The 2800 Range Meta Analysis and Solutions

User avatar
Hidden Gunman
Lieutenant Colonel
Posts: 2057
Joined: Fri 6 Apr 2012 07:47
Location: Adelaide South Australia
Contact:

Re: The 2800 Range Meta Analysis and Solutions

Postby Hidden Gunman » Sat 31 Aug 2013 10:30

I'll be fair, I've read the OP post four or five times, I've gone off and thought about it...

And I don't see why good, honest play should be penalised by nerfing units.

Sorry, but I can't see this as anything other than 'some units have longer range than others and that causes a problem in games where decent players use that to their advantage'.

Unless someone can actually say how this is actually causing a critical problem in the game, then I can't support it through the marshals' channels.

By critical problem, I mean one that is causing an overall imbalance that can't be rectified by game play, and requires game design changes.
A Firefly killed Wittman...

It's a 17lbr, not a 76.2mm.

Sleksa
Lieutenant Colonel
Posts: 2265
Joined: Tue 14 May 2013 12:26
Contact:

Re: The 2800 Range Meta Analysis and Solutions

Postby Sleksa » Sat 31 Aug 2013 10:34

Hidden Gunman wrote:I'll be fair, I've read the OP post four or five times, I've gone off and thought about it...

And I don't see why good, honest play should be penalised by nerfing units.

Sorry, but I can't see this as anything other than 'some units have longer range than others and that causes a problem in games where decent players use that to their advantage'.

Unless someone can actually say how this is actually causing a critical problem in the game, then I can't support it through the marshals' channels.

By critical problem, I mean one that is causing an overall imbalance that can't be rectified by game play, and requires game design changes.


Thank you for putting my thoughts into words! Meta shouldn't be changed just because it can be, and good units nerfed just because they're good. If anything buff the never-seen units and cultivate the gameplay instead of breaking it
Image

Kamil
Lieutenant
Posts: 1024
Joined: Thu 25 Apr 2013 22:43
Location: Poland
Contact:

Re: The 2800 Range Meta Analysis and Solutions

Postby Kamil » Sat 31 Aug 2013 10:42

triumph wrote:One clear advantage?

Let us have some fun and go back and forth pointing out some simple advantages:

Lets call logi equal
Infantry, in favor of nato in tons of aspects except IFV's which are clearly in USSR's favor. I'm clearly calling Konkurs in favor of ATGM house situations. Lemi of NU pointed out to me the HE value of common placed tanks trumps the value of being able to spam out a card or two of super effective 5 point inf.



Facts:
Milan F2 need 4 hits to kill t80u. 3 hits to kill t64bv, t64bv1, t80bv. 2 hits to kill t80a, t64bm, t-72b, t72b1, bmpt.
Milan F2 ll OHK everything with 10 or less armor.

Konkurs 10 hits to kill 2a4, chally 1. 5 hits to kill m1a1, m1ip.
Konkurs ll OHK everything with 5 or less armor.

Range you say? Reverse move and you ll lose just 1 or 2 healt bar. And then mortar/arty strike.
Less ppl in squad = better stealh. Its big thing.

triumph wrote:Support, What is currently in favor of Nato? Maybe 2 card mortar? Although a No Unit member would disagree with that telling me that Nona at 50 are where it is at. Malka, Tunguska M, Buk, all of that is favoring USSR to go on the O.


Bkan's (spamable in 75 decks, v.good arty), aufi (good armor, v.good arty), german mortars, m110 (its good).
Nona svk, malkas are great :) Buk and tunguska-m also. Nato can field 12 rolands 1, 12 rolands 2, 8 chaparral.

triumph wrote:Tank, T64's are awesome, totaling out at 10, and even the 95 point T72 is solid.

2a4, chally 1, m1a1 better than t64bv. t72 rof 7... and cannot penetrate nato havies at max range.

triumph wrote:Recce, This favors Nato, hands down. Hassards just save money. I think they're OP because they don't cost 15.

Agreed. Dont forget about danish jaegers and others. Many choises overall.

triumph wrote:Vehicle, Clearly USSR.

USSR bmpt and burito.
NATO m901 itw, ikv 91, tow 2 carriers (proto).

triumph wrote:Helos, While nato gets to deny airborne inf with the exception of a possible spetz dropping out of a mi-whatever in 2's i want to call it even but hinds are easy mode when used with L shapes. Especially when rocket arty is on the field.

USSR heli drop is expensive and easy counter by NATO oh58c while NATO heli drop is cheap. Kamov is too expensive to field at start. PACT mix deck got cheap aa helis and cheap inf.
Tow 2 and hellfire are much mroe better as tank killers than Kokon but hinds are for killing spam.

triumph wrote:Air, flavor of the meta is mig spam, Mig-31m's are fine too, SU-24mp for bombing is amazing. The SU sead aircraft is shown off by one of my dudes in a 4v4 against [Day], USSR now has Napalm, the only thing they don't have is the Super because they clearly don't need it.

NATO can spam many various jet not cluster/atgm one. Yeap su-24mp is nice (at least :) ). NATO have more various sead jets.
USSR got su-25t which is great for killing tanks. But NATO got super retard which OHK everything with 16 armor or less.
Tomcats are better than mig-31m.

stratmania
Lieutenant Colonel
Posts: 2068
Joined: Thu 1 Nov 2012 17:27
Contact:

Re: The 2800 Range Meta Analysis and Solutions

Postby stratmania » Sat 31 Aug 2013 10:43

triumph wrote:
One clear advantage?

Let us have some fun and go back and forth pointing out some simple advantages:

Lets call logi equal
Infantry, in favor of nato in tons of aspects except IFV's which are clearly in USSR's favor. I'm clearly calling Konkurs in favor of ATGM house situations. Lemi of NU pointed out to me the HE value of common placed tanks trumps the value of being able to spam out a card or two of super effective 5 point inf.

Support, What is currently in favor of Nato? Maybe 2 card mortar? Although a No Unit member would disagree with that telling me that Nona at 50 are where it is at. Malka, Tunguska M, Buk, all of that is favoring USSR to go on the O.

Tank, T64's are awesome, totaling out at 10, and even the 95 point T72 is solid.
Recce, This favors Nato, hands down. Hassards just save money. I think they're OP because they don't cost 15.

Vehicle, Clearly USSR.

Helos, While nato gets to deny airborne inf with the exception of a possible spetz dropping out of a mi-whatever in 2's i want to call it even but hinds are easy mode when used with L shapes. Especially when rocket arty is on the field.

Air, flavor of the meta is mig spam, Mig-31m's are fine too, SU-24mp for bombing is amazing. The SU sead aircraft is shown off by one of my dudes in a 4v4 against [Day], USSR now has Napalm, the only thing they don't have is the Super because they clearly don't need it.


I am playing against those guys with "try hard" (this term needs to go, jive turkey) decks and the win rate is pretty damn good so far. The only thing that beats me is my lack of willingness to wait to critical mass or a horrible opening build. Some not so pretty in-house games were just tragic.

It seems to me that all of these advantages belong to the USSR, and I am afraid that you have left some omissions:
Logistics: none
Infantry: while it is true that PACT tanks have HE 4, it will still need 2 hits vs a 5-man squad. IFV-wise, I dare say they are even. Better autocannon on NATO, more ATGM on PACT. By the way, USSR airborne operations cost a lot.

Support: NATO has mortars... And most of its AA is immune to SEAD, especially the roland 1 and the chapparal. Meanwhile PACT AA only needs to get SEAD-spammed to be crushed. Not that hard with weasels everywhere. Arty wise, I would say even, with NATO mortar advantage, and PACT MLRS systems. The nona is cat-a only. Have you seen gopblin's mortar deck?

Tank: yes, we have 10 T-64... But front armor 19 is a great envy, and even USSR can only field 4 armor-20 tanks, the T-80U. Our armor 17 leaves us dead in the water to your TOW-2 vehicles (used properly, use screens to soak the ATGMs you dread so much). Quite even IMO. Light tanks, slight NATO advantage, medium tanks, slight PACT advantage.

Vehicle: while USSR has the BMPT, afghanski, SU-122-54, the rest is not so pretty, with the best being konkurs vehicles (the shturm is not good in its current state) with an amazing 19AP. Meanwhile, NATO has ATGM vehicles with ITOWS and TOW2 that 3-shot or 2-shot all PACT heavy tanks from the front (the ITOW carriers are overpriced though). I think this cancels out the clear advantage, and turns it into a slight advantage for USSR.

Helo: NATO has fast, fragile, specialised heloes. PACT has the hind as its workhorse. Slight PACT advantage here I will admit (cobras can stand up to hinds with its cannon), hind availability needs tweaking.

Plane: really? Did you completely forget about the super etendard for NATO? Or that it has nighthawks, 2 F-15C per card, strike eagle, tomcat, etc? These are more than enough to cancel out USSR/ PACT air advantage. Also, your SEAD will be more worth it than PACT; PACT AA is mostly radar except tunguska.

@triumph you don't care about ranked? I recall you saying "using ranked logic"... And these changes sound like those that are nitpicked... If PACT gets the same range of ATGM as NATO, buff konkurs AP. Otherwise, you will see a lot of QQ about that.

User avatar
BTR
General
Posts: 6298
Joined: Fri 9 Dec 2011 21:16
Location: Россия
Contact:

Re: The 2800 Range Meta Analysis and Solutions

Postby BTR » Sat 31 Aug 2013 10:53

Don't know, there isn't a single word on how the OP thinks the units behave in real life, or how there is perhaps an asymetric balance and whatnot.
Image

zbone
Second-Lieutenant
Posts: 755
Joined: Thu 13 Jun 2013 05:31
Contact:

Re: The 2800 Range Meta Analysis and Solutions

Postby zbone » Sat 31 Aug 2013 11:00

Triumph, can you please explicitly formulate what exactly the problem is which you are trying to address. My guess is your concern is USSR can build a stack of expensive 2800m ATGM tanks supported by IFV and BMPT. My first question is following:
So what? What exactly the problem with that? How come poor Tunguska got in your nerf bucket?

stratmania
Lieutenant Colonel
Posts: 2068
Joined: Thu 1 Nov 2012 17:27
Contact:

Re: The 2800 Range Meta Analysis and Solutions

Postby stratmania » Sat 31 Aug 2013 11:03

zbone wrote:Triumph, can you please explicitly formulate what exactly the problem is which you are trying to address. My guess is your concern is USSR can build a stack of expensive 2800m ATGM tanks supported by IFV and BMPT. My first question is following:
So what? What exactly the problem with that? How come poor Tunguska got in your nerf bucket?

I think he has a problem with a 175m range advantage by those ATGMs.
Also, getting those ATGM in numbers is very expensive.

User avatar
Azaz3l
Brigadier
Posts: 3295
Joined: Sat 1 Oct 2011 10:38
Location: Bus 410
Contact:

Re: The 2800 Range Meta Analysis and Solutions

Postby Azaz3l » Sat 31 Aug 2013 11:12

Funny how these changes only concern PACT 2800m launchers yet all NATO ones are unchanged.
Image

Kamil
Lieutenant
Posts: 1024
Joined: Thu 25 Apr 2013 22:43
Location: Poland
Contact:

Re: The 2800 Range Meta Analysis and Solutions

Postby Kamil » Sat 31 Aug 2013 11:14

stratmania wrote:
zbone wrote:Triumph, can you please explicitly formulate what exactly the problem is which you are trying to address. My guess is your concern is USSR can build a stack of expensive 2800m ATGM tanks supported by IFV and BMPT. My first question is following:
So what? What exactly the problem with that? How come poor Tunguska got in your nerf bucket?

I think he has a problem with a 175m range advantage by those ATGMs.
Also, getting those ATGM in numbers is very expensive.


Your reply remind me of this viewtopic.php?f=91&t=33207&hilit=BRUTIKUS and i realize that OP goes to right bottom corner of 2 graph :)

zbone
Second-Lieutenant
Posts: 755
Joined: Thu 13 Jun 2013 05:31
Contact:

Re: The 2800 Range Meta Analysis and Solutions

Postby zbone » Sat 31 Aug 2013 11:21

stratmania wrote:
zbone wrote:Triumph, can you please explicitly formulate what exactly the problem is which you are trying to address. My guess is your concern is USSR can build a stack of expensive 2800m ATGM tanks supported by IFV and BMPT. My first question is following:
So what? What exactly the problem with that? How come poor Tunguska got in your nerf bucket?

I think he has a problem with a 175m range advantage by those ATGMs.
Also, getting those ATGM in numbers is very expensive.

So he can't win a 2800m range duel between ATGM carriers playing NATO is Triumph's problem? I really doubt this is correct because he brought quite awesome credentials. He can't truly believe NATO must play this duel and don't use its native advantages because that would be a L2P solution.
There must be something else to it and I am eager to hear.

Return to “Wargame : AirLand Battle”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests