Page 5 of 41

Re: NATO airspam

Posted: Wed 15 Jan 2014 22:06
by Gopblin
Ah, a plane balance topic. I also believe this needs to be discussed.

Overall plane balance:

First off, we have to remember that NATO Mixed CatA is very good, whereas PACT Mixed CatA lacks in Soviet prototypes without getting much from NSWP. Therefore, some of the decent CatA NSWP planes (like East German Su22 which in fact is almost as good as Super Ent, having less ECM / speed / AP, but 2 missiles for just 10pts more) hardly ever see the light of day. NSWP prototypes and NATO minor prototypes won't get discussed for the same reasons - decks suck in other things.

Therefore, the decks we are comparing are mostly USSR CatA and PACT Mixed CatC vs NATO Mixed C, A and USA CatA.

Here I will go over each deck's strengths, which are IMO what you should mostly use. While one can still use suboptimal units like CatC NATO fighters, it's generally best to go for maximum cost-effectiveness with air as you tend to lose a lot of points if it fails.

1. USSR CatA has the interceptor superiority over everything but NATO CatC, being able to field 4 Mig31.
It also has AGM on par with CatA NATO/USA, good SEAD plane, and some decent fighters (7000 range vs 6300 but not F&F so much lower effective ROF).

2. PACT CatC has a decent helo hunter/rocketplane/dogfighter (Lim6), a decent fighter (CZ 21Bis), a passable AGM and SEAD for CatC (Mig27 and Su24), and more napalm than you can normally use.

[here I get tired of posting and decide to finish this quicker]

3. NATO CatC has the better rocketplane (Freedom Fighter has better missiles, better gun, and comes at higher vet than Lim6), far better cluster bombers (per point, NATO planes carry 1.5-3.5 times more cluster bombs), better HE trucks (Intruder, Mirage), good SEAD (4900m range JagA), and best interceptors in game (4 F14).

4. NATO CatA has the same plus AGM and fighters, the only thing CatC misses, but can't field as many F14s and cluster bombers/rocketplanes anymore.

5. USA has good fighters (F16C), very good HE trucks (Strike Eagle, Nighthawk, TRAM), SEAD (Raven), and hard-hitting rocketplanes (16 Zuni for 40 points!), but can only field 2 interceptors.


- Plane spam isn't a problem if one plays normally, i.e. hides in cover behind layered ADN. However, properly spammed planes can decimate any incursions into the open, reinforcing the sitzkrieg meta. An overall rework of plane mechanics (adding a 3-minute call-in time for example) would solve the problem and improve gameplay, individual nerfs/buffs likely won't.

- As far as national air capabilities, in CatA there is a paradoxical situation where USSR has an advantage over US and NATO in A2A combat (4-6 interceptors vs 2), but doesn't really have many usable A2G options, especially in the face of more cost-effective NATO AA (Rolands and Chaps FTW).

- In CatC, the situation is realistic in that NATO has better A2A and A2G; of course PACT doesn't get its realistic ground superiority but that's a separate problem.

Faction Balance solutions:

- For vanilla: wait for RD, whine about situation there.
- For mods: give USSR/PACT better bombers and nerf Mig31 to 1 card = problems solved.

Best wishes,

Re: NATO airspam

Posted: Wed 15 Jan 2014 22:10
by jubedy
A few points.

CatC is fine, if you want to use worse units there's no reason you shouldn't have more of them available. As has already been stated, CatC decks have glaring flaws. Take advantage of them.

Spam goes for both sides, saying NATO or PACT just discredits the argument. Likewise, using the word spam for units that only have a couple available in the first place also discredits the argument. Just some tips.

Air spam as it is isn't nearly as bad as it used to be, and while it can pop up from time to time it's rarely an issue. Especially NATO airspam, I find more often than not I'll kill the passengers before the helicopter ever touches the ground because of all the damage carried over from destroying weak transport helis. As far as planes go, the decks with good bombers don't have enough air superiority planes to merit calling it spam. It can be annoying, but really planes are expensive and if they outnumber you in aircraft you probably outnumber them even more in ground forces.

As for a situation where one person spams air superiority and another spams bombers, well good on them, mutual efforts always work best. Just means you and whoever you're with need to combine push back.

I don't like spam because it feels cheesy, but to be honest it's more of an annoyance than a game breaking issue.

Re: NATO airspam

Posted: Wed 15 Jan 2014 22:18
by Radioshow
I have seen far more PACT plane/helo spam than any NATO spam.

Arty, jets 'n helos seem to be the only thing pact uses haha and your complaining about NATO crap helo spam?

IR AA/AAA would rip them up, its not like they have huge amounts of rockets or ATGM's or 10HP like PACT helos :lol: :lol:

Re: NATO airspam

Posted: Wed 15 Jan 2014 22:22
by Gopblin
Yep, on the subject of helo spam I agree with Radio - PACT's got plenty of AA to deal with helos, mainly the ridiculously cost-effective MANPADs.

In fact, I haven't seen effective helo spam in months, but that may be because as of late I play either low points or CatC PACT.

As for air spam, it can be almost equally bad with either CatC.

Best wishes,

Re: NATO airspam

Posted: Wed 15 Jan 2014 22:24
by Hartmann
Gopblin wrote:-stuff-
Best wishes,

good SEAD (4900m range JagA)

Good you're still here and entertaining.

This is mostly about opening spam for as far as I can tell btw.

Re: NATO airspam

Posted: Wed 15 Jan 2014 22:34
by beeroshima
triumph wrote:
RangerPL wrote:
Hartmann wrote:feels pretty pointless to use any helicopters in openings on nato right now.

what game are you playing

The one that involves aggressive play.

I use nato helos to open all the time. My current 40+ game win streak says youre wrong.

Re: NATO airspam

Posted: Wed 15 Jan 2014 22:45
by Gopblin
Hartmann wrote:Good you're still here and entertaining.

This is mostly about opening spam for as far as I can tell btw.

Well yeah, low ECM means JagA is only usable under certain conditions (you know roughly where enemy ADN starts, and it's far enough from airspawn that you can evac before being hit with A2A), but under those conditions the 4900m range is really good.

As far as opening spam, I haven't seen helos used effectively in a long time. Maybe because I constantly use 35pt planes.

Best wishes,

Re: NATO airspam

Posted: Wed 15 Jan 2014 22:50
by K98-Sch├╝tze[GER]
Just my common 2cents:

Spam is not existing in Wargame!
---> do you want that your opponent is bringing a good mix to battlefield?
-----> dont be silly, when he decides to bring a specific kind of troops, than he has a lack in other kinds of units
--------> military history: USSR was spamming infantry and tanks in WW2 - where I can report it as kind of cheat?
= do you notice something :lol:

Spawn killing is not existing in Wargame!
---> you have problems that somebody arty or/and bomb your go-on-map-zone?
-----> dont be silly, counter these guys effectivly, build up a better defense and conquer some other zone
--------> military history: USA/UK was bombing german cities and sometimes industrial complexes in WW2 - where I can report this kind of cheat?
= do you notice something :lol:

....and not only in the Wargame seria, also other games.
This childish spawn-spam discussions always....really.....

Re: NATO airspam

Posted: Wed 15 Jan 2014 22:52
by Radioshow
In all seriousness I don't see a lot of "TRUE" helo spam from pact anymore. Still see a lot of helos(Mi-24's everywhere)but not really pure spam.

However, most games have PACT throwing 2-4 Mig31, 2-4 Mig31M ,2-4 SEAD (su24/MiG25BM) plus any number of fighters/nape/rockets and a fair amount of MiG27K's.

I don't use interceptors for that reason. There are always more(4v4) PACT interceptors/fighters than is possible to counter without team planning. And this is pretty much every game. Some, like Delroy's screenshot shows, are spamming so many jets they have nothing else on the field and the games are very short.

Anyway we have never really had much problem with air spam of any kind, save a couple points, make sure you start with adequate AA and have lots of recon. Let them spam, it almost guarantees a win.

Re: NATO airspam

Posted: Wed 15 Jan 2014 22:56
by beeroshima
I use a flowchart for the first few minutes of a game with great success when using airborne infantry.

Recon is essential. If you dont know what youre sending your troops into, its already fail. It goes without saying your objective shouldnt be beyond an area you can at least hope to arrive at the same time or ahead of your enemy.
If you see the giant ball of incoming airspam, keep your airborne helo force within the defensive range of your ground based aa as well as your own teams asf. If your opponent chooses to target your helos with his planes and ignore the allied fighters shooting at him, good for you. Ill make that trade every time. Worst case scenario is, your opponent is smart enough to not overextend his jets and he keeps them alive. At that point though, he typically has his money spent on too much air hes afraid to lose and my superior ground forces are able to take ground vs his because he spent too many points on planes. By the time his 2nd and 3rd sorties are launching and ive recognized the spam, ive had time to pepper the landscape with manpads and other aa that when enhanced by our own asf's, renders his spam useless. Every game requires proper reaction to what is observed but the most common result is spammed planes falling out of the sky followed by ragequits.