|
I think I misunderstood exactly what you were suggesting. That's still not a great value adder though, considering everything that the ATGM capability is used to justify. (of course it's harder for IFVs etc, the whole point was you weren't meant to send stuff forward into a position like that to snipe units)
|
#
?
May 5, 2014 09:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 21:10 |
|
|
My first deck, so I'm sure its terrible. http://imgur.com/Z7QYtky I built it as a nordic mortorized infantry build, to be used in urban areas. Major problem I see with it is that it has no significant artillery other than mortars, and Air defense is pure missile which could provide a strain on my logistics. Should i scrap it?
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2014 15:35
|
|
|
Cimber posted:My first deck, so I'm sure its terrible. Erm, one can win games with it, so if you are comfortable using it, keep it. Although I would make it un-specialized. You are missing out on some good units like STRF9040 and Bkan by going with motorized. I would also get another F16 bomber instead of the starfighter. pedro0930 fucked around with this message at 16:11 on May 5, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 5, 2014 15:48
|
|
|
What seems like the problem is trying to assign a set value based on something that doesn't really have one. Unlike the gun, the missile value changes pretty dramatically based on the situation. I think the T-64B and especially the T-62Ms are good examples of this. Open country map, the missile was worth every penny because it adds to the fight in a way no gun tank can even dream, and not only that, but you can trade with things like a 25 AP Bradley and survive the first salvo where he will not. There's a ton of intrinsic value there. At the same time, put those tanks in gunfights, especially the 62s, and they under perform pretty badly for the cost. For example: I don't think there was a better valued tank in the game then a T-64B on Ragnarok. But that's not nearly the case on something more focused, like Uppsala. So while we have to assign a value from the missiles, it will never be perfect and not everyone will agree what that value is worth to them. Mazz fucked around with this message at 16:18 on May 5, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 5, 2014 16:10
|
|
|
If anyone is interested in military history, I found some interesting links to eyewitness accounts of the PLA's last major military action: here and here There's even a documentary here if you like watching videos. Frontline is a quality production. Hint: it's 
Arglebargle III fucked around with this message at 16:38 on May 5, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 5, 2014 16:14
|
|
|
pedro0930 posted:Erm, one can win games with it, so if you are comfortable using it, keep it. Well i just tried it, and i decimated the computer. But the AI was randomly assigned a armor deck in the skirmish I used and was very foolish by just throwing his tanks into the urban defensive line I had set up. The Emix missile launchers were just slaughtering them. Also, the AI was much more interested in using its MRLS against my empty transports I had parked behind the town rather than using them on the city where they could have done real damage to my infantry.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2014 16:15
|
|
|
Cimber posted:Well i just tried it, and i decimated the computer. Again though, the AI will teach you very little outside of understanding game mechanics. The entire feel is different, and while you can probably still be successful with it, the different flaws will come out in a way the AI could never expose. You have to remember that people in this thread can beat the entire campaign with like 3-5 units lost total. That poo poo doesn't happen in MP.... well at least not often. At the same time, don't be daunted by that. MP really isn't any more difficult or anything, it just takes a different line of thought. Mazz fucked around with this message at 16:22 on May 5, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 5, 2014 16:20
|
|
|
Playing against the AI is not very useful in learning how to play against people, yeah. The AI seems to totally ignore recon, which is probably the single most important part of the human vs. human game.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2014 16:22
|
|
|
There is some change fundamental to RD compared to ALB but I can't put my finger on it. I was pretty good at ALB but in this I tend to get completely loving slaughtered on the attack, can't hold territory effectively, etc. Is it just new units and rebalancing on the edges or what? It used to be possible to take a nice mix of tanks, infantry and support and win battles at the start of a match for instance but I don't really feel like that happens any more. Like taking a spot with some Spetz in a Hind and then coming out of the woods with a trio of t-80Bs would usually be enough to bodyslam NATO chumps but that just... Doesn't work now. What gives?
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2014 16:26
|
|
|
If you upload a replay I can have a look at what went wrong. I use this replay upload site myself: http://alb-replays.info/rdbeta/#/ Second, T-80B never really slam...anything? Even in ALB it was T80U, T80A, and T64BV all the way for the Soviet. Additionally tanks are now more vulnerable due to higher availability of anti-tank weapon with very high AP. In ALB, there were like three units with TOW2, almost all on prototype unit in the weaker factions. Now close to everyone has TOW-2. Lastly, if you just join a random game you see, chances are it's a pub stomp with semi-organized opponents. They might not be tryharding, but they'll at least not be clueless, same cannot be said for your teammates. (Example, a game I played during release week, my teammate said this is his first game in RD, but he played a lot of ALB. Ok, so probably at least knows the basics, right? The first thing he did is to buy literally every single Apache he could afford and lose them in the first minute of the game by moving them straight into range of a group of the Chinese AA helicopters and quit immediately.) Anyhow, they'll at least organize some kind of response before giving up (typically F111C or Kahu to blow you up) pedro0930 fucked around with this message at 16:42 on May 5, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 5, 2014 16:33
|
|
|
DOCTOR ZIMBARDO posted:There is some change fundamental to RD compared to ALB but I can't put my finger on it. I was pretty good at ALB but in this I tend to get completely loving slaughtered on the attack, can't hold territory effectively, etc. Is it just new units and rebalancing on the edges or what? It used to be possible to take a nice mix of tanks, infantry and support and win battles at the start of a match for instance but I don't really feel like that happens any more. Like taking a spot with some Spetz in a Hind and then coming out of the woods with a trio of t-80Bs would usually be enough to bodyslam NATO chumps but that just... Doesn't work now. What gives? Power creep basically. More high end hardware means those t80b's get curbstomped by the new high end gear people get. After all, what good can a t80b do if theres an apache longbow spewing hellfires everywhere or a Chally 2, which can eat your missiles with no fucks given. Which is unfortunate since it makes those mid-priced tanks useless as anything other than filler.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2014 16:37
|
|
|
Now now, the Apache in ALB and the Apache Longbow in RD are functionally identical. It's just AA that got nerfed. If you're Soviet. Hey waaaaiiit. That is a really interesting point. Crotale: 60 points. Gepard A2: 65 points. Chaparal A3: same point range. Tunguska-M: 90 loving points. It's a huge outlier compared to the other premiere anti-helo AA units. What gives?
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2014 16:41
|
|
|
Really need a :eugen: smily.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2014 16:44
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:Now now, the Apache in ALB and the Apache Longbow in RD are functionally identical. It's just AA that got nerfed. If you're Soviet. Hey waaaaiiit. Well the thing is none of those really compare directly to the Tunguska. The Tunguska is both a Gepard quality AAA and a Crotale quality missile, with an extra set of ammo, on the same vehicle. The chappy comes close, but the Chappy loves to miss, has half the HP, and no gun to fall back on. Is it worth 90 points? Probably not, but I'd say that all AA in RD (especially PACT) seems overpriced then the Tunguska specifically.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2014 17:00
|
|
|
Mazz posted:Is it worth 90 points? Probably not, but I'd say that all AA in RD (especially PACT) seems overpriced then the Tunguska specifically. Is it possible that this is deliberate, as a way to encourage the use of planes to counter planes and helicopters?
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2014 17:05
|
|
|
I'd say no because all the new best-AA units from the Crotale to the PGZ-95 are in the 60-70 point range. The Tunguska and Tunguska-M are the only real standouts and while that's annoying because of how USSR plays and how vulnerable it is to helicopter gunships cockblocking your armor it doesn't seem like an intentional effect. I don't think Eugen would intentionally nerf only one nation's AA lineup. Also USSR does not have good anti-helo helo options and using planes to attack helicopters is a classic newbie mistake. You can't even trade planes for gunships effectively unless their AA is no joke nonexistant.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2014 17:26
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:I don't think Eugen would intentionally nerf only one nation's AA lineup.  Do you know how much loving work I had to do to get Eugen to even slightly buff the Osa series? (which they then match with a severe nerf to all RADAR SAM  )
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2014 18:01
|
|
|
Davin Valkri posted:Is it possible that this is deliberate, as a way to encourage the use of planes to counter planes and helicopters? No, because they've mostly been discouraging using planes to counter helicopters.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2014 19:46
|
|
|
The Tunguska missile isn't that much better than the other anti helo SAMs because it's saclos, and fires notably slower. Also because of saclos it has a bad tendency to spaz out or something due to Los issues. That said I think 90 is a bit much.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2014 20:13
|
|
|
Tung M should be ~80 and the regular should go back to 65.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2014 20:16
|
|
|
Tunguskas were monsters in ALB because they outranged all helicopters while maintaining reasonable accuracy (i.e. weren't Chaps). Crotales are massively overpriced, and so are Chap A3s, though less so. Crotales are worth at best 45 points. Tunguskas have the disadvantage of being burdened with a superfluous anti-air gun, which you'd only ever turn on if the missiles run out, but it is somehow still worth a price hike.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2014 20:24
|
|
|
I do well against people, but against the hard AI, I just get wrecked. I have no idea why. He just ruins my poo poo.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2014 20:52
|
|
|
I think especially against hard, the AI is working with a points advantage and isn't shy about running units continually into you.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2014 21:08
|
|
|
The Tunguska-M is way more accurate than either the Chapparal or Crotale on top of its numerous advantages over both platforms. 20-30 more points is far from unreasonable. It's the base Tunguska that suffers from being poo poo for cost.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2014 21:26
|
|
|
So, I've been having a lot of fun with a deck. Guess I'll share it. This is a soviet untyped. I don't like spetznatz so keep in mind you could probably drop the BMP-1D for a card of spetz and it'd be more optimal.  jvEhTsKrlNDhWcosCJ7Q4ViwgoGewxJahOp3GEs25SncYS+ZdosOnFQemhipRAZAGQTQBlUCl6HwzM5cEtCRS7JP8veRCTjOXyFg Starting force consists of: 1x2 BMP3/ Moto90' (110) 2x2 Skrezets/ VDV'90 (160) 2x1 BDRM-3 (90) 1x1 Btr-90/ VMF (60) 1x2 Strela-10M (100) 1x1 T64BVI (125) 2x2 BMP-685 (120) 1x2 Konkur-M/BTR-70 (80) I send the BDRM-3's and the Konkurs-M ahead to secure roads, and scout for a helicopter drop... the BDRM-3's tear apart any helicopter drop that is too ambitious by themselves a lot of the time. Follow up with the BMP-3/685/BV1/Strela-10 death ball, spread out when I make contact and cut try to off enemy reinforcements, then assault the enemy position with my next wave of call ins, which is usually Su-122's and BMP-1D's. In depth: Logistics: T80UK is great for middle zones, or if we have a plan to rush and decap a starting zone. other than that, it's pretty standard. Infantry: Konkurs-M: Hard hitting AT in a fast transport. VDV'90/Skrezhet: These serve me really well, long range 22AP and decent vs. other infantry. Skrezhets provide a lot of anti infantry firepower, and 4 of them are a nasty surprise for any wandering helicopters. Moto'90/BMP-3: Clearly taken for the BMP-3 which is amazing. The motostrelki'90 exist, I guess. Moto'75/BMP-1D: the Motostrelki are fodder for sending on foot into towns to get the infantry to shoot at them. The BMP-1D's annihilate any infantry in the open or in forests. Support: Strela-10M: amphibious, 8 missiles, immune to sead, out-ranged by hellfires is the only downside. Tunguska-M: generally only pull these if I see an American airborne deck, longbows are a pain. TOR: all around good, keep them control grouped and radars off until I'm pretty sure there is no sead threat. MSTA: Counter-battery and general purpose artillery. Tank: T34/85: low cost HE throwers and plane / artillery / missile magnets. BMP-685: High accuracy, high rate of fire FSV for killing soft things. T64BVI: Anchor unit, attack move it out of forests to stomp lighter units into the ground, or knife fight with tanks bigger than it. Recon: BRDM-3: These are glorious, great picket units, good fire support, reasonably priced and effective in general. VMF/BTR-90: BTR-90's can cause a lot of pain if they appear somewhere unexpected, and at elite they're amazing. MI-24K: Exceptional optics, fast, armored and doesn't cost 150 like a KA-52. Vehicle: BDRM-KonkM: is useful every now and then, when I need them I NEED them. Burritino: When that city really needs to go away. SU-122: great screening unit, and great for butchering entrenched people firing at my motostrelki'75 footzerg. Helicopter: MI-4: Rockets. MI-24VP: Rockets, Kokons. (switched out these, and was too lazy to take a new picture) Thinking about dropping these for an Akula, but they're so expensive. Plane: Yak-141: Cheapish, F+F missiles serve me well in pairs. Su-27PU: Lots of missiles, I take it at vet because it lets it win 1v1 against things like rookie rafales in a H2H pass, and I have enough A2A in my plane tab to not miss the extra one. Mig-29M: F+F missiles, bombs are occasionally useful. Su-27M: F+F missiles, AGM's. use it to delete M1A2's or to orbit with the mig29's if I'm fighting a lot of aircraft. Su-25: Great all round CAS. Can use it as SEAD with the rockets, or against lightly defended tanks. great for shooting down SF helicopters in the back field. I've forgone bombers for USSR, because I don't think any of them are survivable or have good enough payload to be worth losing the ability to shut down enemy aircraft. Naval: Don't care don't really play naval maps very often and if I do someone else does the botes so I decided to focus on stuff to drop on the enemy shoreline. Infidelicious fucked around with this message at 22:11 on May 5, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 5, 2014 22:07
|
|
|
"Optimal" is for pussies. Just ask my US armor deck with all the abrams. E: a formula to add to the holy spergsheet, stupid fun>try harding Agean90 fucked around with this message at 22:19 on May 5, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 5, 2014 22:16
|
|
|
Vahakyla posted:I do well against people, but against the hard AI, I just get wrecked. I have no idea why. He just ruins my poo poo. The AI seems like it has insane resource multipliers, so it can throw stupidly impossible numbers of units at you.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2014 23:40
|
|
|
Yep, its difficulty attuned. They also carry over to campaigns, which is why certain campaigns the AI spams the gently caress out of you to the point of self-exhaustion.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2014 23:43
|
|
|
I'm working on a general Soviet deck myself (which will synergize with my buddy's Red Dragons deck which will have access to cheaper wheeled infantry), and pondering the infantry side of it myself. Right now I have: 16 Motostrelki in BMP-1D (nade launchers and 3 armor sounds nice to me) as my IFV line infantry. 12 Gornostrelki90 in Mi-8t for rocket helos and the longer AT as my backup line infantry (but fairly pricey - are they worth it?) 12 VDV in Skrezhets for relatively cheaper shock CQC infantry + AAA 8 Spetnaz in BTR-70 6 Igla-1M in Skrezhets The BMP3 looks really rad, but not enough availability for me to want to fit it in the mere 5 available inf slots. It'd be cool in a mechanized deck, though. I also opted not to use a dedicated ATGM inf because I already had the Gornos and the deck has multiple other ATGM options already Infidelicious posted:
How do you guys find this compares to the 2S15 Norov vehicle instead? The Norov costs 5 more, has 5% less accuracy and 1 less armor, slightly slower and you get 4 less. But, it has 2100 range and 12 ROF, and more AP damage.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2014 00:32
|
|
|
Llyranor posted:I'm working on a general Soviet deck myself (which will synergize with my buddy's Red Dragons deck which will have access to cheaper wheeled infantry), and pondering the infantry side of it myself. I tried Gorno, but Russian AA choppers are too expensive to justify an initial air investment, and I find them not very useful once lines are drawn. The Norov is good, but ironically I find tank slots at less of a premium than vehicle ones... because tanks suck.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2014 00:52
|
|
|
Infidelicious posted:I tried Gorno, but Russian AA choppers are too expensive to justify an initial air investment, and I find them not very useful once lines are drawn. yeah, are tanks really nerfed in this compared to ALB? They seem to die a lot easier.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2014 01:04
|
|
|
Vahakyla posted:I do well against people, but against the hard AI, I just get wrecked. I have no idea why. He just ruins my poo poo. Well for one the AI can think of everything at once, and doesnt have the small time lag of moving the map around, figuring out whatr to do. It also probably gets bonus points and other small cheats to make it great. I'm practicing on the AI now just to get a feel for the game and the mechanics/quirks, but when I can I'll be doing multiplayer. I probably should be doing that from day one but whatever.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2014 01:06
|
|
|
The AI is pretty stupid and once you figure out how to exploit its tendency to throw units mindlessly at fortified towns it's rather easy to defeat.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2014 01:15
|
|
|
Llyranor posted:I'm working on a general Soviet deck myself (which will synergize with my buddy's Red Dragons deck which will have access to cheaper wheeled infantry), and pondering the infantry side of it myself. Motos in BMP-1Ds is a good call, Gorno'90 are great but I just don't know that they're worth the cost. I prefer an opening rush of BTR-80a (Spetz, Morskaya Pehota, or just Moto 90's). I like the Iglas in Skrezhets. Llyranor posted:How do you guys find this compares to the 2S15 Norov vehicle instead? Personally, I don't really see the point of the 685 when the Norov/Zhalo exist. Those things are the core of my USSR fast'n'loose ground game
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2014 01:21
|
|
|
TheDeadlyShoe posted:The Tunguska-M is way more accurate than either the Chapparal or Crotale on top of its numerous advantages over both platforms. 20-30 more points is far from unreasonable. Unlike the Gepard or PGZ-95 though the Tunguska won't fire both its gun and missiles at the same time, which makes it substantially less lethal than the cheaper systems. You're paying 90 points for the missiles or the guns, which may be long ranged but on their own are not 90 points of killy.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2014 01:25
|
|
|
Infidelicious posted:So, I've been having a lot of fun with a deck. Guess I'll share it. I have gotten my rear end kicked by this deck pretty much every time I have played against it; this is a really good deck and starting force is hard to deal with. Only changes I would make would be to swap out the Su-122s or T-34s and grab some BMPTs and drop the Mi-24Vs or Mi-4s for Akulas.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2014 01:51
|
|
|
I made some similar changes to my general Russian deck because apparently cheap vehicle spam is all the rage now. I found I wasn't really using my fourth plane since it was a Su-27M and the Su-25 actually handles both HE and AP duties quite well as long as you can keep it alive. Comments? Also: maybe not playing today.  
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2014 02:11
|
|
|
I'd swap the Norovs for Afganskis for great stun power, they need to be micro'd a bit to stop them dying too fast though.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2014 02:31
|
|
|
I dropped the BMPT for Afghanskis, since the BMP-3 replicates the BMPT's weapon suite.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2014 03:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 21:10 |
|
|
I loving love BMP-Ts but yeah I can see that. Armor is pretty different though.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2014 04:09
|
|