Not a single Top-15 player, plays as PACT.

[KittyKitsune]

A while ago I was pointing out that most competitive players were leaning torwards NATO and that no one wanted to play PACT in ranked games because PACT 1v1 just is no where near as good as NATO is.

When I pointed this out about 7 out of 10 top-players were predominantly NATO, as in between 60-70% games played with NATO.

Today i'd like to point out that not even one, not one. Of the Top15 players in Wargame airland battle, predominantly plays PACT. And only 3 of the Top15 NATO players actually plays a significant amount of PACT at all. The other 12, has +75% games with nato some of them even 100%.

This is true as of 14th of August. Check the Leaderboard yourself. Only 5 PACT players in Top 30 that's 16.5% down from 30% a month ago.

[Edit]

I should add this for good measure.



I am tired of playing Nato vs Nato.

[Iris]

Maybe because most people play NATO? It wouldn't surprise me. This has almost always been the case that more people play NATO because more people play this game from countries NATO countries than ex-warsaw pact ones. USSR 1v1 is pretty good if not the best faction in the game.

Back in Beta even when NATO was incredibly weak that's all anybody wanted to play.

[Mitchverr]

Maybe the guys in the top just rather play nato because of their playstyle or personal bias towards certain factions/units? afterall more play nato overall, this should be the case here too.

Statistics dont show anything like this to be honest.

[raventhefuhrer]

I don't really follow ranked play, but assuming that you're right, this does seem like an imbalance.

I've pretty much thought recently that Mixed NATO offers too many goodies without enough drawbacks. And since Mixed Pact is essentially useless (especially with recent airplane changes), it does seem like there lacks some parity.

I'm not going to be one of the guys who complains and demands that something be buffed/nerfed, but I wish that Mixed NATO was a little less attractive purely for the reason that I really prefer national decks, and enjoy seeing them with my opponents, rather than these sort of 'Rainbow Coalition of the Willing Brigades'. But if there happens to be a balance component to this, then I suppose I wish for it all the more.

[raptor910]

In my resent cold war research that I have been undertaking to get a better understanding of it I have come across a few points of view that state by 1985 the WARPAC was in no position to win a conventional war over the long term (plus 30 days), the NATO technological edge had grown far past. 1975 and below however I think the balance is not in NATO favour. Getting back to the "game", maybe this is in fact being modelled somewhat correctly. Or everyone just plays NATO.

[dcweaver510]

I'm not necessarily sure that your country is a large indication of which nation you'll play. I live in the U.S.A. and I mostly play Czechoslovakia because it suits my play style. Of course, I could just be the odd man out.

[KittyKitsune]

I am Danish, I play USA predominantly because i love freedom. And Nighthawks.

[tarasbulba]

While its not proof, it is definitely a strong indication that at a competitive level, mixed NATO (I assume its mixed NATO here, not Denmark) allows for more effective game play.

[Guggy]

Nerf Mixed NATO IMO.

[Tommoscimmia]

Anyway pact 1v1 doesn't exist, its only USSR

Also, many of those players, me included, think that ussr is way better than mixed NATO.

Still, with NATO in 1v1 you could be more versatile. With the latest patch i don't know if i can say the same (napalm for ussr national is soo cool)

In 2v2 a good mix of double ussr can steamroll everything, in every game mode. Problem is that pact mixed is crap