Nato tanks are ridic.

Max_Damage
Lieutenant
Posts: 1351
Joined: Sat 14 Jul 2012 00:41
Location: Forgotten Realms

Nato tanks are ridic.

Postby Max_Damage » Mon 15 Jul 2013 22:03

Hello.

This is the replay: http://alb-replays.info/#/browse/?view=260.

In it you can see how pact is helpless in tank warfare on a FLAT map with all the atgm on tanks herp. You will see towards the end when nato attacks.

The attack has 0 chance to be stopped. The sea hawk dont help pact situation. Sea hawks must be prototypes at least as must many other units be also.

On planes pact tanks should be able to win but no. The game works the way apparently pact tanks are universally worse. Guns and stabs win the game universally.

Pact tanks need some sort of buff really. The atgm on top of it apparently doesnt help all that much. Because it has bad acc, it misfires if range or line of sight broken, it has bad damage.

Pact tanks cant really defend nato snowball. On the other hand they have even less chance in attack because of cost, numbers and bad guns and stabs.
Image

User avatar
Mako
General
Posts: 7352
Joined: Sun 5 May 2013 20:00
Location: Cascadia
Contact:

Re: Nato tanks are ridic.

Postby Mako » Mon 15 Jul 2013 22:09

So where do I put the replay to view it?
If there's two kinds of players, those that like challenges and those that want a fair game, pubstomps should make everyone happy.

Max_Damage
Lieutenant
Posts: 1351
Joined: Sat 14 Jul 2012 00:41
Location: Forgotten Realms

Re: Nato tanks are ridic.

Postby Max_Damage » Mon 15 Jul 2013 22:14

c/users/username/savegames/Eugensystems/wargame 2/

put it there


Also i would like to note the effect of nato planes which are apparently op. Why op? Pact has bad dreams at night where f 117 bombs and gets away with no damage taken. thats why they need to set extensive aa net. Same with sea hawks.

things like f 117 a nd sea hawks bankrupt pact side so they cant buy enough tanks.
Image

User avatar
homerfcb
Lieutenant
Posts: 1199
Joined: Mon 24 Sep 2012 16:33
Contact:

Re: Nato tanks are ridic.

Postby homerfcb » Mon 15 Jul 2013 22:20

Why I am to lazy too watch any replays? However I believe you.
Tell me what you want to change? It's a difficult question. I'm against changing the tank stats too much now. balance is nearly fine now.
i would love too see a buff to all these useless units pact has. It would bring some higher variability...
Maybe I will make a list with these units...
The big nerf whiners thread, much controversal stuff, some suggestions and some more stuff, also with a big Patriot range explanation Just klick me, or go here viewtopic.php?f=155&t=48184

User avatar
DeuZerre
More than 10 000 messages. Soldier you are the leader of all armies!
Posts: 11125
Joined: Mon 27 Feb 2012 23:17
Location: Universe, Galaxy, Solar System, Earth, Ground, Eurasian Continent, Main Landmass.
Contact:

Re: Nato tanks are ridic.

Postby DeuZerre » Mon 15 Jul 2013 22:25

Care to give a description of the tanks on each sides? I don't have my gaming computer right now, but what you describe seems odd.
Image
Marshal honoris causa
FLX wrote:Removing the weaknesses from the divisions leads to all divisions being the same in the long run. We won't proceed like that.

User avatar
HEROFOX
First Sergeant
Posts: 214
Joined: Mon 24 Jun 2013 08:24
Contact:

Re: Nato tanks are ridic.

Postby HEROFOX » Mon 15 Jul 2013 22:28

DeuZerre wrote:Care to give a description of the tanks on each sides? I don't have my gaming computer right now, but what you describe seems odd.


Same :shock:
Image

User avatar
DiabloTigerSix
Colonel
Posts: 2581
Joined: Tue 14 Feb 2012 21:06
Contact:

Re: Nato tanks are ridic.

Postby DiabloTigerSix » Mon 15 Jul 2013 22:32

I would prefer all tanks without autoloaders to have their rof limited to 8 rpm max. But some don't need to be nerfed at all (M60A3, AMX-40, M1) so they'd require some kind of a buff afterwards.

George551
Second-Lieutenant
Posts: 821
Joined: Sat 21 Jul 2012 18:29
Location: Behind you
Contact:

Re: Nato tanks are ridic.

Postby George551 » Mon 15 Jul 2013 22:33

I think the tank balance is fine, though other aspects might be slightly inbalanced (*cough*PLANES*cough*).

There was this one time where 4 Strikers, 4 challengers, 2 seahawks and some AMX-13 Hapoons (from my ally, they killed 3 T-72 then ran out of missiles lol) held off and destroyed entirely 4 T-80BV, 8-t-72Mi Jaguar, 8 T-72WLK and 30 base T-72 (8 Mi-24Vs were also involved briefly, pumping 1-3 Kokons into each challenger before Mr AMX rowland and Chapparral got involved) but that was because it was a derp rush across a flat surface, causing most tanks to have to close in to the chally to actually penertrate their armour.

As with many things in life, tank battles are all about penertration, only engage heavies with heavies on a flat surface and preferrably support them with vehicles and choppers.
Everything has a weakness except nukes and magic, but they're just cheating
Image

Max_Damage
Lieutenant
Posts: 1351
Joined: Sat 14 Jul 2012 00:41
Location: Forgotten Realms

Re: Nato tanks are ridic.

Postby Max_Damage » Mon 15 Jul 2013 22:38

t80u t80a t64bv t72b1
m1a1 l2a4 m11p challenger


To sum up the apprent balance blunders:

1)Pact tanks are too expensive AND too few. guess what price/avail nerfs were uncalled for.

2)Pact atgm including the tank ones are ineffective. bad accuracy, low damage, the inherent atgm flaws ([GUID] etc) also runs out of ammo instantly. ATGM tanks also instantly put you at disadvantage by requiring ton of babysitting. As a result you are guaranteed to have some expensive weak rocket tanks under gun fire and quickly dead.

2a)ofc pact guns are crap and bad stab.

3)nato air threat is too huge. Pact has bad dreams at night and has to buy ton of aa. Goes bankrupt because of air threat. As i have said many times nato air is op(f117, sea hawk, tow 2 lynx, f 15a, f14, wild weasel, raven, super entedart, jaguar a, nuke falcon). THIS HAS HUGE EFFECT ON ALL GAMEPLAY tanks included.

4)Pact air-ground support is virtually non existent. ground attack jets and helos just arent up to the tasks. Overpriced hinds and havok, no 1000 kg bombs. Literally 80pt sea hawk and tow 2 lynx are miles ahead of hinds and havok. You will see 45 pt check planes with s5 making fun suicides in that replay. because evidently pact players prefer to suicide cheaper planes. Also the f15a + f 14 combo forbids use of aircraft by pact.

I ve been in the situation like in the replay.
Last edited by Max_Damage on Mon 15 Jul 2013 22:48, edited 8 times in total.
Image

User avatar
Drang
Major-General
Posts: 3725
Joined: Sun 3 Feb 2013 04:20
Location: Fighting on the edge of the world
Contact:

Re: Nato tanks are ridic.

Postby Drang » Mon 15 Jul 2013 22:38

DiabloTigerSix wrote:I would prefer all tanks without autoloaders to have their rof limited to 8 rpm max. But some don't need to be nerfed at all (M60A3, AMX-40, M1) so they'd require some kind of a buff afterwards.



JESUS CHRIST NO.

HAND LOADED TANKS ARE FASTER (when not moving).

HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED.

On the replay:

You had 2 ATGM teams, a T-64BV and a T-80A, and were attacked by 5 M1A1s, 4 Challengers, 2 Leo2A4s, 4M11Ps, and 2 MBT-70s, with supporting anti-air missiles, at a point furthest from your own reinforcement zones and close to the enemies. You negated the range advantage of your ATGMs by laying down a smokescreen between yourselves and the oncoming enemy armour. The enemy identified and suppressed your AA with artillery. You grossly overinvested in RAD AA units, and when the final assault came, they primarily rolled you due to the fact you'd deployed your own tanks so bloody poorly.



In what possible realm of decency should your forces have prevailed?
Last edited by Drang on Mon 15 Jul 2013 23:20, edited 1 time in total.

Return to “Wargame : AirLand Battle”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 guests