly) and cannon-armed jets take care of the ones outside their range. I used to use the Tunguska, but soon took it off my deck because in reality it was not appreciably better than my setup was already.

I value my ADN (and have multiple layers of redundancy for such because I like my skies to be full of planes with red stars), so I'm willing to suck up most of my support cards with it. I rarely play with heavy indirect fire, I have one card of Vasilek and one card of Malkas and don't really see a need for more. To each their own.

[Zloba]

I keep Afghanskii (ridiculous, I know, but I'm only using them to herd enemy fighters and I also use them for ground work) and Strela-10s at/near the front line, OSAs behind them, and BUKs sitting in the rear to punish any leakers. Combined with fighter aircraft, this has always been a successful ADN for me.

Ok, that's 3 cards of AA right there, plus you *need* some form of tunguska for anti chopper, 4 cards of AA when NATO's AA is taken care by Rolands + Chaps easily?

NATO OP rage: How the hell NATO was given 12 Rolands with 3500 range, 12 accuracy and top 2 armor?? IMHO make this MONSTER a FRG prototype and possibly give a downgraded version to NATO/mixed.

Actually, the OSA/Strela/Afghanskii combo generally makes short work of any helos dumb enough to come into their radius (still an issue with many players, they don't have their helos stand off properly) and cannon-armed jets take care of the ones outside their range. I used to use the Tunguska, but soon took it off my deck because in reality it was not appreciably better than my setup was already.

I value my ADN (and have multiple layers of redundancy for such because I like my skies to be full of planes with red stars), so I'm willing to suck up most of my support cards with it. I rarely play with heavy indirect fire, I have one card of Vasilek and one card of Malkas and don't really see a need for more. To each their own.

I respect your style of play, but this is more general. When NATO only needs 2 cards of AA they have more freedom to sink remaining pts in other sections. What will you do when you are sitting with one Malka and they arty you to death while you cannot counter-arty or bomb because they spammed Roland? Using jets for anti-chopper? it's been discussed to death how inefficient that is, it's also suicidial for jets in mid-late game.