its insane how good rusoid 57mm is, good against everything except cruise missiles, shame america didnt start and then abandon a billion impossibly optimistic projects so that they could then be overpowered in video games decades later

infantry buff when?

>>2113309
The nerf to APS in the next patch will be a buff for infantry

File: MechanizedWave.png (1.61 MB, 1478x944)

1.61 MB PNG

Having some fun with this build. I picked up Buk because it is more mobile than the S-300s and has more ammunition. Thematically, Buk is also a better fit for following moving units than the S-300s.

I have problems with enemy infantry sneaking in through forest. What are some good Forest Clearers and what's the best way to hunt and kill infantry in forests?

>>2113308
>shame america didnt start and then abandon a billion impossibly optimistic projects
They did, people just forget half of it, because there's very rarely anything solid released on it while Rushits leak like a sieve, probably intentionally so people think they're actually very strong and make new stuff. Also, a lot of Russia's post-Cold War protoshit is private projects but the same grace is rarely extended to the US.

File: gUAcnW4.png (927 KB, 1093x772)

927 KB PNG

I have been having a lot of success with this deck getting it to over 1300 elo. However I feel like Armor/Airborne is stronger than Armor/Specops right now. Any advice on how to transition this general deck concept to Armor/Airborne?

How is the campaign? I don't expect WiC tier kino, but is it any better than Wargame's?

is there any reason to use Bradley over AMPV?
the ESV one at least get the HE tow so there is usecase for it

File: Screenshot 2025-08-06 161242.png (2.63 MB, 1499x1136)

2.63 MB PNG

>>2113337
desu the main different is just that you dont get to spam little bird anymore
this is how I do mine
I rarely ever call in Sep3 these days maybe I should just get rid of it and grab extra sep1 or thunderbolt
I also been trying to ween myself out of APS

File: in the trees.png (784 KB, 1026x574)

784 KB PNG

>>2113255
Finally, basic multiplayer game functionality.

A huge opener in a cargo plane is a great idea but send it only after everyone's sent, killed and returned their ASF. It's a basically free forward drop with maybe a single SAM threatening you.

>>2113328
Your own infantry with support from some cheese shredder vehicles

>>2113354
Its better in the way that AI doesn't make it a tower defense but i hear its pretty boring and monotonous with hour+ long missions and no save function

>>2113337
That's a lot of rangers to send in with no transports, do you not have infantry transport trucks in sup section? Honestly it's the only way i transport infantry anymore

how will they nerf APS?

>>2113328
Any squad with close range weapons like Delta force or Ingenery. Forests confine los to sub-200m so every fight is a knife fight.
Depending on the kind of infantry you're hunting, you might be able to run them over with vehicles too.

File: Think fast chucklenuts.png (116 KB, 433x451)

116 KB PNG

>be 1700+
>matched up with 1300s
>lose
>matched up with 1300s
>lose
>matched up with 1300s
>lose
>now i'm 1600

Anyway, I'm really enjoying AB/Stryker for total recon dominance and javelin spam. My one weakness is dealing with close-range heavy armor moving too fast as they try and catch my strykers to reliably Streagle them, but that's becoming more of a skill issue

>>2113337
Armoured/AB is 90% armoured, 10% AB.
You just pick up weapon teams, drones, Thunderbolts, Strike Eagles and Brutus' and the rest of the deck is tank+IFV violence.
Bring AMPVs to move infantry around and IFVs (either brads or sup'd up AMPVs, it's preference) because they're strong and annoying to deal with. Bring Cav Scouts for the recon Bradley.

>>2113355
The ESV is worthless. It's Bunker Buster doesn't negate building cover so it actually deals comically little damage per hit and tends to just lose the shootout vs ATGMs.

The main choice is that the Brad has longer ranged missiles and a tonne of ammo for less cost. It also has a two shot magazine so the second missile always pierces APS while the javelin matches APS reload and needs to work in groups to overwhelm it. Bradley's also just have a lot of ammo, so they're less dependent on quick resupply. The AMPV gets a stronger autocannon and can fire on the move.

Basically you can build them to do different things. Bradley's are ideal for just being static ATGM platforms firing concealed from tree lines and AMPVs are better for leading an assault with your tanks and getting infantry into the fight.

Are thermobariyc meant to be used against building, or can they wreck forests too?

File: Armoured + Airborne.jpg (603 KB, 2402x1227)

603 KB JPG

>>2113456
My intuition is to nerf the reload, because they've already done that like 4 times between the first open beta and release. But I think the impact that would have would be pretty far-reaching because a lot of interceptable weapons have their RoF deliberately set to match the current reload.
>>2113493
There's nothing special about most weapons listed as Thermobaric, most of them are just anti-infantry explosives with low pen. As long as it doesn't have a minimum range it should work fine in forests. Generally speaking any squad with anti-infantry explosives will dominate a squad without them.
>>2113337
Here's how I build it. Use copious mid-priced APS vehicles to push through ATGMs and tanks to fight other mid-priced vehicles, while cheap shit like the Sheridans just help provide mass. Mech Engis are there to clear infantry from places you don't want to put vehicles, and Weapons Teams are godlike but for the most part this isn't an infantry deck.

I prefer the 330pt Streagle because I think 365 is overkill. Some people still like to run a few APS Sep2s because there won't always be a cluster plane up and that's valid, but I just think there's already enough APS on the field without it so I don't bother. I personally like to have some cheap humvees that I can just throw forward to gain information but that's 100% personal preference. You also probably don't need that many heli gunships but I just like to have something cheap and fast I can use to exploit a break and kill backline shit.

A lot of this might change with the patch, though. I hope it does.

>>2113553
>that Streagle
>JDAMs mixed with cluster

What'n tarnation

>>2113561
They're just on there because something has to be in that slot and it's the cheapest option.

Most people run it with 12 cluster bombs for 365pts, but that's massive overkill unless you're blasting an entire spawn road. You can also run it with 10 cluster bombs for 355. I've just found through trial and error that 8 of the big cluster bombs is enough to easily land the lethal run so I can save 35 points and still achieve the same effect 9/10 times. I guess you could technically use the JDAMs on a separate bombing run but I never actually think about it.

>>2113572
Just use snakeeyes. It's worth it as dual-purpose for when you come up against Mobiki the Trash Infantry Enjoyer

File: BrokenArrow_vrfVtxvSWu.png (1.02 MB, 543x1260)

1.02 MB PNG

if you are going that route
why not just get the fuel tank?
or even push it to 275 point by only bring 4 clusters?
bringing jdam you never going to ever use seem kinda waste imo even if its the cheapest option

>>2113623
>4 cluster
Not enough. You need 4 big cluster bombs to overlap their coverage to ensure a kill on a T-90M or Armata. With 4 bombs, the only place where they all overlap is the dead center of the bombing run, with a little random variation from how they spread out. The more bombs you add, the longer the center sweetspot where 4 overlap gets, making it easier to land the hit against a lone tank or catch multiple in a single run. 4 would be optimal if you could actually hit that sweetspot reliably against a moving target but I can't, and I doubt there's anybody around who could.

The fuel tank setup only saves 10pts. Comparing the two, you pay 355pts for 10 bombs, or 330 for 8. I don't think those 2 bombs are worth 25pts, especially if you don't actually need them. But if you'd prefer to have them, be my guest.

What's the meta for Killer Eggs and Comanches now? I remember people were running AA eggs back around launch but I don't know how things have evolved since then. I hear people complain about keggs a lot but I don't usually play specops so I'm not sure what loadout they're talking about.

>>2113650
unironically as meat shields for your expensive guardian/longbow

>>2113650
KEggs work well as basically anything except rocket gunships, depends on what the rest of your helis are setup for
Comanche is excellent for basically everything too, at higher elo people often send out one with 2 hellfire slots + rockets + radar to aggressively pick away at enemy ground opener, then throughout the match use them for backline raids due to their stealth and 2400 optics

>>2113650
I take all MG killer eggs and bring them out all together in their group of 4
>melts infantry
>can pick away at APCs
>can rush an expensive attack helicopter
>will easily get rid of AA and artillery if you get it in the back line
>extremely cheap, so if they die you get them all back right away

Today I learned that laser-guided rockets like DAGR and APKWS can target helicopters

File: 48fc0f35625650e1043130664(...).jpg (45 KB, 736x559)

45 KB JPG

Pst...you can hold fire with an aimed barrage.

>>2113785

Any laser-guided ammunition can do that, even mortar shells.

>>2113309
everyone and their mother already spams infantry like crazy
they dont need a buff

>>2113801
Fun things to do
>hold fire on cluster rocket arty
>target a strike around the frontline where you expect enemy to push
>release hold fire when enemy pushes
>use frontline laser designator to 'aim' the barrage as it flies in
>get accused of cheating

>>2113801
this is great for MLRS clusters if you dont have use for them
>pre aim your point
>enemy pushes
>destroy all vehicles and panic the infantry

Do artillery with direct fire ammunition fire automatically? It seems like if you fire manually, they just use their mortar/artillery shells.

I have played 20 games over the past 5 days. Literally everyone has had cheaters or leavers in the first 15 minutes. And just so its clear, this isn't cheating like "I don't know how he has recon on me," this is "I shot a dozen missiles at his plane and not a single one came close, he doesn't even have flares anymore" or "his choppers have no inertia and are able to instantly change course."
This isn't fun. I don't have unlimited time to try and fish for decent games. When is the patch? The peak today won't even be 5 figures, how many more players do they need to lose before they do something?

>>2114196
have you read anything about this game? there's no way to fix the cheater situation besides recoding the whole game. they won't regionlock the cheaters, and i doubt they'll spend more than trivial amounts of money to get enough 3rd worlders to ban other 3rd worlders.

Do you bring supplies to the front or do you ferry things behind the front to resupply

>>2114196
Based on the previous patch schedule I'd expect it to drop either tomorrow or Monday. But I wouldn't get your hopes up about its content.
Cheating in BA is easy because they stupidly set up the netcode to treat the client as authoritative, which means cheating will always be possible and downright trivial since your client can just tell the server "this unit didn't get hit :^)" or whatever else. Had the server been authoritative, as it is in literally every other multiplayer RTS, then the only cheat that would be possible is removing the fog of war. The devs didn't understand the choice they were making 5 years ago but the whole game is built on that foundation so you can't change it without starting over from scratch. See you in Broken Arrow 2.

>>2114232
I've seen it done both ways.
A lot of extremely high elo players just make a million small supply dumps all over the place. They use the hybrid transport/supply trucks like the US MTV to bring a few tonnes of supply up alongside troop reinforcements, drop the supplies behind a building/treeline a little bit from the front and then continue forward to deploy the troops. When units are damaged they just manually move them back to the nearest dump, since they have a whole bunch of them spread out.
Obviously the issue is that a drone reveals your static supply dumps and then they all get artied, but since each individual dump is small it's not a big loss. The big benefit of this is that it takes very little attention or micro.

The other way to do it is have your frontline supplies carried around by small armoured logi vehicles like LAV-Ls or MTLBs, which can hold the supplies to protect them and follow close behind your frontline vehicles for quick resupply, with a larger supply vehicle holding a big dump in the rear, so only your frontline supply vehicles need to make the trek backwards to restock their cargo periodically. The big truck can be restocked by a helo a safe distance from the front. The benefit is that you're not exposed to artillery and drones and you have a much quicker turnover, but you have to micromanage your supply vehicles to keep everything safe and moving and stocked so it takes more of your attention.

Airborne and VDV should be able to paradrop infantry out of helicopters

>>2114258
I've been saying for a while that airborne troops or elite units (and also naval troops) should be capable of fast-roping.

Is the cheater situation still bad?

>>2114289
Yes. Chinks were emboldened by the devs defending them. And as more regular players drop the game the chink cheaters are more noticeable

Shoul I use the Su-34 as a missile truck or as a bomber? What about the Su-30?

>>2114258
>>2114276
The reason this doesn't exist is just technical reasons. It's a cool idea but implementing it would draw effort away from all the game-breaking bugs and issues that demand technical development to fix.

To give a sort of example; paradrops in the first open beta were bugged. Between the first and second open betas, they literally couldn't figure out how to fix the bugs plaguing paradrops, so instead they hackishly made it so that a transport plane just automatically drops its cargo wherever the player calls it in. If you try to manually give it a drop command once it's on the field, it will bug out, because the bugs from beta 1 were never fixed. To make helicopter drops work, they'd need to actually fix plane drops.
Maybe this will all happen at some distant future point but I just wouldn't hold your breath while we still have issues in the forefront like units being called in and not spawning, games desyncing or being forcibly disconnected and unable to reconnect, your deck choice being overridden with the default deck, no save function in singleplayer and so on

>>2114311
Su-34 is your best option for a low alt cluster bomber. Su-30 is in kind of a weird place and makes more sense as your cheap airtax fighter than as any kind of bomber, its bomb loadouts are just too expensive.

>>2114311
personally I used mine as strafter plane with AGM
I already use Su-24 for my retarded bomb duty
sometime I even use the other Su-24 for my strafing too cause it can bring 3 SEAD missile
SU-34 is obviously better than both since it can have more ECW and bring some missiles but I rather have my planes be dirt cheap so I can use them as suicide trade

>>2114311
Everyone else already talked about the Su-34, so here's something about the Su-30SM - it can carry up to 6 Kh-29TD, and they are essentally very fast short range uninterceptable cruise missiles. Marking arty / supply / Patriot positions, then flying in low from the flank and firing away is very funny. LAV-ADs / M6 Shorads are 2 hits, arty / Patriots 1 hit, it's great at collapsing highrises too

And you can take it out as a suicide bomber with 4 of these for 285 points

I miss the lower elos vros

>>2114435
>Kh-29TD
>26 damage
>48 pen
Isn't this just basically a russian stormshadow?

>>2114495
Yes except its a cruise missile instead of a guided bomb like the Stormbreaker (when actually Stormbreaker should be the short range cruise missile, and Kh-29TD is just a TV guided improved Kh-25ML and should work just like it)

but POCCNR saffers))))

Am I just too high elo that I don't see cheaters or are people lying for some bizzare reason? I've played about 20 games in the last week and we had only one guy who we somewhat suspected was a fow cheater but we won anyway. 1700 elo

>>2114594
This is me >>2114196 and I'm not lying. I'm a little lower than you (around 1.5k) but I routinely play in groups that pull me up into your range. I also play solo. I've had it where I'm the one who first sees it, I've had it where someone else says it while I'm thinking it, and I've had it where I didn't even notice it till its pointed out to me (other side of map, for example). Maybe its the time of day but that's hard to believe as I've played in pretty much any hour of the day and its always present to some extent.
Maybe you are blind, maybe you are lucky, maybe your play is godlike and you just trounce cheaters anyways; I don't know. Frankly, I don't care, as its prevalent more than enough in my games to ruin my time and I'm pretty much at my limit of patience.

>>2114205
>>2114233
I've heard this about the network framework. Its sounds reasonable, but its also just speculation. I'm still wanting to be hopeful that the dev can actually do something. But honestly, I'm just about done. If they don't release the patch tomorrow or at least give a date then I'll probably just finish up the Russian side of the campaign this weekend and then uninstall. Even then, if it doesn't actually do anything substantial then it'll probably only keep me around another week or two and I doubt they are going to pick-up their release schedule.

File: 1350594293765.jpg (109 KB, 500x500)

109 KB JPG

What is up with this influx of players who don't play the game? They get a few units, place them a little while away from a capture point, and then just seemingly go AFK while doing nothing. They don't call in jets, they don't push any points, they don't defend any points, they don't have any recon creeping up, and they don't do anything useful all game long. They're just... *there*. And if you call them out on it, 9/10 times they just leave the game. Are they waiting for the enemy to push into an area that has no control zones in it?

>>2114233
>server been authoritative, as it is in literally every other multiplayer RTS
Modern RTS use lockstep instead.

>>2113469
I know this feeling. I'm 1800 ELO, and one match it put me with a 600, an 800, a 1000 and a 1200 ELO player on my team. Three of them left five minutes in. -45 ELO.

>>2114233
All this is probably also the reason they don't have replays and probably never will unless they somehow rewrite the approach how the game is resolved.
This is really a death sentence to nay sort of competitive scene if you can only see matches live in first person. Can't have youtubers cast matches and players can't analyse post-match.

>>2114742
Replays are just an algorithmic reconstruction of a match. It's always possible to implement, but it can be challenging for a small dev to do so. For them it's a question of priorities and there are currently a lot of priorities.

>>2114690
depend on the elo I guess
if its like very low like under 300
maybe they are still learning the game
if its mid-high elo maybe they just rage quit after they lost the engagement but just went afk instead of just leave?
its probably the same situation as some people who just sit in fountain when the vote surrender failed

>>2114770
They aren't actually AFK. They're just sitting on an empty patch of land with no capture points nearby doing nothing. They occasionally shift some units around, and they respond to enemies attacking them, but they don't accomplish anything of note. Even if you move into their point and capture it for them, they won't ever reinforce you. They'll just keep sitting there, doing nothing.

>>2114799
maybe they are support player

>>2114799
I notice this in every RTS game. It's some kind of phenomenon.

>no patch

>>2114799
they are playing tower defense
got to HOLD THAT LINE

New devlog. Patch "early next week" ie Monday unless they need to delay last minute. No patchnotes yet

>>2115077
Hilarious that they highlight the tournament in their "community highlights"
that shit fell apart when one team that was close to the organisers got spooky rushed because there were no rules against it, complained to the organisers to get that loss annulled, and due to that blatant favoritism most of the other teams withdrew in protest
game's barely 2 months old and already has tourneyfaggots creating drama out of thin air

>>2114804
A support player that doesn't call in planes, has no recon, has maybe one unit of artillery, and doesn't have any ammo dumps at all? What are they even doing with their points? Do they just have so much random shit deployed in the middle of nowhere, that they have no income?

>>2115239
I heard about that, funny shit.

Game didnt even a reach a 9k daily peak on a friday, its over lads
at 1900 elo game is unplayable solo, its all stacks, if you dont stack everyone on your team will be hundreds of elo below you while entire enemy team is roughly your elo and on voice comms

>>2115281
I just beat a 1900 stack with random 1600 players on my team. Just buckbreak their preplanned strategy by zerg rushing the center and making their support shitter cry.

>>2115337
You do that and you'll have 2-3 color ground, 2-4 color air and 3-5 color arty pounding your ass straight back to spawn while the shitters on your flanks collapse unless you babysit them
I dont know what kind of shitter stacks you face but that literally never works for me

>>2115412
Solo carrying vs US is very doable as long as you don't give them good bombing targets. Airspam is only strong vs expensive premium units and none of the US arty is particularly strong or oppressive vs frontline targets so as long as you can outplay the frontline units of 1 player plus whoever comes to bail him out you can really fuck up a team.

Solo carrying vs RU is just not feasible because any potential breakthrough will just get you focused by TOS, napalm grads, tornadoes, tulpans, cruise missiles and god knows what else from every player, without anybody needing to actually reposition or commit frontline assets.

>>2115412
>Breakthrough with a heap of dogshit disposable BMPs
>Dogshit disposable BMPs get destroyed after killing a thousand points of backline
Who cares? The next wave is already on the way.

Should I use the S300 or S350 to fight air spam?
The S300 can one-shot planes but it fares much worse against sead and I don't want to rely on teammates to buy aa.

>>2115281
eh, still double the peak of red dragon. if we could make it work back then we can make it work now. The solo que thing is a fucking shame but I just bit the bullet and joined a discord server, ive had a pretty good time of it so far

I know the SU-34 is optimized as a low-altitude bomber, but can it work as an high altitude smart bomber or should I resort to strategic bomber if I want to do that?

>>2115620
just use both

>>2115631
Imo I just don't see any point to smart bombs. Non cluster bombs are worthless vs vehicles which is usually what you're trying to bomb and you don't need precision vs infantry when you can just dumb bomb them with big HE for cheap. Any kind of high altitude strike is liable to just sniped by an unlucky missile before it drops it's payload.

>>2115631
The only time I ever use high attitude bomb or smart bomb is with stealth planes
and usually they also carry SEAD missile with it so its really strictly only for F-35 or Su-57
they are mostly for manual SEAD
which is good against people who turn off their SPAA
maybe the only one other option I would consider would be JSOW plane
but there is really not much reason to run JSOW over retarded cluster, I cant really find use case for it where I goes gee I wish I had JSOW here ever

Can iglas and stingers target high alt planes?

>>2115719
Yes. They won't replace a proper SAM site but they can be frustratingly good at hitting planes when they probably shouldn't be.

>didn't even break 10k on a weekend
its ogre

I'm becoming increasingly under the impression that machine guns are useless in infantry fights.
>Weapons Team: two m240s
>have to retreat from Enginery teams running at them between commie blocks or risk them getting in and wasting them

>>2115855
MGs are very good but shotguns are just better in close range. It shouldn't be surprising that a specialist CQC squad with no anti-vehicle weaponry will win in CQC against an ATGM team. The M240 is also uniquely shit as far as MGs go.

If you want to keep your atgm teams safe from big bad shotgun bros, just keep their transport arounds and load them up when they're being pushed. CQC squads universally lack AT so they're helpless against anything with bulletproof armour and a machinegun.

>>2115900
They were running, in the open, the entire distance. One smoke to temporarily break LOS and regain some suppression, then they kept running. Two MGs couldn't pin them in time.

>>2115902
MGs suck in urban, there usually isn't enough los to use their range.

Does the armor pen of small arms increase with distance like how vehicle armor pen does?
Like if my rifle has 4 armor pen, will it still do full damage if I am 2 meters away from an enemy squad with 10 armor?
Squads like NGWS and every MG have 10 armor pen but if that doesnt matter at close range (where infantry does all its fighting) then why would I pick anything besides the highest damage weapons

>>2115998
You don't pick long range weapons for their damage. You pick long range weapons for their suppression. The idea is that suppressed short-range troops will never make it to the long-range unit.

>>2115998
>Does the armor pen of small arms increase with distance like how vehicle armor pen does?
Yes.
Infantry armour uses the CE calculation for all damage types, so a rifle with 4 pen vs a 10 armour squad deals less than 20% damage.10 pen vs 10 armour is 50% damage, and 20 pen vs 10 armour is 80% damage.

So more armour is effectively more HP no matter what's shooting you, and infantry damage vs infantry steadily increases as you get closer, but that increase benefits low pen-high damage small arms much more than low damage-high pen ones. Hence why long range squads all suck in CQC.

Also: armour doesn't affect suppression at all so you inflict the same amount close and far

Cav + Airborne or Cav + SOCOM?
Cav have a lot of decent infantries already so I dont know if I want SF

>>2116163
>Cav have a lot of decent infantries already
Such as...? Troopers are ninety points and lose to just about everything in their price range.

File: b05ebffcaeee91518ceb96a15(...).gif (345 KB, 500x500)

345 KB GIF

>>2116181
i like dem jabu

>>2116183
Maybe I'd like them a bit more if they either had greater range or a lower point cost. Ten points per model is highway robbery.

>>2115846
Ive been playing BF6 all weekend.
Lucky for BA its not Early Access up till launch so ill be on this shit again soon.

>>2116183
Airborne has weapons teams which are superior javelin team.
SOF has Rangers Javelin, which are also a superior javelin team.

Troopers fucking blow, have the lowest range javelin, and have almost no ammo.

>>2116163
>Cav + Airborne or Cav + SOCOM?
Shit combos. Cav works best with USMC. SOCOM and Airborne work best with Armored brigade. Helicopter heavy decks is a bad idea against RU.
>Cav have a lot of decent infantries already so I dont know if I want SF
SF has Rangers MAAWS, no other spec has anything equivalent to offer.

>>2116233
*no other AMERICAN spec has anything equivalent to offer.

>>2116263
Right.

File: cam-photo-frontrocket1-20(...).jpg (344 KB, 2048x1155)

344 KB JPG

what is the counter to people putting atgm/manpad team everywhere now that fire nerf is coming?
how are you suppose to push into urban point now?
barrage smoke and send CQC into each building seem very micro intensive way to do it and can easily go wrong in so many step
I usually just torch the entire point down with grad before sending troops in

>>2116334
Devs never elaborated what the fire nerf is going to be, but my guess is they gonna remove stacking damage. All incendiary units will still be viable, they just won't be able to delete infantry in seconds.

What specialization combos do you think are good/bad?

>>2116352
>great
US: USMC+Cavalry and Armored+SOCOM
RU: Mechanized+Guards and Moto+Guards
>bad
Combos that don't have decent APCs, like SOCOM+Airborne.
>good
Anything else.

>>2116163
Stryker SF is popular as an airspam deck but it's weak on the ground. Usually you'd play a flank with it, turtle your point with ATGMs, bully people with autocannon Bookers and help your team with planes.
I don't see anybody use Stryker AB but in theory it's also a strong airspam deck since you get Strike Eagles.
>>2116181
Combat engineers are are really good CQC squad for their price and Troopers are the cheapest Javelin squad money can buy. They just lack a good RPG squad, but most US specs lack one.

>>2116196
I dont think they are all that bad
like sure its basically just more expensive ranger that come with 3 shots of javelin, but when you are using them to hold point they can really deter a lot more shits just by having jav on hand
at least its still a decent squad all around
I never feel like I'm wasting points bringing troopers to get styker unlike mech.rifleman where its just Bradley tax
or cav. recon

>>2116263
SMAW teams from the Marines are basically equivalent, just with a lower RoF.
>>2116352
For the US all good specs begin with either Armoured or Cavalry.
For example Armoured + SOCOM is the best infantry grind deck for tight urban fights. You move around pairs of infantry in AMPVs, you've got good tanks for open country and all the supporting assets necessary.
Meanwhile Armoured + Airborne is the meta frontline deck since it gives you the best tools to just spam tanks/IFVs and run someone over, with cluster bombers to blast out the enemy tank blob.

Cavalry tends to focus more on air since it's air tab is really good (while Armoured lacks one) and will usually take a flank since it doesn't have as many heavy assets to slug it out with. Popular with USMC (tanks, good infantry) or SOCOM (big air tab).

For RU every good deck but 1 starts with Guards. Guards is good with any other spec, though the most common pairings are Guard + Motorized for general frontlining, Guards + VDV for more air support, or Guards + Mech to spam ungodly amounts of BMPs.
Coastal + Mech is also popular right now for spamming BMPs with russian marines in them, spamming cruise missiles, and having a workable air tab.

The meta revolves around spammable fighting vehicles so decks that lack a good one are a liability. Big expensive APS tanks just get cluster bombed so having inexpensive APS vehicles that can use mass to push ATGM positions is important. Or in Mech's case you just mass an ungodly number of them because they're cheap and overwhelm.

>>2116196
Nobody complains about Weapon Squads being ~15pts per body because that's not the point.
The cheapest infantry Javelin is 85pts for 3 bodies, and it's not terribly useful because it's suppressed in 1 hit and dies in 2-3. What makes Troopers good is that they're the next cheapest infantry Javelin, being 90pts, but for those 90pts you get 9 bodies that are difficult and time consuming for a vehicle to actually suppress or kill and you get a full suit of small arms including grenade launchers and AT-4s, so not only can it punish vehicles that drive into the Javelin's minimum range, you can fight and kill other weapon teams. Obviously it's less cost-effective vs infantry than Rangers or Marines but that's not really important. If a Javelin team could fight marines and win it would have literally no weakness. I would never pay 20 more pts for Ranger Javelins just for the extra range if I had the choice to just bring Troopers.

Stryker Cavalry has Combat Engineers to handle the anti-infantry role, and they're one of the best anti-infantry squads in the game. 1v1, they're second only to CQC Delta and Raiders, but for cost they're pretty much equal.

Bear in mind that Rangers are 8 men for 80pts, Airborne NGWS are 8 men for 85pts, SMAW teams are 8 men for 70pts and Mech Rifles are 6 men for 50pts. On average the cost per body for US mainlines are 8-10pts, so Troopers being 9 bodies for 90pts isn't out of step with the rest. They're just on the higher end because they get a fucking Javelin. Only Marines, being 13 bodies for 95pts really stand out in terms of pts per meat, but they are a dedicated meat squad (and also lack machineguns so their firepower is underwhelming relative to squad size).

Honestly the only downside to Troopers is their lack of Javelin ammo, but that's a problem with pretty much all Javelin-users. You need to manage your supplies differently to keep them topped up, but that's the tradeoff for 2-shotting any vehicle from 1400m.

File: tfsa.png (1.72 MB, 1149x1048)

1.72 MB PNG

>>2116403
They are similar, but to call them equivalent is not apt. SMAW teams are vastly inferior to MAAWS teams. They have less AT ammo, shoot WAY slower due to their higher reload time AND less launchers, but the real killer is their lack of range. The 600 meter range combined with the higher firerate on MAAWS means you genuinely can ambush and kill tanks with MAAWS, while against SMAW teams the tanks will simply back up out of range before they die unless they get engine stalled. Them being multi-role is nice, but their eight-person squad size actually vastly constrains their usage because the only APC capable of carrying two of them is the AAVP which is pretty dogshit compared to the AMPV.
>>2116381
>Combat engineers are are really good CQC squad for their price
No? They are okay close range support squads, but they are vastly overpriced because of their hybrid role much like everything else in the cavalry regiment. 60 point pararescue, 70 point ingenirsky, even 75 point Rangers RRC can beat Combat Engineers in CQC because the engineers rely far too much on their SMAW and their grenade launcher to deal damage. Their role is to deal damage up-close, but they get assraped by actual anti-infantry units in CQC. Anyone with half a brain will simply rush their nearest anti-infantry unit into CQC, popping smoke as needed to avoid short-ranged incoming fire. For reference, the Rangers RRC have two machineguns with more damage than the Combat Engineer shotgun, and machineguns get 2x the effective RoF of standard small arms, meaning they have more than twice the CQC damage in this one slot alone. This isn't even a dedicated anti-infantry squad, this is just a good CQC unit compared to a bad CQC unit.
(continued)

>>2116381
>Troopers are the cheapest Javelin squad money can buy
Not true, and they are the worst. Troopers get one 1300 meter javelin with two missiles at 90 points. Rangers Javelin get one 1500 meter javelin with four missiles at 110 points. Weapon squads get TWO 1300 meter javelins with six missiles at 125 points. Scout teams, which cost five points less than the troopers and get a whopping 2.5 stealth, have a javelin launcher with three missiles at 1300 meters of range. The saving grace of Troopers is their squad size, which should in theory allow them to win some infantry engagements. It does not, because their small arms are utter trash. This is why point cost per model matters here, but not for other javelin squads. Other javelin squads matter because of their javelins. Troopers clearly have the worst javelins out of any of them, so they must matter for other reasons, but they don't.
>>2116397
>just more expensive ranger
I fucking wish Troopers were as capable as Rangers are. You throw a Ranger CQC squad in a building and it will vaporize whatever it's facing unless the other side is dedicated anti-infantry. Meanwhile, Troopers struggle to beat sixty point Motostrelki in a shootout, regardless of whether that shootout is short-range or long-range. Troopers can't beat actual infantry, they don't have the missiles needed to deal with an armored push, they don't have the stealth or the sight range needed to scout and they are horribly expensive for what they bring to the table. They are close to being viable, yet oh-so far away. They need either better small arms, one more javelin shot, or twice the AT launchers for me to even consider ever wasting a slot on them. As it is, they're just expensive paperweights outclassed in everything that they do, with not enough anti-infantry power to make their hybrid role worth it.

Motopekhota are actually pretty decent. The DMR helps a lot in building fights, and the RPG being stopped by APS is helped by the fact that they are only 65 points so you can just have a bunch of them helping eachother

>>2116499
but coastal marine only cost 70 points

>>2116503
But then I have to take coastal

>>2116504
buff soon
I hope they buff USMC too

>>2116488
I was going to call you a retard but then I realized you thought CQC meant "fighting in the same building" and you apparently think Combat Engineers are bad because they don't have flashbangs, which is just a skill issue.

Anyways shotguns have the same rof as MGs but shotgunner models drop late whereas MG models drop early. In a fair fight, shotguns always outperform MGs in close combat even when the stats are otherwise very similar. You can see this by putting Combat Engineers vs CQC Rangers, where they win handily whether in a building or a forest. Combat Engineers will also beat RRC or any other non-flashbang squad handily in a building fight, but will also dominate all of them in general close-quarters fighting outside of a building, which is what the vast majority of infantry vs infantry combat entails.

It sounds like you just never tested any of this and made assumptions from looking at BA-hub. So rather than going through and telling you "you're wrong" another 7-8 times I'm just going to tell you that there's a good reason every US team in the top 100 is running multiple Stryker decks and you should probably try playing it yourself to see why only you seem to think that these frequently used units are secretly terrible.

>>2116499
Motostrelki, Motopekhota and guards Motostrelki are all really solid picks. The downside with the guards is that you only get four of them, which isn't enough to achieve critical mass.

>>2116510
>Bro just fight your enemy in this very tiny distance where you are better than them
>Surely they won't just right click your building and kill you instantly ;)
Low ELO post.

>>2116499
They're really overpriced relative to a lot of other options. Motostrelki for 60 are honestly also overpriced, they're basically a Mech. Rifle squad (mech rifles are already mediocre) but they pay 10pts more for 1 extra rifleman body. It's just not cost-effective. They should probably be 55pts instead.

Pekhota are a little more unique since they have the slow-reloading RPG (bad) and the 600m range small arms, so their niche is a little different, but I still think 65pts for a bad launcher and low DPS small arms is too much and that they are probably designed to be inefficient on purpose to balance how strong Motorized's other tools are, like how Coastal has great infantry but shit vehicles or how Guards has no recon infantry.

COASTALBROs WE ARE EATING GOOD

I'm trying to figure out laser-designation and planes. I've heard that if you laser designate something and you make the plane fly over it, it automatically fires the laser-guided ATGM. Is it true? How close must the plane be? Can it fire ATGM at low-altitude? Other than that, I have seen no way to fire these other than strafing directly on the target.

What about smart bombs? I guess these need to be fired by clicking on the unit.

File: cute dog141.webm (3.56 MB, 400x720)

3.56 MB WEBM

>>2116668
Kh-25ML, Kh-38ML, Vikhrs and Mavericks are ripple fired automatically if the plane carrying them flies specifically at low altitude and within that specific weapons range of a laser designated target until said target is destroyed or no more missiles remain. Generally that range is 2500m. Otherwise yeah, strafe and the plane locks and fires without any lasers needed.

With smart bombs you either do the usual bombing run, or click default P once for each smart bomb and then select targets for each of them, and they'll drop much more accurately while also allowing you to hit several spread out targets simultaneously. Laser designation just makes them pinpoint accurate if target is stationary or you predict where the target will be upon impact correctly. Same produce goes for cruise missiles.

Clicking on a ground unit with a plane just initiates a strafing run that kinda follows that unit, but its cancelled once that unit dies or LoS is otherwise lost so generally not recommended.

>>2116693
I actually had no idea you could drop precision bombs with a normal bombing run. I guess that makes it much more practical using some planes with like 20 JSOWs

>>2116525
>Motostrelki for 60 are honestly also overpriced, they're basically a Mech. Rifle squad
Tell me you've never used Motostrelki without telling me you've never used Motostrelki.

File: Screenshot 2025-08-10 191212.jpg (100 KB, 527x1116)

100 KB JPG

Okay hear me out:
You call it in as a Cruise Missile truck, leave it circling in your spawn and firing off missile volleys as needed.
Once you've emptied the missiles, you can either recall it for the refund, or leave it loitering a little longer until the other side tries to push, then you send it in as a one-way cluster bomber. With 12 JSOW it will delete all vehicles in a huge line, so it's basically guaranteed to kill multiple targets so long as multiple targets exist to be killed.
>but isn't 600pts expensive for a cluster bomber.
Aha! Less than you think.
The full complement of cruise missiles have a resupply cost of 440pts, which means this plane RTBs for a refund of only 160. After it has used its cruise missiles, you are left with a 160pt cluster bomber, and it's very very easy for 12 jsows to kill more than 160pts worth of targets. With 30 hp it's very likely to survive long enough to drop its payload and because it's a loitering bomber you can save up enough while it's lobbing cruise missiles to call in some SEAD when it's time to make the cluster run, at which point it's likely to actually survive and rtb anyways.

>>2116747
You forgot about upkeep. That thing costs as much as a tank in upkeep to keep flying around. Just get 2x 300 point planes to fill both of the roles instead. Also, kill point swing doesn't care about how many munitions the plane has already fired. If it dies, that's 600 points for the enemy.

>>2116750
>Just get 2x 300 point planes to fill both of the roles instead
There's no 300pt plane that fulfills the "hurl 8 ACLMs" role. Most cruise missile planes are expensive for a small payload, or even more expensive for a huge payload. There isn't even a non-strat bomber that can carry the ACLM, they all carry the significantly weaker JASSM

>>2116747
As they other guy said, upkeep is a very real concern. Also, it dying will cause it to have a longer respawn time. On top of that, I think you underestimate how much fuel you are going to spend loitering and how little you will have to do a bombing run.
It surviving is a complete cope.

>>2116755
Most cruise missile planes don't suicide.

File: 1529107619329.jpg (49 KB, 750x920)

49 KB JPG

Never spend more than 300 points on any unit.

is there a mod to remove the points limit for decks? i just want to play pve
in the menu it says a deck is disabled for multiplayer if it's over the limit but i can't seem to use it for sp either

>>2116857
>is there a mod
You can't even use cheat engine in singleplayer without getting banned until the patch drops.

File: expensive.png (462 KB, 1341x296)

462 KB PNG

>>2116796
uhuh

>>2116747
It's honestly an interesting idea, I actually enjoy using the B52 in a smart bomb role and find it to be surprisingly successful if you use it at the right moment, but you have to be very careful.
The problem with leaving the B52 loitering even for a short amount of time is that since it's not stealth it'll be spotted quickly, and the enemy will obviously know from the cruise missiles that you spawned some kind of strat bomber.
Good RU players will see that just and snipe you with a Su-35 and that's it.

>>2116668
>>2116693
second anon should have added that laser mavericks fucking suck, are pointless, impossible to use and just waste all your missiles anyway. Shittiest mechanic interaction in the game by far, you can literally fuck over your (or your teammates for that matter) entire strafing run because your A-10 will just spam mavericks into an empty building your chinese teammate is lazing for no reason.

>>2116702
It is never worth doing this.

>>2116886
>Shit low ELO players didn't move their assets
>Therefore you should spend 520 points on a plane

>>2116886
post ELO

>>2116896
>>2116902
That Darbogale dude has decent elo.
https://ba-hub.net/statistics/players/76561198283188730

>>2116902
320

File: UN.jpg (126 KB, 990x728)

126 KB JPG

>come crawling back to a first match after slopping it up on BF6
>leaver in 2 minutes
>guaranteed lost game which isnt worth playing but im still made to waste my time because the rest of the team doesnt get the hint

I am not starting up another match till this surrender option is in and is actually useful. I prefer having fun when i am playing video games. Ive been reminded what fun meant over the weekend.

>>2116990
I have a sinking feeling that players are going to overcorrect and 99% of games will just end by surrender as soon as the option becomes available, even if it's still a 5v5, even if it's still winnable.

People are way too worried about elo when in reality it doesn't really matter.

I'm peaking my Dunning Kruger at 1000 elo

I'm curious about the viability of dirt cheap poverty cluster planes. For example, the A-10 can run 5 big clusters for 215 pts, and the Harrier can run 10 normal clusters for 230. Both planes carry enough to oneshot all the big heavy tanks on a direct hit and they're cheap enough to trade favourably into basically any proper tank or heavy vehicle. Since people have started to adjust away from the big supertanks and more towards the spammable mid-priced ones, a bomber cheap enough to still trade favourably 1:1 against them sounds useful. And you can bring 4 of them, so you could feasibly deplete someone's entire tank tab by just clustering every vehicle they call in.

The downside is that they're both really slow. The slowness not only hurts their response time, but also means that there's a longer delay between laying down your bombing line, and the bomber actually arriving to drop. It's a lot harder hitting moving targets this way, like a lot harder. I don't know if that's something that can be ameliorated with practice and skill or if the longer delay just objectively makes it harder to consistently kill moving targets.

I see players higher elo than I use F-18Ds over Harriers for cluster even though the D carries fewer (8 vs10) and costs 75pts more and I can only assume that's because they consider the speed to be worth that much.

Maybe having some combination of both could be worthwhile. I don't see anybody use cheap, slow cluster planes at all but I don't know if that's because it's been tried and found lacking, or because nobody realized they could delete a Barbaris for 215pts in he right conditions.

>>2117087
Non-afterburning planes are very poor cluster bombers at higher ELO. They will be seen, the tanks will move, and the plane will have to correct, potentially sending it into a useless circle exposing it to SAM fire.

I'd rather pay the premium of a Streagle or Fighting Falcon to zip in and probably die, than skimp on the money for a slow shitbox that will probably miss. Landing the bombs are more important than the points, because tank pushes are built around the tanks. Without those tanks, there's no push.

Patchbros...

>>2117207
Patch is delayed so they could give chinese players a foot rub

lately I been leaning into JSOW

>>2117207
they said early next week by last friday
so I guess either today or tomorrow

>>2117242
I stopped using the JSOW in week two. It's just a very expensive smart cluster bomb you can drop from stealth, in such small numbers, at best you'll just immobilize whatever you hit.

Meanwhile, two 2k lb JDAMs can potentially kill two very expensive things.

I like my ELO being around 1000, its fun. It wont be fun when it goes up

Saw a rumour that the actual surrender/leaver penalty patch isnt till Nov/Dec. 1.09 just being small fixes.
I hope its just a troll cause im not coming back if thats the case.

>>2117720
Half a year to implement a surrender vote would be in line with their pace of work so I wouldn't be shocked if that was actually true

>>2117720
I can't fathom a fuckup that huge especially when they could literally show us the completed UI in their announcement. But I wouldn't put it past them.

>>2117699
>Mech/Coastal highest winrate
>not a single coastal deck below 50%
"WERE BUFFING COASTAL" - STB

I wonder how much of their balance work will be data-driven looking at statistics like this and how much will just be doing what their patreon whales tell them in a private feedback channel.

which BMP do I use?

>>2117699
This data is interesting because the sample sizes tell a story
>everyone gravitated to Armoured + SF but it underperforms and led top players to gradually transition to Armoured + AB instead, which is slowly catching up in game's played but struggling in WR because its stats aren't as padded by the early meta upwards grind
>RU players gravitated to Guard + Mot, which ended up being the RU meta so they've stuck with it
>Guard + Mot, Guard + VDV and Coastal + Mech all form a tight winrate cluster because all 3 decks are run together by virtually every high ELO RU team, forming a very concrete, rigid meta
>Coast/Mech is the least-played deck because its value as a "meta" choice was only really explored recently, and its winrate closely correlates to the recent average winrate of high ELO RU teams (they're dominating)
>wider play distribution among US specs outside of Armoured + SF's early overrepresentation suggests teams are struggling to find a concrete US meta to follow
>all light spec combinations underperform compared to tank-oriented ones. All air-focused spec combinations underperform compared to non-air ones.
>Armoured+USMC is the statistical outlier, being the only US deck with a positive winrate but also only played about half as often as Armoured +AB, suggests that it's favoured by a small number of high WR teams rather than being an overall high WR deck.

Something that these kind of statistics don't tell us are matchups. Does the overrepresentation of Napalm Grads in the meta hurt the winrates of infantry-oriented decks like Specops? Or is Specops just weak overall no matter what it's facing? Do air-focused decks underperform because AA is too strong for air to pull its weight, or because their relatively lightweight ground units are too weak?

>>2117812
>Does the overrepresentation of Napalm Grads in the meta hurt the winrates of infantry-oriented decks like Specops?
Specops on its own sucks against napalm grads because it doesn't have APC vehicles, not because it's infantry heavy. The counter to grads is having your infantry inside an APC whenever it's not fighting. This is why you're forced to pick Armored Brigade alongside specops.

>>2117806
>BMP-1
Best-used in its 45pt loadout for the smoke and ATGM. Use when you have very good 7-8 man infantry squads like Morskaya that you want to deposit into close combat to overwhelm a position and zone out their armour. Its value is being available in absolute hordes and carrying nonzero combat power for the price of a literal fucking humvee Bear in mind it must stop moving to fire its main weapons. Don't bother with the up-armour
>BMP-2
Well-balanced underpriced IFV. Use it in the base form as an inexpensive autocannon platform that just happens to have a middling ATGM, or with the Berezhok turret as a very cost-effective volley-fire ATGM platform. Consider the armour upgrade only if you want it to win autocannon duels against other IFVs, the extra armour doesn't help vs tanks or missiles.
>BMP-3
Mostly used in the -3M configuration for the upgraded missile and ECM. Absolutely shits on infantry, good vs other IFVs. The armour upgrade makes US tanks take 3 shots to kill it but you can skip it to keep costs down.
The Epokha module is a little too expensive, bringing you up to the price range of an APS Bradley but while lacking APS, Guards has better vehicles to run that loadout.

Generally speaking you use hordes of cheap BMP1s to rush powerful infantry into close combat and the support them, or use respectable numbers of BMP-3Ms alongside your tanks to apply pressure. BMP-2s are mostly brought for the cheap access to ripple-fire ATGM but you don't want to spam them since smoke wastes all ATGMs in flight, whether it's 2 or 8.

If you had to pick just one, go with BMP-3Ms. They're the thing everyone is complaining about currently.

>still no patch

>>2117828
doesnt the coastal also get the BMP3?
at slightly weaker armor but cheaper
why are they saying coastal need buff again?

File: 123.jpg (2.36 MB, 5900x2282)

2.36 MB JPG

maybe am I retarded, but I stuck on 1600 elo, either I'm dominating my section of the front alone, or I lose everything instantly, and I just don't understand what's going on.
Can I change something in the decks, making them more versatile?

>>2117856
Coastal is kind of like US Airborne where it has a few unicorn units that are very good and people pick it entirely for those units, but like 90% of its roster is worthless and never sees play.

The main reason the Coastal BMP is worse is that it lacks the armour upgrade. The BMP-3M can be really annoying to kill for its price tag because of the combination of jammer and 400CE armour, especially alongside cheap T-72s. The Coastal one isn't bad but it's not nearly as annoying to fight.

>>2117889
Look at >>2117699
Don't soloqueue as Coastal/VDV, its WR is poor relative to the strong RU decks. An Air-heavy deck like that needs coordination from your teammates especially since you don't have good SEAD on your own.

The main issue with your Gva/mot deck is your tank tab. 420pt Armatas are just going to be clusterbombed or over overmatched by SEPv3s. Terminators are alright but you really don't need 3 of them. Consider some T-80UM-2s with APS to bully IFVs and pressure ATGM positions and some T-90Ms without APS for general tank duties.

Tanks (and Barbaris) are a big part of why GVA is so good so you definitely want to be maxing out your tank tab instead of your support tab. 3x Deravitsiya and 3x TOR is an excessive amount of SHORAD, and 4x manpads when you already have so many Tor is overkill too. 6 ATGM teams is also probably excessive when every single vehicle also carries ATGMs.

As a general optimization thing, consider how many transports your infantry really need. Some blinged out IFVs to fight with your tanks is fine but do you really need all 4 of your Bumerangs to have APS and ATGMs? When are you picking the 135pt Bumerang over the 140pt Kurganets? When you need mobility? Because the Bumerang can't fire those ATGMs while moving. Mixing expensive and cheap transports together, and playing to the strengths of each, can give you more flexibility.

>>2117755
It’s probably accurate. Their post on Steam laid out what to expect in 1.09 and surrender/leaver penalties were not listed. They did later state in a post from last Friday that 1.09 will have a few “surprises” so that’s the only hope

>>2117998
IF you want to know when the game will be fixed you have to pay for patreon I guess, More they delay it more patreonbucks they get

>>2117889
>>2117900
pretty much agree with other anon. I would drop recon T-90 and get BRM-3K-57 instead, recon tanks are far too overpriced for a meager stealth and vision bonus with no APS. Also just 1 Koalitsiya? Drop a Tor and Derivatsiya and pick up another desu.

>>2117699
>Stryker cucks have sub-50% winrate across the board
But this thread keeps proclaiming it a wunderwaffe that can not possibly lose! What went wrong? Maybe it's dogshit and you shouldn't use it?

>>2117806
BMP-1PG (50 points) for overwhelming enemies with numbers and clowning on APS tanks with main guns. Require you to be stationary to shoot, but will follow a main cannon barrage up with a missile launch. Good in ELO ranges from 0000 all the way up to around 1600-1700 when enemies start learning how to micro helicopters.

BMP-2G + up-armor (70 points) for breaking through enemy lines, shitting on anything that isn't a tank frontally, and instantly deleting whatever you can hit in the flank / rear. These are your mainstay APCs for higher-level Russian breakthrough gameplay. There are only three things that stop a dedicated BMP-2G push:

>Massed javelin garrisons
Bring smoke artillery and send in a cheap recon vehicle to bait shots so you know where to smoke.
>3+ tanks
Cluster bomb time.
>Well-micro'd helicopters
Typically not a huge issue unless the entire enemy team contributes. Hope your team covers SHORAD while you win the game for them, or bring a Tunguska-M1 and hope it won't get sniped.

Note that the Russian breakthrough playstyle relies on your team not being a bunch of clueless morons. They NEED to fill out the entire frontline with just the four of them, they NEED to help you garrison and defend the large swathes of land you will be capturing, and they NEED to fill in for your strategical SAM needs. If they have even a basic presence across the map, you should have no problem rolling up to the frontline, smashing through it, dropping your infantry in the furthest enemy point you have access to, and then raping backline with your BMP-2s. This strategy has been tried and tested all the way up to 1900 ELO, but it tends to fail in lower ELO ranges because your team sucks too much.

The BMP-3 is just a worse, more expensive BMP-2. The main gun sucks dick, the missiles are worse than the BMP-2 missiles, and the autocannon is tied to the main gun.

]>>2117828
Retard alert. You use the BMP-1 in the BMP-1PG configuration.

File: 20250811110852_1.jpg (182 KB, 1275x340)

182 KB JPG

>>2117812
>is Specops just weak overall no matter what it's facing?
No. Shitters just flock to the wrong specops units.

If you are a support player, don't play the flank. Play the center.

>>2118126
Explain

File: ppm.jpg (128 KB, 757x806)

128 KB JPG

Had an epiphany today.
Tuned into a stream of a top team and watched the streamer playing Armoured/SOF in a tight urban area and get absolutely rolled off his point a Guard/Mot player with a combination of BTR-82s and T-15s.

Basically the BTRs would roll in first and all die to the RRC and MAAWs teams he had lurking around, then the T-15s would roll in and all the AT infantry was already at half health or out of ammo so they just got bowled over.

I realized something watching this: durability matters. Small squads kind of just lose half their health to a shitter vehicle before they can kill it, and since you only get a small number of these premo tank hunter squads you can't afford to let them exhaust themselves killing easy targets as long as a tank might roll in afterwards. Obvious RRC and MAAWS are extremely good, but since they're expensive 6 man squads, it would be beneficial if they had something else with them that could soak damage, or deal with the low-armour vehicles that don't really require a triple-carl G to hurt so they can preserve their strength for the targets that matter.

So I did what any good autist would do: I made a spreadsheet. A simple one. Basically, just how much a squad costs vs how many models you get in the squad, and the ratio between them represented as "PPM" or Points per Meat. A lower number is better, because it means you spend less for more meat, and you can use meat squads to soak damage for valuable squads, eat up APS charges or counter low-value vehicles like BMPs and BTRs to preserve the strength of your more valuable units.

For completion's sake I listed armour values as well, though I don't know how much they really matter here. I also colour coded for readability:
Best PPM in faction - green
Notably good PPM - blue
Terrible PPM, avoid putting in harm's way - red

Obviously there are mitigating factors involved in cost but this gives a better idea of the relationship between cost a survivability.

>>2118187
A BTR costs about as much as an RRC or a MAAWS squad. A T-15 costs 3x as much. Feeding BTRs and then rolling with T-15s against some infantry squads is not a tactic. It's just defeating a much smaller force - with barely positive k/d at that.

>still still no patch

>>2118187
Let me guess, the best cost efficiency per model is going to be those generic non-specialized units like Airborne or MechRifles that everyone always shits on?

>>2118201
Marines are the best US squad at being cannon fodder, Mech Rifles are a distant second place. Airborne are one of the worst.

But this list only includes squads with AT launchers for simplicity's sake. Non-AT squads are usually cheaper but obviously you're not going to fight BMPs with Delta Force so I just left all those out.

But yeah the key takeaway from this for the US side is that maybe Mech Rifles have a use after all. On the RU side Motostrelki/Pekhota are both really efficient mass, which is probably no surprise to anyone. What surprised me was Gornostrelki, which I genuinely forgot even existed, are almost as meat-efficient as Marines. They carry a Metis instead of a proper launcher though so I'm not sure if that really counts. Honorable mention to Desantniki.

>>2118211
I don't think that you need to waste points on "cannon fodder" in a game that economically rewards fielding as fewer points as possible.

>>2118212
If it was purely cannon fodder, maybe. Like you're not going to throw unarmed humvees at ATGMs to make them waste ammo or anything. But when you shoot at the enemy, they get to shoot back. Having something that can dish out damage and sustain damage to compliment your glass cannons is obviously valuable.

>>2118211
I said Airborne, not NGWS. Also Rangers & RRC have 10 armor which is something you also aren't factoring into your little equation.
Oh, and you forgot MechRifleMMG
Finally, if you are calculating for "meat" then I don't know why you are limiting yourself to just units with AT

>>2117900
I usually play with a friend, and my support deck is full of attack aircraft with tactical missiles and the MIG35 has 4 SEAD missiles. That's usually enough.
Bumerang needed, when I deploy 3 GRU blob unit to a point closer to the enemy's spawn to destroy the first enemy deployment (If I had a wheeled Tor, the GRU would be purely anti-tank).
6 ATGM used bc only blob with 2 or 4 tubes can strike through APS (4 konkurs-M can oneshot Sep3 lol)

I don't have much artillery, I just don't have enough brains to quick thinking to maneuver frontline units and catch enemy with artillery, so it's just uragan strikes on the rear and napalm over a large area in cities and forests.
So most of the support is taken up by the air defense cluster in our rear.

I am already replaced one T-14 with two T80s and a T90m.

so Coastal Mech is the real snowflake combo?
nobody play it but its actually good?
also
>Russian in general have better winrate

File: 1730950481124563.jpg (8 KB, 229x250)

8 KB JPG

>>2113255
Is the game still balanced to make each match a constant back and forth of meaningless pushes?

I remember in the beta everything was so slanted towards offensive movement that match pacing sucked ass. Matches would be 45min of constant meaningless back and forth since nobody could really secure the areas they pushed into, with the game usually being decided by a rush for points in the last 5-10 minutes. Infantry garrisoned in a concrete commieblock losing at point blank range against a tank was a glaring example.

ITS HERE
https://store.steampowered.com/news/app/1604270/view/499455725539428109
No leaver penalties or surrender, but lots of number fiddling and good small changes

>>2118393
>Is the game still balanced to make each match a constant back and forth of meaningless pushes?
Yes. Developers think playing defensively is boring and front has to be moving.
The game mode is different from first beta though. Points are scored every 15 minutes and there are points for kills.

>>2118406
Weird changes across the board.

>>2118406
Coastal troops:

BTR-90 number of seats increased from 6 to 7;

BTR-90 Bakhcha-U turret upgrade price 20>15;

Ka-52K helicopter aim time with Kh-35 cruise missiles increased by 3 seconds. Time between missiles increased by 1 second;

Iskander ballistic missiles resupply time reduced from 60sec to 45sec;

BRDM Kvartet missile reserve increased from 8 to 12 missiles;

A222 Bereg direct fire range increased from 1300m to 1400m against ground targets, accuracy against helicopters slightly increased.
its fucking shit
where is my buff reeee?
also rip grad
actually no rip game

File: dBqo9Gt.png (130 KB, 396x381)

130 KB PNG

>New patch
>Already good things were buffed even more
>No surrender mechanics
>No leaver punishment
Pack it up. Dead game. I'm uninstalling.

>>2118409
>Yes. Developers think playing defensively is boring and front has to be moving.
Thanks, seems my opinion and the dev's opinions on what is fun are diametrically opposed so I'll save my $50. Should have known from the beta.

>Various changes to make the Russian Coastal Troops specialization more attractive
coastalbros we been bamboozled

>>2118406
what a bunch of garbage changes while still not delivering the basics
I think Im done with this game

File: charlie.gif (1.49 MB, 280x210)

1.49 MB GIF

>>2118406
>>2118423
>no surrender or leaver penalties

Oh nonononononooooo, they really did do fucking nothing for the last x weeks. I dont give a fuck about these balance changes when the major balance of the match is determined by 1/5 of friendly forces disappearing within 5 minutes of the game.
Im sorry im not willing to throw the dice and hope my time isnt wasted with every launch of a multiplayer match.

>>2118418
>coastal buffs
>btr90 can now carry standard squads instead of being just vmf taxi
Well it was a bit annoying but not exactly what I'd expect

>>2118433
But but but the BTR-90 and BRDM are marginally better picks now

>>2118463
>they really did do fucking nothing for the last x weeks
6
5 weeks and outside of balance they managed some minor bug fixes and QoL stuff

So even if the actually important changes like leaver penalties show up in next months patch, we'll be down to ~4k daily peak playercount and it will be time to compress the elo spread and reduce its gain / loss as well as address stack vs solo bullshit, so as not to have queues lasting hours only to get stomped by some chinkstack so high above you that neither side gains or loses any elo regardess of match outcome

its just over lads, hope you had enough fun to make the purchase worth it, its only downhill from here

>>2118406
>US winrates rock bottom across the board
>Let's nerf a bunch of US shit
What the fuck did the ATGM Stryker do to deserve a nerf like wtf is all this shit?

>>2118522
>we'll be down to ~4k daily peak playercount
Bro, quit coping. 4k peak will be the highlight of this weekend.
> its only downhill from here
Implying it hasn't been for 2 months

File: Screenshot 2025-08-13 191601.png (87 KB, 1089x346)

87 KB PNG

>only the actually good variants get nerf
cavbro I dont feel so good

>>2118526
You're not a cavbro if you don't think it's a massive buff to the spec.

>>2118527
the rest of my stryker already ran with no armor upgrade because I just want random javelin everywhere
desu the extra 10 speed on the 3 units are nice but I could do without
that is like 40 points extra on my deck
if it was optional 5 point engine upgrade I could see myself not picking them if I'm scrape for points
the only real winner is the battleship unironically

>>2118527
The speed change is good but basically doesn't matter for combat performance. Every stryker variant got nerfed except the weak one, which got no buffs, despite the fact that stryker as a spec is underperforming

>>2118541
>The speed change is good but basically doesn't matter for combat performance.
The whole reason why Barbaris is so oppressive is because of its 80 km/h speed. Otherwise you're much better off picking three BMP-3M for a slightly higher price. Armored Bushmaster II boxes with APS and 90 km/h speed for 105 pts is INSANE if you micro it right. Same with Javelin+AGS variations for 120 pts, which can fire the Javelin while moving.
>stryker as a spec is underperforming
Because it's a high skill spec played by shitters.
I have no idea who asked for the ATGM Stryker nerf, but it's best taken with no armor upgrade anyway, so it doesn't change much.

>>2118553
>The whole reason why Barbaris is so oppressive is because of its 80 km/h speed
You are a retard

>>2118556
I accept your concession.

>>2118526
>>2118527
the real TRVKE is you only bring the javelins on strykers anyway

>>2118573
We have descended to the point where someone explicitly identifying a point and expressing disagreement is now misconstrued as a "concession."
Further from God's light and such...

>>2118406
Okay so bear in mind before this patch:
RU had a huge winrate advantage over US
Guards is featured in almost every high winrate Guards deck. Guards + Moto has been the standard combo since launch. Mech has generally the lowest pickrate in the faction and has only 1 good deck, which was recently discovered to be TOO good and has been shitting on the meta for like 2 weeks.

US has a low winrate across the board, with Armoured propping the winrate up but Stryker and Specops generally dragging it down. The lowest winrate decks in the game are Marines SF, Marines Airborne, SF Airborne and Marines Stryker.

Okay so let's take a look at all the buffs coming for Marines and SF... oh
Okay since this patch is actual shit I'm going to comb through it line by line to explain why:
>APS nerf
This is a direct buff for TOW carriers like the Bradley and for single-reloadable launcher squads like NGWS and Desantniki. Except in practice your squad is getting suppressed before it gets the second shot off so you're not actually doing any better than you were before. But hooray, bradley buff.
>Incendiary
Should have been changed more. There's no reason for fire to need this much pen and they didn't fix the issue of the burn causing rapid crits as it ticks even on vehicles it only tickles.
>low alt bomb nerf
This is just nerfing cluster planes. Why? Nobody uses smart bombs because their nerfed agility can't hit moving targets and you pay too much for no extra capability. Why nerf dumb cluster and not buff smart bombs?
>ballistic missiles
Still shit.

>>Coastal
>BTR-90
Good changes, the 6 seat limit was arbitrary and it was a little overpriced compared to the Motorized -82, but ultimately it's still expensive and fragile.
>Katran nerf
Good. I'm glad they didn't touch the cost and instead hit the spam directly.
>Bereg
Still shit

>>Moto
>Grad nerfs
Good. Fuck this thing
>GRU price increase
Good nerf, and a substantial amount too.

cont'd

>>2118631
>>Guard
>Barb
This is a slap on the wrist. The price increase for the base version doesn't matter, nobody used it. It's there to conceal the fact that the best fighting vehicle in the game is still 100pts cheaper than its direct competition.
>Khriz
This thing is way too good for its price and 5 more points won't change that
>Ingenery
This looks like a nerf but it's really not, because every other flashbang squad got nerfed harder, so this becomes better by comparison. Why does the tank-specialist spec need the best flashbang squad in the game again? No bias here
>artillery nerfs
Very good and very needed. TOS spam was so broken it's like playing the game on easy mode.
>that's it
Fucking insane. Everything is token except for the TOS nerf. It's like they purposefully ignored all the data and feedback to protect their pet spec sitting at the very top of the meta

>>SOF
>AC130
This kills the unit by the way. The change might as well have said "removed from the game." Nobody will ever include it in their deck again. The rush cheese was gay as fuck but killing availability on a low-cost expendable shitter just defeats the whole point. Why couldn't the Barbaris get this kind of nerf?
>keggs
Why the fuck is the kegg getting nerfed? The only reason the AA egg build was popular is that US Shorad is dogshit. Is this really the solution? Why nerf the workaround and not fix the problem?
>Delta
Notice the 10pt nerf vs Ingenery's 5, because why would the deck with no vehicles or support tab be allowed to have good infantry?
>Sentinel
Good nerf. Fuck this thing
>MAAWS
?????????????? In what universe did MAAWS need any nerfs?
>Pararescue
???????
>RRC
????????
>Rangers CQC
Cool, it's still shit. This is about the most do-nothing buff you could offer for a loadout that has no reason to exist
>all this shit
SOF got more (and more substantial) nerfs than Guards. But there is no bias of course :^)

cont'd

>>2118632
>>Armoured
>Iron Thunder
Good. This thing made most other US artillery redundant so maybe the cheaper ones will be more appealing now
>Patriot
????????????? Why did the patriot need to be 20pts more expensive? Now it costs as much as the Guard's S-300 while being strictly worse
>AMPV
Effectively a 15pt price increase across the whole loadout. I think 15pts is overkill since the whole thing is now more expensive than a Kurganets (I know, what a coincidence!) but I agree that it was too good and eclipsed the Bradley's role. Now there's some incentive to make loadout tradeoffs instead of always running it as a super-IFV

>>Stryker
>speed change
Good. It didn't make sense for fully decked out Strykers to be as slow as fucking BTR-80s
>ATGM Stryker
???????
>SHORAD Stryker
?????????????
>RV Stryker
???????????????????
None of these were problem vehicles and the SHORAD having APS was half the reason you play the spec at all.
>Battleship
It lacking BBs was an oversight but adding them doesn't make it any less useless. This is a meme unit
>that's it
Why was undoing the needless speed penalty worth all these random 5pt nerfs? Absolutely baffling

>>Airborne
>standard loadout
Okay? Vanilla airborne are just bad Morskaya and I don't know if 1 extra AT-4 is really going to justify their price but I guess it's worth giving them a shot now.
>NGSW
0.1 damage. k

>Marines
Nothing. Zilch, zero, nada. If they're perfect the way they are then why are their high ELO winrates so shit???

>>2118633
Most of the changelist is trivial, a good portion of it is nonsensical. The most impactful changes are the TOS and Grad nerfs, nerfing GRU, the nerf to AMPVs, the summary execution of the AC-130 and the scattershot nerfs to literally every worthwhile infantry squad in SOF. SOF gets to hold the honorary golden belt buckle of "most nerfed spec" despite its poor winrate, Armoured recieves the auspicious silver belt buckle for second place, and Guards lording over the meta at its very pinnacle picks up the bronze. The random price nerfs across so many units while overlooking Mech spam is likely to make BMP hordes even more cancerous to play against.

As a general thing I think tiny 5 pt price changes are absolutely cancer. They have next to no impact on the effectiveness of some of these units/upgrades but they force everyone to redo all their goddamn decks. Clown shit.

>>2118596
"ur a retard" is not a disagreement, it's just a waste of a post.
The point stands: three BMP-3M for 315 pts have always been an objectively better investment compared to a single T-15 for 290 pts when you look at combined dps and hp points, even when you account for APS that most players have figured out how to counter.
What does T-15 have over three BMP-3M (or similar picks of multiple cheapish APCs) then that makes it so oppressive? The answer is speed, as you can cover more ground in the same time frame, dodge clusters, flank tanks or even hit them from the rear in forests and city blocks, etc. When you're significantly faster than most vehicles that can challenge you in a non-mirror, it becomes a qualitative difference, not a quantitative.
If you're disagreeing with a point, challenge it. Since you're unable to do it, this is a concession. Git gud.

>>2118643
ur a retard

>Armour/SF was nerfed so hard my deck is now a full 240pts over the limit
>Guard/Mot just needed to cut 1 of my 4 Khrizantema
Jesus fucking christ

>>2118633
>ATGM Stryker
>???????
With APS nerfed ATGM Stryker is now ridiculously good for the price.

Sorry bros but I was holding out for thisbpatch before I started playing again. After reading the notes I think I'm just going to uninstall and forget the game. Complete nonsense from the devs

>incendiary in general nerfed
>incendiary grad its own set of damage nerfs
>>>price INCREASES
wut.
The damage nerfs and the incendiary nerfs are fine, but why the fuck increase the price on top of that?

>>2118643
It absolutely is a signal of disagreement, especially within the culture of 4chan.
>a bunch of pointless shit
None of that has anything to do with the part quoted

>>2118696
>within the culture of 4chan
Tip your fedora, plebbitard.
>None of that has anything to do with the part quoted
Your fault for being so illiterate you can't express yourself coherently and can only speak in buzzwords.

>AC-130 availability reduced from 2 to 1;
its a fucking meme unit, completely gutting the already useless unit because of a meme strategy is beyond retarded
>APS "nerf"
useless because your unit is going to be suppressed before they can get that second shot off, essentially changing nothing.
>general infantry nerfs
Infantry prices should be going down, not up. This is fucking stupid. Ranger MAAWS teams are the #1 ground based counter to BMP spam, and they nerf them while not touching BMPs.
>US units getting notably more expensive while RU units get barely touched
If they are going to make the US vehicles more expensive they should be getting buffed as well.
>>>Still no leaver penalty or surrender option

Disappointing patch.
I guess the only good thing is I can switch over to Smoke grads now that they are a cheap long range smoke spitter instead of keeping smoke mortars near the front. will definitely help my BMP1 waves.

So what really is changing here meta-wise?
>Armored
AMPV nerfs mostly affect Specops, since it benefited from the 12 transport slots to move two squads around together. Every other combination still has the Bradley as an IFV. So like one Armor deck got kneecapped but the rest are still fine
>Stryker
Nothing here actually changes anything.
>Airborne
Ditto
>Specops
Mostly every deck that included specops brought it for the strong infantry so nerfing all those at once basically just takes this spec out of the meta, now to be replaced by Airborne for helicopters/air and Marines for infantry.

>Coastal
Cruise missile heli being less spammy is good but more of a QoL change than a nerf. BTR-90s might now be a bigger part of how you build the spec but I don't think it compares particularly well to the BTR-82.
>Moto
Grad nerfs are huge but I don't know if it will stop Moto from being the best Guards pairing, it'll just make it less cancer to play against
Ditto GRU. It's a good nerf but nobody is going to stop using them over it
>Guards
The TOS nerf is pretty comparable to the Grad nerf. Will make Guards arty spam less cancer and that's good.
Barb going up by 10pts basically changes nothing. I think

I don't think RU meta is going to change at all except there being less artillery spam in practice. US meta is basically just going to drop Specops from every deck that used it but it's still going to revolve around Armored. Might be a good time to jump on the Armored/Marines bandwagon early.

>>2118716
As interesting as these stats are, the fact that only 1 deck is below 50% means that these results are tainted very considerably by seal clubbing, that is to say by matchmaking putting a team above 1600 elo against a team below 1600 elo, where deck choice obviously is not the deciding factor in a victory.

>>2118694
Basically you used to only need to run 1 fire grad because it was so ridiculously good. You CAN run 2, it has 2 availability, but you don't need to because 1 was more than enough.

Nerfing the damage and pen is one thing but if you don't change the price, then people can just start bringing 2 grads and firing them together to achieve the same effect. Guards was so overpowered that it could afford to match US decks on the ground while also banking points for a Grad, 2 TOS-1s and 1-2 Tornados. And this was basically the meta, you started ground heavy to stalemate your opponent with Barbaris' and tanks, then transitioned to artyspam and just killed all their ground forces that can't move forward because they can't beat your Barbaris' and tanks. If you don't nerf the Grad price they'll just drop a TOS for another Grad and basically nothing's changed.

im just going to grind warthunder event
i hope by the time it finish they will add next patch by then

>>2118663
The APS nerf isn’t that big of a deal. People are over stating it

>>2118701
Why are you so afraid to defend what you said that you just start screeching about reddit out of nowhere?

>>2118757
Hope that event lasts a month or two then

Leaver penalties dont even matter anymore. The only players that will be left by the next patch are only going to be dedicated players who dont quit after losing their opener.

File: tank+usmc.jpg (174 KB, 1111x802)

174 KB JPG

New meta just dropped
>AMPVs nerfed? Just use bradleys lol
>sf infantry nerfed? just use marines lol
>4-missile patriot nerfed? just bring a pair of 2-missile patriots lol
AAVPs just become your new battle taxis otherwise it basically plays the same.

File: OVqNkki5s1.png (305 KB, 1138x373)

305 KB PNG

pov you are grinding event in 288

>>2118808
dont you dare post bore blunder ever again in thread

somehow it manages to be worse than even broken arrow in terms of mismanagement and wasted potential and it sickens me to even remember

>us mains review bombing the game because their overpowered shit got increased in price
lol

time to play warno 10v10s :)

Why is the BTR-90 even in the recon tab in the first place?
It only has 1400 detection and its loadout doesn't stand out compared to the transports in motorized

>>2118912
Basically the BTR-90 is a failed upgrade program from the 90s that only ever produced a very small number of vehicles and was edged out in favour of the BTR-82 in mass production. The ones still in use are mostly used as auxiliary vehicles by the naval infantry, who largely use older equipment in general.

Confining it to the recon tab was STB's way of limiting its availability over the BTR-80 since there are only 2 squads in the recon tab that can bring it.

>>2118631
>>2118632
>>2118633
Spitting unbelievable facts.

The only reason why they made such a jarring kind of "balance" patch is, of course, they're Russians, and Russians are great and awesome and everybody else are stinkypoos.

File: 1495607722251.png (110 KB, 275x326)

110 KB PNG

>>2118632
>>MAAWS
>?????????????? In what universe did MAAWS need any nerfs?
>>Pararescue
>???????
>>RRC
>????????
I was the direct reason for these nerfs. I have a very high ELO and sometimes play against developers. I completely stomped a few of them with my AMPV+MAAWS+Pararescue deck, including when they were in a five-man stack against my group of low ELO randos. They must have complained about me internally and come to the conclusion that my build is simply overpowered, not that they're bad at the game. Well, they succeeded in making me not want to play anymore. I hope they'll enjoy playing with the few cheating Chinese who are willing to stay after this clusterfuck.

reducing ground-launched ballistic missile reload time is the funniest change of all, absolutely fucking useless and obviously so to anyone that ever used them

>>2119015
The head dev is French so that tracks. Punitively nerfing things they lose to as cope is peak French masculinity.

>>2118821
Actually it was wrong thread post but I can't be bother to delet it

>>2118957
>they're ruzzian zigger zubhumans
>>2119035
>they're fr*nch
make up your minds /vst/
pick an ethnic stereotype and stick with it

people who are bitching about bmp or any ifv spam need to try out sheridan

>>2119310
The problem is the BMP spam all sport autocannons

the sheridan is made of aluminium

Stryker Dragoon is cool

>>2119359
It's okay. A fast, 65pt autocannon vehicle you can use to sneak into the backline and hose down rear targets is a useful niche but I usually run Stryker with Marines so I have a 50pt recon LAV-25 to do the same thing. I think the problem with the Dragoon is that it's fighting in the same price ballpark as a vanilla BMP3. It loses the autocannon duel to any similarly priced IFV because of its armour, but many of those similarly priced vehicles also have an ATGM. With the armour upgrade it's 80pts and that's bradley price range
>>2119310
Sheridan is let down by its paper armour and slow RoF gun. It can't match the damage output of an IFV, can't beat an IFV in a standing fight and costs about as much as any IFV. It's firmly in the category of "I bring this because my spec combo has nothing better" for when you lack enough IFVs or low-cost combat vehicles otherwise.

>>2119263
Game director is fr*nch, formely of eugen, the team are ziggers and it's published by a british strategy-autism shovelware publisher.
A truly international trainwreck.

>>2119376
You would be surprised how much can a dragoon with APS do when kept back. You simply dont charge it into infantry and it just doesnt die if you keep an eye for it.

>>2119378
British money, russian labour, french ego perfectly characterizes the early 2000s.

>>2119379
>>2119376
I was curious so I tested it in a scenario real quick.

Dragoon is pretty good. I didn't expect it to perform as well as it does, but because the pen on its gun is way higher than most other IFVs it eats them for breakfast. Might be worth consideration as a counter to Mech BMP spam.

File: Screenshot 2025-08-14 201602.png (1.15 MB, 1160x747)

1.15 MB PNG

>>2119376
ROF isnt as big of an issue cause it only need one salvo, 2 sheridan will instantly gib an IFV that doesnt have enough chemical armor, and its a direct target gun so no APS fuckery
against stuffs with no armor it will do as much if not more damage than sep3 shot
the damn thing look ass on paper I never bother using myself it until I had my blob of Bumerangs delet by sheridans, before that I usually bring the m8
it also help that people are underestimate this meme tank
when your IFV are taking fire from some auto cannons and have 80% hp left, you usually pop smoke and/or take cover then deal with it accordingly. if you see a tank then you probably kite it or retreat not letting it shoot at you
but when you see couple of sheridan you just laugh at it for being stupid cold war shitbox, and try to run it over with your superior modern IFV then it will pop your ifv from full health with its meme rounds
it will fold like paper against any tanks but it can fight IFV that rely on APS
booker and m8 are probably better light support tanks but there is a place where sheridan works
unlike m60

Devs just release a cope post on Steam.
https://store.steampowered.com/news/app/1604270/view/824840894153752762?l=english

tl;dr They know people are upset at the balance changes, but its everyone else who is wrong

>>2119430
even if that is the case
why did they nerf US more than RU?
when US are the one with worse WR?

>>2119436
saar as you can see the winrates are balanced )
The developers are players too and they understand balance.

Thank you and tune in next week to see what the devs are working on.

>>2119430
lmao

>>2119430
>balance is fine
>we just did some meaningless stat changes to distract you from the fact it's taking us weeks post release to implement a surrender vote in a 5v5 team game
>no we didn't think of doing for release even through we've had open betas even a year earlier and should have known

>>2119394
Too bad T-15 exists and will be in the mix

>>2119430
Classic Russoid Zigger rhetoric of "Its (You) who are in the wrong, fuck you"

File: 1574217638941.gif (587 KB, 540x540)

587 KB GIF

>What’s more, the developers themselves are active players: each of us has spent thousands of hours in the game
Yeah, I know. I kicked their fucking asses to the point where they nerfed my AMPV+MAAWS+Pararescue+RRC into the ground. Enjoy the dead game, salty losers.

>>2119430
are these retards speedrunning to eos or what?

File: Untitled2.jpg (144 KB, 1398x451)

144 KB JPG

>Guys look the balance is close to 50/50
>Don't mind up to a quarter of these games being US vs US or RU vs RU
>Which adds both a win and a loss for the relevant faction
>Forcibly dragging it closer towards 50% winrate
>Making these stats completely worthless

Example:
>US vs RU has been played 100 times
>US has won 47 times
>RU has won 53 times
>Actual US winrate: 47/100 = 47%
>Actual RU winrate: 53/100 = 53%
>Clear RU advantage

Now add the following:
>US vs US has been played 20 times
>RU vs RU has been played 20 times

Suddenly:
>US has won 67 times
>RU has won 73 times
>US winrate: 67 / 140 = 48%
>RU winrate: 73 / 140 = 52%
>No balance problem here cyka)))

Add a "k" after every number if you want them to be more realistic.

>Vatnik devs are vatniks
Wow this has never happened before

>>2119762
I use RRC with CQC loadout, should I try with stand off as well?

Its so cool that they nerfed T-15 by 3% while MAAWS got nerfed by 11%

Average RU assault on a US stronghold:
https://youtu.be/Wv3Ey_pPlXk?t=218

>>2119812
Just missing TOS / Grad rain and one billion BMPs swarming everywhere

>>2119794
No. The CQC loadout is good because it has a high-pen disposable launcher and extremely good small arms. People basically just ran it as a Mainline squad, because that's really what it is.

The standoff loadout is just NGSW with 6 bodies instead of 8. For some stupid reason their Carl G only has 4 shots so it's literally just worse than the disposable launchers from the CQC loadout.

Not going to lie I'm already tired of all the negativity in the content space around the new patch. They made it pretty clear they are working on the problems people want fixed and those clearly can't be solved overnight, or they would have done so already. I think the points and balance changes in the patch are generally fine and had very small overall impact on deck construction. The overall negative attitude does nothing for helping people enjoy a fantastic game

>when the MAAWS/Pararescue/RRC fun team gets overwhelmed
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y8i8mVxt258

>>2119995
Problem is devs seem to be complete amateurs in every aspect of the game
>Vehicles have unrealistically inflated survivability so that they almost never get oneshotted, yet infantry AT ammo is not increased in quantity to compensate and instead just given realistic-ish loadouts which makes them a pain in the ass to use
>Units getting buffed / nerfed based on popularity not actual strength, such as Ingenery getting point increases every patch when they're so mid they'd barely be used if they were US
>Prototype wunderwaffe like T-14, T-15, K-17, BMP-3M Epokha, BRM-3K-57, Comanche, Iron Thunder and etc being treated like normal units and given standard availability instead of reducing it compared to normal units to reflect the reality that for example not a single functional BRM-3K-57 currently exists despite being "ordered" by RU MoD in 2018
>anti-cheat still being a bloody joke on the level of good old fucking punkbuster
>absolutely no attempt to separate stacks from solos in matchmaking
>absolutely no attempt to prevent unplayably desynced matches in matchmaking (overwhelmingly thanks to chinksects)
>growing RU favoritism from extremely cheap and cost-effective infantry for every role, to BMP spam going unaddressed, to convenient miscategorizations of things like Kh-29TD (IRL is an ATGM like Mavericks, instead classed as cruise missile) while US Stormbreaker gets shat on (IRL is a glidebomb with very long range, ingame just a regular guided bomb), hell even just RU getting strong capabilties US doesnt such as cluster cruise on aircraft (best way to delete tanks now that cluster is unreliable vs non-afk enemies)
>its been almost 2 months since release and you still cant normally close the fucking game half the time
And yet they ask 50 bloody dollarydoos and pretend this isnt early access and a good year or more from being a finished product

>>2119995
I think you should suck the barrel of a shotgun instead of developer dick.

>>2119995
Not going to lie the coastal "buffs" have the same vibes as eugen giving north korea "buffs" so powerful that sovkor.had to be removed

>>2119995
>They made it pretty clear they are working
That's the neat part, they aren't.

File: 3847482927492.jpg (861 KB, 2400x1080)

861 KB JPG

No fly zone.

In what situation would you use the thermobariyc for Ingenery instead of the CQC loadout? What about the SSO and spetsnaz VDV?

>>2120134
Thermobaric is bad for Ingenery. It's just bad. Always pick the assault shield loadout
SSO are actually best in their standoff loadout. The ATGM eats APS charges and is strong enough to hurt IFVs while keeping the squad strong vs infantry.
VDV Spets should take their close combat loadout because the AT launcher in the other loadout is the worst in the game and essentially useless. They are a fragile reckon squad though so be careful sending them into combat.

>>2120043
Honestly the cluster plane change basically made no difference. There's still 0 reason to use any other strike type and it's still easier to hit moving targets with a low alt cluster run than with a smart bomb that has a 5 second arming time.

A while back in one of the betas they nerfed the steering on all the high-payload laser-guided precision bombs (ie JSOW, KAB-1500s, 2klb JDAMs) and now they can't steer enough to hit a tank moving forward at full speed.

>>2120127
Putin's weakest Pantsir

>>2120127
Why did he send 4 empty little birds at your AA?

>>2120134
you pick both ingenery and SSO
ingenery for driveby house cleaning and SSO to hold and spam kornets
spetz vdv is kinda trash honestly with any loadout, they just die too fast because of their size but they are a pretty cheap and decent laser squad

>>2120193
probably using it to distract the AA while the lowbow beeline for T-14/15

>all the top teams have already abandoned playing US entirely, and the rare RU vs US match in the top 100 is always a one-sided stomp
I wonder how long until the devs are forced admit their mistake and hotfix.

>AC130 gets nerfed because of a strategy that only works if you fully commit to it with a full 5 man team that coordinates and tailors their deck specifically for that opening

>>2120336
whats with all the kvetching over this change? AC130 is still an opportunistic suicide gunbarge, all thats changed is retards cant waste deck points taking 2 when you rarely have any use for even 1 outside of cheese niggerfaggotry

>>2120349
Its an already useless unit outside of a single meme strategy and it didnt need to be made even worse. It is the fact that the devs decided to do shit like nerf the AC130 which was never used, instead of doing something about massive BMP1 waves or add a penalty for leaving the game

>>2120232
theyll never admit it

>>2120349
The idea of nerfing a meme unit that was obviously never designed to be seriously viable because somebody did a funny meme with it is hilarious and just shows that the devs are in over their head when it comes to live balance of a multiplayer game.

This change isn't happening because AC-130 rushes were actually strong or because they were tearing up matchmaking. It's being nerfed punitively because of that tournament drama last weekend, because STB has lost the plot and they're spraying bullets at a wall hoping to stem the bleeding in their steam review section before the game becomes untouchable.

Pilots carry SMGs.

>>2121081
The only thing they can kill is other pilots though

How are you supposed to kill APS tanks after the cluster plane nerf?
They literally want 100% pick rate for tank spec

>>2121187
>you cant adjust the path at the last second
hardly a nerf, just dont miss

>>2121266
If it wasn't a nerf, then why was the change made?

>It's another round of "endless swarms of cheap, ridiculously good russian infantry that is too numerous to effectively bomb"
Increase MAAWS cost by another 10 points, please

>>2121273
umm saar the Barbaris had its cost increased by 10 points as well, russians got nerfed just as hard!

>>2121326
This unreal feel where you read a devpost where they say you are not right to feel that T-15 is broken OP and they later make it whole 3% more expansive while its most common counter has its price increased by 11%

>>2121332
But they gave the Battleship more bunker busters!

>>2121372
Okay, Battleship didnt have any HE TOWs before. I been trying it now, that it has them as a long range fire support and it really works if you put it in a right spot

>>2121375
This is true of any cheap missile cart. They are godlike if the enemy ignores it and a puff of smoke the second anything with a canon/AC glances at it.

>>2121267
Because cluster planes were so easy to use they obviated every other strike type.
The intended balance is:
Cluster planes are death and can evade AA but are difficult to land on moving targets.
A2Gs are trivial to use but can be smoked
Precision bombs are good against moving targets but expose the plane to greater risk from AA

The problem is that precision bombs were too good in the 2nd beta, so they nerfed the tracking on them. Now they are the worst option vs moving targets. And A2Gs remain a wet far because sending a 200-something plane into certain death only for its whole fucking payload to get nullified by smoke is just straight up not good design. Nobody sane would pick that as their main strike choice.

So you just keep using clusters anways, except maybe you bring some A2Gs now because they can surprise people sometimes.

>general consensus is that infantry fucking sucks
>the keep raising the price of infantry
inb4 MUH TOP 100 ELO ARE HEAVY INFANTRY USERS
game shouldnt be balanced on the top 100 players

>>2121443
>Nobody sane would pick that as their main strike choice.
...about that

>>2121512
Infantry is amazing. Learn to play, shitter.

>>2121443
I just wish glide bombs have at least twice the range of what they have now
shit is literally the same as dumb bombs
like I dont care if its more expensive if its good

Any TAAG system enjoyers here? He's completely and single-handedly revolutionized the meta at high elo, lots to learn from his videos and thought process its just beautiful to watch

>>2121643
You mean the guy that very publicly bitched out on release week? I don't give his garbage views so I can't tell if you're shilling him unironically or mocking him.

>>2121512
Infantry, planes and recon are the three strongest tabs in your deck, nonny

>>2121670
Only because the infantry tab is an extended tank tab composed of vehicles too cheap to bomb. The only infantry that matter outside of glue-huffer Elos are Morskaya, Smaw teams and snipers for recon. Everything else is just deck tax for IFVs. Prepatch, RRC and MAAWS made that list too but now you only run specops for the drone

>>2121677
Morskaya is criminally undercosted, way too fucking available and comically good holy fuck

>>2121678
Morskaya are what all main lines should be. RRC were literally nerfed for being the US Morskaya, but more expensive and worse and trapped in a spec with no vehicles, which was a bridge too far for Frenchman.

File: avhind_1_07.jpg (56 KB, 800x600)

56 KB JPG

been trying out VDV Coastal deck
with focus on cheapish Hind rocket gunship helicoptors to deploy troops everywhere
it was kinda decent as long you dont get Tor/Pantsir on your ass
I had some success with the rockets and rocket+AA loadout
these thing can at least tank one shot of manpad so you can at least deploy your troops before dying
sometime it even win a duel against lone manpad with its rockets

File: WE WILL PIERCE THEIR HEARTS.png (193 KB, 343x385)

193 KB PNG

Vehicles should more readily take component criticals, and mobility crits should be more heavily weighed towards. When a tank is front-tanking infantry disposable AT, fuck you, they'd be aiming at the goddamn tracks.

Tanks should fear infantry hiding in buildings, not feel like they can facetank for a bit, smoke up and then run away with basically no risk.

all they need to nerf tank is by adding mine

>>2121824
add FASCAM now

>all this cope about them adding new mechanics
What developer do you think you are dealing with?

>>2121872
We know it's hopeless and it's not getting better anytime soon, so we cope and shid by thinking of how it could be good

>>2121879
The idea they they released this patch with not only the leaver penalty/surrender mechanic missing, but had the gall to not even give an estimate of when they'd have it done is beyond unacceptable. That they have members of their small development team (which we are constantly reminded of) working on implementing new scenarios or menu gizmos is baffling. Its quite clear what the major current issue is and that they are not fully focused on it says all you really need to hear.
(I can forgive new unit icons and minor balance changes as that requires presumedly members of the team like artists or qa which would be no help on the main issue.)

File: DATA.jpg (762 KB, 1787x1367)

762 KB JPG

Today instead of playing the videogame I chose to play with spreadsheets.

I wanted to compare infantry squad based on how much damage they do. Damage is hard to quantify since squads have mixed loadouts, different weapons do different things at different ranges and all sorts of other factors and so on. I chose to abstract damage output as the combined raw DPS of all of a squad's small arms combined at a given range pre-mitigation and assuming 100% accuracy, and called this value "Firepower" or FP. Penetration was ignored here because it's really just too complicated but also because it has a surprisingly marginal affect on small arms damage output, so in practice it wouldn't change much. This is necessarily an imperfect abstraction but it gives a general gist of how much a squad pays for its killing power relative to others.

The chart is ordered by Peak Firepower per Point, or essentially how cost-effective a squad's damage output is at 200m, when all possible small arms can fire. Firepower per Point at 400m range (the average range of most small arms) and at greater than 400m range (for squads that want to outrange you) are included for comparison's sake.
Cells are colour-coded for readability:
>Green
Best-in-slot for that faction
>Blue
Above average
>Uncoloured
Average
>Orange
Below Average
>Red
Bad or absent
>Yellow
Unique

Some other factors aren't covered by Firepower but still factor into the value of a squad like grenade launchers or AT, so I included them on the side for completion's sake. I grouped grenade and anti-infantry launchers into rough tiers and quantities just to show that they aren't all equal and coloured AT loosely based on how good or bad they are.

>>2122072
Interesting info, thanks. However
>it has a surprisingly marginal affect on small arms damage output
This part isn't true. In fact, against small arms, armor makes the most difference.

>>2122072
I cant find Raiders stand-off, which I been experimenting with to good effect. Did you include them to your tests?

>>2122077 (me)
Nevermind, Im just blind

>>2121677
Look at this dipshit and laugh. This is the kind of numbskull that gets overran by motostrelki in BMPs and then complains instead of realizing that he needs an infantry line in order to stop mass pushes.

>>2121677
Holy fucking retard.

Ah yes, total organic posting hours

>>2121677
Infantry slaps what are you talking about?

>>2122148
ayo fr fr

>>2122072
Can you include damage for HE rockets?

>>2122158
The reason I chose not to is that the rate of fire varies hugely between all of them, which can make comparing raw damage values very misleading. I'll add them in once I've got a good way of actually quantifying the differences between them.

>>2122148
they kinda die instantly without support and generic troopers while cheap are basically completely useless against expensive tanks
and unlike wargame the maxed out armor deck tanks arent 5x as expensive as more conservative options