The thread died a natural death, just let it be. There is nothing left to discuss since the devs are not doing shit and all the discussion we can have has run it's course

What are the good planes in the VDV spec?
All of them look really overpriced to me

>>2137126

All of them? They are the elite of Russian planes.

Su-35S is a pure Air Superiority Fighter. It has. It has a lot of AA missiles.

Su-34 is an excellent bomber.

Su-30SM is a powerful fighter bomber/missile truck

Su-57 is a deadly stealth fighter.

Mig-35 is a versatile multirole and SEAD plane.

>From now on we’re going to be more frequent in our communication, and we aim at having weekly communications so that the community feels more involved.

>>2137153
Russian air stealth sucks balls compared to US air stealth. US air stealth is 1.75, RU air stealth is 1.25. This means US can sneak comfortably into AMRAAM range to unleash its load, while RU gets spotted well beyond R-77 range making it no better than a regular fighter at air superiority, gaining only a marginal advantage against 9k range missiles.

Still no 1vs1 matchmaking? No buy.

>>2137126
The Su-57 is the goat. Meta loadout is 2 cruise missiles and 2 sead. CMs are cluster and 2 will gib any tank, and are fast and accurate enough to snipe moving targets. Since they have extra range you complete your whole strike without getting close enough for radar to see you, and the sead is just a bonus.
Su-34 can run a KAB-1500 with 2x sead and gets a free laser designator so it's a good general purpose strike. The KAB will oneshot a tank if you laser its top armour and can still kill infantry, while the seas missiles just help it survive long enough to drop its bomb.

>>2137393
I'll give the devs a max of two dev updates until they stop following through

>>2137443
>What is this anon talking about? The SU-34 doesn't have any KAB-1500 mounts? Only KAB-500
>Oh, there's a barely visible fucking scroll bar I never noticed
epic

>Want to play BA
>realize it'd just be an effort in frustration playing against endless Cherno and cruise missile spam
>Don't want to play BA anymore
>
>
>Want to play BA

>>2137496
play warno :)

>>2137447
If they don't post something in the next few hours then they can't even say they've adhered to it in even the most extremely charitable sense.

A bunch of retarded euros didn't like me saying infantry was bad in the beta and started insulting me in the BA discord. I responded in kind and they immediately started crying to the admins. Self righteous faggot from slytherine permabanned (I think? Can't remember) me because I mocked them for whining to the admins.
And before you say I was probably spamming nigger, no, they literally were calling me an idiot and I responded calling them fucking morons. That was the interaction.

Anyway the point of the story is that it makes me so happy that this shit is failing.

>>2137507
Today's news is that the news is delayed to Monday
Lmao

>>2137496
The chemotherapy is just to play Stryker/SF, pack an absolutely fucking loaded inf tab full of Dragoons and all the best infantry in the game and treat them as expendable tokens while your air tab with 4x F-35As does all the work for you. It costs them 60pts to fire those super fast meta cruise missiles so it's barely breaking even hitting an 80pt Ranger squad and they're losing far more than that pt difference throwing units just to get vision or fix you long enough to land the strike. Just don't give them expensive targets to make their missiles worth it.

>Infantry spam?
JDAM it
>Barbaris, tank, IFV spam
JDAM it
>Katrans
Watch where they resupply and JDAM them on it

I'd actually argue right now that Stryker/SF is stronger than the meta RU shit but just harder to pilot. The same latency and sync issues that make cruise missiles uninterceptible also make it so that a laggy F-35 can perform its entire strike and rtb without appearing on radar, and if they pull up an ASF loiter to try and counter the stealth spam you can just bully it off the field with an F-22. As a bonus you might even catch their Tupalev out. People get caught up trying to play a conventional slow armour roll and obsessing over trying to counter uncounterable cruise missiles but this is just not a slow armour roll meta. We're in an "abuse the bad netcode with unstoppable airstrikes" meta and ground forces need to be light, mobile, cheap and dispersible.

>>2137653
It's cute how you stryker-cucks are only now figuring out that SF gets completely unblockable backline strike capability facilitated by their stealth and their unassailable, utter and complete air dominance. I've been telling you this since the release day of the game. Wait until you figure out how Stormbreaker stealth-multi-striking works. Then you'll be wiping entire backlines in a single bombing run. SF is literally playing a different game from every other spec in the game. Their first and foremost directive, above all else, is to infiltrate sniper-teams into the enemy backline (by using silent hawks flanked by commanches) to scout out high priority targets for stealth planes to bomb. You have tools at your disposal to deal with every counter-measure to this strategy (including low-flying drones). Once the enemy backline is down, you have free reign to rape the frontline with whatever helicopter / plane / artillery you so please. Or you can just cart MAAWS+Pararescue AMPVs around to roflstomp anything that gets close enough.

File: PLS UNDERSTAND PIDORS((((.png (35 KB, 684x183)

35 KB PNG

https://steamcommunity.com/app/1604270/discussions/0/599662719724093686/
AHAHAAHA
AHAHAHAHAHAHAH
AHAHAH AHAHAHAHAHA AHAHAHA
SUB-5K DAILY PEAKS SOON BROTHERS

>>2137753
>we are going to post weekly updates
>stumbles and falls flat on their face right out of the gate
This is the BA I know. I don't think they have ever delivered anything on time.

>>2137753
>We're a little late, see you on Monday
Fucking kek

>>2137653
And then you just start getting subtlehacked. Every plane magically fails to chaff off any missiles, that TOS was either magically pre-aimed at your infantry, or he just had a cheeky faster aiming time. Your scouts just """"""""happen""""""""" to be discovered by a lone BTR beelining for them. Artillery never lets up because they restock at 300% speed, and they just plain have +100 more income than you. The game is just an effort in frustration.

>>2137857
Don't forget the cheeky +xx% ECM for planes and helis :) dumping 9 stingers into a Ka-52 and not killing it is perfectly normal gweilo, don't stress it

>>2137928
I actually tested this. Offline, the average number of stingers fired to kill a ka-52 is 8. Sometimes it's way more or way less, but the mean is 8. Ping makes that worse.
Stinger platforms are basically worthless as SHORAD. As the US the only good way to kill helis is to close within 1000m and autocannon them to death. No hacks are necessary here, Stingers are just worthless.

why play US when you can play RU?

>>2137496
Just play Russia
You don't even have to spam cruise missiles

>>2137928
>dumping 9 stingers into a Ka-52 and not killing it is perfectly normal gweilo, don't stress it
Very cute that you underestimate how hard this game sucks off Russian snowflake units. The Ka-52 is just retarded tanky. I honestly think it's almost a good thing that the Coastal Ka-52 is so braindead with cruises because if I had to deal with people actually using it with is magic super missiles I think I'd lose my mind.
>>2137948
To be fair, the stinger isn't actually bad. It's just that it's only a regular manpad missile, and the US these days just doesn't field any of the sort of mid-sized missiles that form the bulk of your anti-helo AA in this subgenre. Even if other factions are added this would probably remain a notable weakness of theirs.
It IS the dev's fault that the Ka-52 has 30 fucking armor, the TOR and Pantsir are overtuned as fuck, and SPAAGs are retardedly short range though.

>>2138017
>To be fair, the stinger isn't actually bad
The stinger IS bad. The reason all US SHORAD platforms use it is because IRL it's enough. This idea that the workhorse anti-helo missile can't hit helos and can't hurt them if it hits them because "muh blast frag, motherfucka" is purely vatnik cope meant to give a justification for obsolete cold war SAM systems to get a second life in this game as helo-hunters.

In game all infantry-carried manpads have too little pen, which basically makes their damage a decimal point at the edge of their blast radius against 'armoured' helis. SHORAD has a bad habit of detonating prematurely, scoring an AoE hit for minimum damage instead of scoring an actual hit. The practical result is that their direct hit rate is much lower than the ECM/flare effect of the enemy would suggest and most of their damage comes from AoE hits. But MANPADs usually AoE at 30m for 0.6 damage while the 'bigger' missiles with larger blast radius' and twice as much pen will detonate at 30m and still 3-shot a plane.

This pen issue only exists so that RU helis which have armour protecting them from small arms after flying into a hundred ambushes in afghanistan make sense in a game where you don't normally fly into small arms range.

>>2138069
Essentially every other military fields middleground air defense vehicles like the russians, anon. The reason that the US considers the stinger "good enough" is in no small part an expectation of complete aerial superiority and thus few enemy air assets (which is a fair expectation realistically) alongside ballistic anti-air being more than enough against helos in the real world.
>But MANPADs usually AoE at 30m for 0.6 damage
This is hyperbole. You can shoot down choppers with them, the problem is that it's unreliable and not fast enough even in the best case from SHORAD. Hitting them with the same cost worth of on-foot MANPADs will take down chopper reasonably reliably.
>In game all infantry-carried manpads have too little pen...
>This pen issue only exists so that RU helis...
Every single unit in this game is far tankier than it should be, if your problem is realism. The Helo-AA interaction just plays out worse than most.

What loadout should I use for the Su-34?

>>2138154
See >>2137443.
You can also load it with the big Air-to-Grounds, fly low, and lase tanks in theory.
Really though you shouldn't be thinking "what should I take on this plane" you should be thinking "what plane can deliver the weapons I want best". Planes are ultimately just weapons delivery platforms for the most part, kind of excepting stealth planes.

>>2137590
>>2137753
kek, -1 to the dev update count
Monday's update will be the last consistent one and then they'll go back to posting shit whenever they feel like

File: steamwebhelper_ablP6FWIg1.png (502 KB, 848x298)

502 KB PNG

is the game good yet?

>>2137091
I cant believe such a promising game is getting drowned in a shallow puddle with blitheringly incompetent post-release support.
This could have been their golden goose and they're fumbling it like pocket change lost in the backseat of a soviet era taxi.

File: adsad.png (493 KB, 704x445)

493 KB PNG

>>2138493
Lol no, check back in 6-18 months, and dont buy without at least a 50% discount

>>2138498
We're just in mourning. It's all part of the process.

File: 1399331553748.jpg (68 KB, 500x375)

68 KB JPG

I think they will eventually recover and start making good updates. However, this is going to be a very rough several months while they are fucking around learning how to do their job. Probably only the die-hard niggers will remain at which point they will have to start fighting to win back their casual audience all over again.

>>2138541
They have the Chinese faction up their sleeve, there's gonna be a huge resurgence in popularity once they drop it.
Obviously not gonna happen until 2026, so devs have time to figure things out.

>>2138541
The causal audience is already gone. They will not been reporting. That ship has sailed weeks.

>>2138546
>Figure things out
It took them four years to figure nothing out

>>2138541
It won't get better, anon.
Personally the game would be fine for me if it just had a fucking leaver penalty and surrender option. If they get that shit out they can fuck off for all I care. But it does leave me gobsmacked that they had record-breaking player levels on their launch week and could have made this into one of those forever games where paypigs buy skins and DLC every month but they managed to crater not only their player numbers but literally all of the good will the playerbase had in the span of a few months. Making a good-enough game is fucking hard; keeping players from hating you while they've got a good-enough game in had is fucking easy.

French and russians working together are capable of levels of incompetence and self-sabotage the rest of us could only dream of.

Nothing like dropping from 1760 elo to 1580 in a series of matches where your team quits before end of phase 2. I wish I knew any1 who plays this game. This is so fucking bad.

>>2138541
What make you think there will be a good updates despite the fact they havent release one since open beta almost a year ago?

>>2138541
>I think they will eventually recover and start making good updates
By that point they will have lost all of the regular players. The game will be filled with nothing but sweaty lobbies, which is not fun to play, and thus it will not resurge. Either you support games like this from start to finish, maintaining and fostering a healthy community, or you leave it to rot for a few months and then it dies. The devs did the latter.

>>2138925
Nobody was ever going to play a game like this for more than a week or two that isn't "sweaty" but the definition of someone like you.
But more broadly, Wargame maintained an ever returning playerbase of middle level players for like 15 years, and we haven't just all gone away. It's not like Warno is stepping up to the plate or anything else can scratch this subgenre's very specific itch.

>>2138993
wargame's balance issues are also even more frustrating than this game's a lot of the time
like fighting invincible russian orc vehicles is obnoxious but i definitely dont want to go back to getting 100000 atgms that oneshot m1a1s to the front shot at me every time i leave smoke

>>2138993
how people can argue wargame is better than warno, i'll never know. you have to be deadset in your ways, so there's no point even arguing.

>>2139006
I don't think anything in Wargame was nearly as obnoxious as cruise missile spam but we also haven't had to deal with that for like five years without a balance patch. Longbows still give me PTSD even in this game.
>>2139007
Personally I can just never get past the division system. It just left so little room for the kinds of armorycrawling and theorycrafting that was Wargame's backbone for me. Each division very much had a preset playstyle, a limited set of good units and basically built itself, baring some optimization. Broken Arrow satisfies that desire much better with the ability to mix two divisions.

But more generally, the point wasn't that Wargame was better or worse than Warno, it's that the playerbase for all three games is gonna stay around. And to an extent that I'd still rather play BA even in its current state than either of those in 2025 overall.

>>2139014
broken arrow maps are also way bigger than wargame maps so theres a lot less "f-15/buratino blankets literally the entire attack corridor in boom boom and wipes your push" even with the 16 cruise missile spammer or whatever

>>2139014
i think the removal of the phase system from the steel division series hurt the theorycrafting, but i still think theres a good amount of variation you can get in a decent amount of divs.
every game will have its meta units to pick though, and it's hard to get around it.

>>2139016
Yeah, though assets coming back can kind of enable more obnoxious support play in not entirely dissimilar ways. You have to worry far less about suiciding a plane if you aren't down it for the rest of the match. I think that's gonna be a problem regardless of balance of the day here. Even if you kill the Ka-52 somehow, they're just gonna get it back, etc.
>>2139017
>every game will have its meta units to pick though, and it's hard to get around it.
Yeah, obviously, but for me it's about having incentive to play around and outside the meta via different decks and conditions. Having the freedom to chose a random minor or a different coalition or an unusual spec and trying to make it work. It gives you a lot more ground to explore units, both in strength and weaknesses. Or to chose decks with a wider breadth of units that's more freeform to build. There's nothing in either Warno or BA that's quite like the variety you got in a spec Blufor unspec Soviet deck in Wargame.

In BA there's at least some of this. Even if specops is meta and has some busted units, there's four different things it can be paired with which recontextualizes your unit choices.

dont worry guys
broken arrow 2 will be good

You know, I think you could literally double all weapon ranges in the game and nothing would be hurt. Maybe some changes around the airgame but for ground / helo combat? It'd be completely fine and feel far better.

>>2139123
The ranges are already surprisingly long. I don't think people realize just how far 2km actually is in game, helicopters are basically flying artillery. Most ground units never actually fight at their max range because the sightlines just aren't wide enough.

>6/6 of the game lost today purely because at least 2 (usually 3) people quit before whase 2 even ended
This is not a playable product. Sad that Steam wont issue a refund for this reason

>this is not a playable product because players are shitters

>>2139228
Yes.

The issue with Wargame / WarNo is the limited supplies you have to work with. It makes no sense whatsoever that a massive wide front would go completely without any means of calling in external supplies. Broken Arrow's "you can call in as much supplies as you need but you pay for them" is a much better system. It lets you actually use the pieces at your disposal, rather than sitting on them waiting for the enemy to run out of supplies / units.

Similarly, the unit trickle-back in Broken Arrow makes a lot more tactics (like meat waves) possible. A game of Broken Arrow isn't over until the score board shows, a game of Wargame / WarNo might as well be over once you lose your "queen". This leads to overly conservative gameplay and artillery slap-fights rather than actual engagements. More realistic? Maybe. More fun? Hell no. These games shine when you're having city-wide close-quarters shootouts.

>>2139282
if we were being realistic there wouldn't even be a real engagement until one side had a comical 2 or 3 to one numbers advantage because thats how real war works

>>2138546
That will be the final nail in the coffin for them. It will be a resurgence of chinese players, which is not good for everyone else. A horde of new cheating chinks will also push out any non chinese that are remaining.

>>2139178
>The ranges are already surprisingly long.
I am constantly feeling the opposite. Things need to get extremely close to each other, and there's surprisingly little practical difference in ranges due to this. I think it's part of why the game winds up in a close range stats exchange deathball so often, imo.

File: Untitled.png (946 KB, 841x444)

946 KB PNG

>>2139780
You're more or less correct, since an Abrams is 9.77m long IRL, and not the ~20m it appears to be modeled as in game.

>>2139791
Yeah basically every number in the game is retarded. Observing essentially anything happening infuriates the military autist in me.

File: file.png (1.29 MB, 1174x532)

1.29 MB PNG

I don't care about the scale of units, I care about the distances between things.
It's the scale between terrain features that's a problem. 92 meters to the next building ~87 if you assume it's measured from the second to top story and the building is 3m per floor. There's 7 parking spaces there covering the same distance. We'll be generous and call the one in the middle double-width, making it 8. Parking spaces are 2.7m wide, which means this SHOULD be a 21m gap, which is vaguely right based off intuition.

It's 200 meters across a road too. It's absurd, and you wind up with tanks that can't shoot units a single city block away.

>>2139807
And all this is on top of every unit in the game having a small fraction of realistic ranges before the scale issue.

>>2139807
Make the ranges realistic, and watch people cry about US infantry demolishing slavshit from 1000+ meters away.

File: C-17 in Brisbane.webm (1.7 MB, 720x720)

1.7 MB WEBM

https://store.steampowered.com/news/app/1604270/view/537738224842311565?l=english
>Surrender vote, leaver penalty (cant join a new game after deserting for a while, time increases with each desertion, cools down after finishing games) and various major bug fixes coming in 1.0.10
>No release date for 1.0.10
>Working on integrating a 3rd-party anticheat
>Finally working on moving the game server-side
>In 3+ months (so never) you'll be able to manually choose a server instead of the game picking it automatically in the background
>Roadmap coming sometime before Armata sees active service
>No mention of RU curbstomping US at every elo bracket except 2300+
Its over. It was fun while it lasted lads

>>2140111
Maybe it'll be something in 2026, if they bother trying to keep it alive

File: 1502375653262.png (7 KB, 457x564)

7 KB PNG

>>2140111
>Let's bundle these minor features that the game needs ASAP into a larger update!
>That won't come out for likely several more months
>Oh but we can nerf the US in the meanwhile though ;)
I can't tell if these retards are being actively sabotaged somehow, or if they're actively trying to kill their game.

>>2140150
Steel Balalaika is what happens when you combine fr*nch and ruspidors into one team

>>2140111
The fuck. I get that unfucking a poor choice of server architecture would be a big job but why is it taking them so long to implement surrender vote and leaver penalties. It's a simple feature, standard issue for any team based game nowadays.
It's not like they can't make any other updates. They can make shitty balance updates.

>>2137153
5th year of 2 week operation

>>2140164
You know what, you are not wrong, it wasn't 3 days, their expectations were either 1 day or 2 weeks
https://web.archive.org/web/20220226051154/https://ria.ru/20220226/rossiya-1775162336.html

>>2140111
>no release date
It's a safe bet that it will keep with the pattern of all the other patches and come out second week of the month, which likely means next friday at the earliest.
Considering this patch is implementing those surrender features there's also a good chance it gets quietly delayed a few days as last minute issues crop up.

>>2140111
>>No mention of RU curbstomping US at every elo bracket except 2300+
i thought it was RU curbstomps at 2000+ and low brackets are even

>>2140111
if this update comes out this year it might save the game

>>2140368
It was that way last patch. After the new patch RU dominates all but the highest ELO bracket, which is so small it's basically just a dozen teams who play both factions

>>2140111
I'm not sure what you expected from a random news post. It's focused on issues surrounding a general topic (matchmaking and playability of matches) which are the core developmental issues facing the game right now.
All the changes they've described are dead shit simple to make but less dead shit simple to ensure aren't broken, so giving hard deadlines for no reason would be idiotic. Especially in a fucking news post for dev progress.
There's no indication they think the balance right now is perfect nor would it make sense to go over it there.

I truly don't understand how the people attached to this game manage to sound like retarded whiney doomers even despite the game being borderline unplayable right now. I swear it's an achievement

>>2140446
so what exactly are US teams doing at such high ELOs? APM isn't and can't be the answer, so there's a fundamentally different approach to "stopping" the russian horde. what's the teamcomp? which units are used and how?
personally I can't see a way of keeping an intact frontline as an SOF/cav player if you keep several units in the back spotting constantly. or even getting a drone up for a sufficiently long time. there'll always be a loitering migger-29 or a random attack chopper spotting your unit which just so conveniently was under its flight path. not to mention plane call-ins or using arty... you're bound to lose something on the field and every piece you place on the board is so damn important you basically can't even afford to trade well against the orc frontline.

>>2140616
you complain about whiney doomers when the devs' track record on updates/feedback since the fucking beta has been ass
they're a bunch of niggers

>>2140625
Better micro is genuinely a large factor, but not in the gookclick pure APM way. Being able to micro a wide variety of units while keeping situational awareness is a large and important skill. Doubly so when it comes to being able to manage your AA properly and being able to play through the cruise missile APM tax.
>there'll always be a loitering migger-29 or a random attack chopper spotting your unit which just so conveniently was under its flight path
Knowing how/when/where to position, having multiple units, micro of those backline unit etc. all go a long way.
>you're bound to lose something on the field and every piece you place on the board is so damn important you basically can't even afford to trade well against the orc frontline.
That's ultimately hyperbole that just isn't true. Russian frontline spam is definitely too good but you can still win if you outplay the other guy with good trades.

More than anything it's communication and coordination, which is especially important for the US since the specs are all more specialized.

Is Delta Force standoff any good? I only see people using and going on about the CQC loadout but having 600/700m ranges seems pretty obscene. Is the weird launcher they have any good?

>>2140632
its ok but the entire point of deltas is just deleting enemy infantry in buildings

>>2140625
>so what exactly are US teams doing at such high ELOs?
I was using AMPVs with Pararescue and MAAWS. Then they nerfed all three of these, so I quit. Another large part of my strategy was the Stormbreaker stealth strike trick.

>>2140632
The real reason you would ever want to use Delta Force standoff is their rocket launcher, which can hit helicopters, infantry and soft-skinned vehicles.

>>2140654
But that's wrong nigga, it does 3.5 damage per shot, and it only gets a handful of them. Standoff Delta is to be an oppressive overwatch that can threaten any infantry trying to push your other squads, and be a cruise missile magnet

File: 17574020541620.png (24 KB, 640x405)

24 KB PNG

Do you see an issue here?

>>2140625
Heavy and coordinated air use - drone spotting, mavericks, occasional cluster, but overwhelmingly it's JDAM F-35s to delete arty / aa / helis resupplying / expensive armor like T-14 or T-15 and etc

>>2140698
i dont think soviets are winning enough.

>>2140698
Low IQ US players.

>>2140698
Seems perfectly reasonable to me

us air is a bit too overpowered though, how about a cost increase on everything?

File: 17574105461520.png (81 KB, 850x1572)

81 KB PNG

>>2140707
That's what developers think.

>>2140709
what if we boil balance discussion which is sloughing off even more players with a "skill issue"?

>we will fix the game soon(tm)

Thats great but ive already stopped playing over a month ago.
Someone spoonfeed me the daily playerbase and i might come back if this new patch is good and theres enough people still around.

>>2140625
The sample size is just extremely small, so one or two teams who happen to play US often and have a high winrate because they're really good throw off the whole metric.

The fact that the top 1% of the playerbase are capable of slogging out a positive winrate as US spawns a whole dev essay and makes them disappointed
but the fact that for the other 99%, playing US is sabotaging yourself by playing with a handicap, draws no comment or notice
ruspidors really are just completely and irrevocably subhuman

>>2140625
The secret to abusing the sentinel is that you can put up your own loitering fighter to spot the enemy's fighter, and then force it off the field with either the F-18 or F-22 with their 9k range missiles. You only put your sentinel up once the other side's plane rtbs, and that gives you several minutes of Intel impunity to snipe all their supply and backline shit.
Coordinated airspam is basically singlehandedly holding up the US' winrates at top Elos and is the main difference between the average soloqueue randos, and the top level stacks.

>>2140729
The devs themselves play as a ~2k Elo stack and main Russia. They just want to balance around what they play and fudge the numbers to support their conclusions. That's why they need to cope furiously when independent data fact checks them.

For me, it's how fucking worthless the Bradley's cannon is.

>spends 5 minutes shooting the cherney sitting in a building
>the cherney simply leaves after a while

>>2140745
You use the BLAAM bradley against infantry and spam regular bradleys to one shot enemy armor with top-attack TOW.
By far the best anti infantry vehicle for the US is actually M1150.

>>2140745
This is why everyone just uses the AMPV instead. Bushmaster 1s are basically worthless in this game.
The only useful Bradley is the cav scout variant, because its stealth value lets it fire TOWs from concealment without revealing itself. You bring 4 of those in your recon tab and that's honestly all the bradleys you'll ever actually want anyways.
>>2140757
The engineer bradley is an absolute fucking meme

>>2140757
>BLAAM
>8 missiles
>0% cover reduction
>bunker busters can't bust bunkers

I want to play the game again vros

just not at 2000 elo, i want to return to 1200

>>2140732
They just nerf whatever beats their shitty stack and makes them mad. t. beat the shit out of the devs with AMPV+Pararescue+MAAWS (and sometimes RRC).

File: 1463982356534.jpg (69 KB, 711x747)

69 KB JPG

>>2140709
>open the discussion toward much more complex questions
Not sure what they mean by that, how are these complex questions relevant exactly? In my opinion, it doesn't really matter what the people at the top of the ranked ladder are able to do. By definition those players aren't "normal" people and you can't balance the entire rest of the game around them. The group of people who have a high winrate as the US is literally comprised of like, 10-20 individuals vs. the entire rest of the playerbase, which is like 7000 people or whatever.

>uuhhhh the winrate discrepancy is in fact an issue of the poopenshittum the uh the penis poop it's simply a matter of the F-35 peepee the uh all you have to do is play together with 4 other people who all have 800 hours in the game despite the fact that it was released only 10 minutes ago and uh just penis the cum the perfect coordination with no mistakes and everyone's decks are exactly designed to play around everyone else's decks and uh poopoo

Shut up, man. The entire point and the reason why people are upset is because Russia players don't need to do ANY of those things and can still have fun and even win the game. The normies, who are (and should be) the vast majority of the playerbase aren't having fun playing the US because their cocks are getting crushed by giant boulders. The game needs to be fun for normies more than it needs to be fun for the mutants with 2400 ELO.

>>2141151
sorry, best i can do is make a RU unit cost 5 more points. hope it helps :)

>>2141151
They're struggling to articulate the problem that every multiplayer game devs struggle with:
The meta is radically different at 'normal' and at high elos, with a clear cutoff between them.
If you balance for normal elo then the top players get pissed and fuck off, and since most of them are content creators, tournament organizers and so on you lose all of your grassroots exposure and your business model becomes dangerously exposed to the fact that you can't be profitable if you need to pay for marketing.

If you balance for the top players then the average player gets pissed and quits and the game quickly dies as it bleeds players.

There's no good answer. The goal would be to make targeted changes to both sides aimed at helping the two metas converge but most of the time devs just erroneously assume that the metas are different because everybody sucks and only two dozen people play the game correctly, so everyone else will eventually catch up right? These are the "complicated questions" Pepe le Pieux is alluding to, that the "why" of the winrate discrepancy is that most players aren't good enough to be worth their consideration and they're all just bad and wrong. Since Stinky Cheese Man is a dev he's not allowed to say that, but he sure as shit wants you to know he's thinking it.

>>2140757
the top attack tow doesnt oneshot anything
in fact its slightly weaker than javelins despite being a heavy vehicle mounted ATGM for whatever reason

>>2140762
all bradleys are not only worse than their BMP-3 equivalents but more expensive too

>>2141161
one of the biggest unamibiguous advantages guards armor has is their US-equivalent IFV models being 5-20 points cheaper lol
bmp-3f >> bradley
btr-80 >> stryker

>>2141335
Not him but the top-attack TOW will 2-shot any vehicle in the game (3-shot if it has APS) so you can just use pairs of Bradleys as hit squads. They have a 2-round magazine so they're not screwed if the first missile gets smoked. The only thing they can't really fight is the Kurganets.

>>2141380
they're acceptable but the RU IFVs with 8+ missile mags are generally much better because only actual US tanks will survive more than 2 RU ATGM hits

>>2141104
this is the twelfth time you've said that

>>2141434
RU ATGMs either single-shot with ~8 shots, or they ripple fire with 2-4 shots (ie 1 or 2 volleys). Ammo is an explicit weakness of all the ripple fire IFVs, while the non-ripple fired ones struggle to get through APS.

The thing that makes the BMP-3 really good is just that its barrel-launched ATGM can fire while moving with basically no downside and reloads really quickly because of its autoloader. It allows them to threaten any target while suicidally charging a position to vomit out Morskaya, where any other IFV would need to pick between charging or fighting. You can technically build a jammer Bradley for a similar price as the BMP-3 but it's much less useful as an assault transport because it has to stop moving to fight and has to stop fighting to move.
The US equivalent would be the AMPV, which is now literally twice the price of the BMP-3.

>>2141790
nah a stock BMP-3F has several direct stat advantages over a bradley, particularly 15kmh faster speed. the tow-2b technically does way more damage to top tier enemy tanks but with only 2 shots its not going to get through APS and being stationary fire its not likely to even fire them in a timely manner on the offense

m2a3 bradley has bushmaster+mg, 100/100 front armor, and 2 tow-2bs
bmp 3f has 100mm gun, 30mm autocannons, mg, 100/100 front armor, and 8 glatgms
bradley 80 points bmp 3f 65 (bradley with upgraded engine to match bmp-3f speed)

RU IFVs also have another implicit advantage in that american tanks have dogshit HEAT shells and are generally less equipped to kill them

>>2141834
The HEAT shell issue is the real problem.
The only US tool to deal with those mid-sized vehicles is super autocannons like the Booker. AT-4s are too weak, HEAT shells are too weak, ATGMs are overkill and not well suited to it (all these RU IFVs have two smokes for some reason). What does that leave? There are some tools but generally too few and too confined to specific specs that in turn impose a strict meta. It's just such a weird ability gap because the tools are all there, they've just all been deliberately undertuned.

>>2141728
Because they nerfed my favorite combination which caused me to quit the game. I have nothing new to say beyond that. I am clinging to this thread in hopes that any positive news will come out, but it would appear that this game with incredible potential is doomed to a slow, spiralling deathl.

>>2141918
I'm pretty sure american tanks are programmed to fire HEAT at certain IFVs with 500+ front armor which is insane
like just use APFSDS at that point

>>2141935
i'm clinging to the thread in the hope that there's going to be a fix, not you continuously clinging to your one so epic mom get the camera achievement is so tiresome

have you considered a youtube channel instead? I'm sure there's a niche for shortform AMPV micro

>>2141954
All weapons will automatically always fire the best ammo for their target. Abrams will use AP against targets with 400CE armour like BMP-3s and take 3 hits to kill them.

>>2141977
its honestly so comical that it takes a 400 point tank 15 seconds to kill a 65 point PC

>>2141935
>>2141935
imagine seething or coping at a game with retards at the helm. the only thing left to play is custom scenarios and simply have fun shooting bots. oh, you wanna COMPETE? have you considered that your HYPERCOMPETITIVENESS is the root cause of your dissatisfaction in life?

>>2141151
>By definition those players aren't "normal" people and you can't balance the entire rest of the game around them.
They're the only people it's worth truly balancing around. Chasing "balance" around people with partially developed skillsets is a pointless and retarded exercise, since players will be wildly better in one area or another against each other which completely destroys any common ground to balance around. Plus game balance will naturally vary at many different skill levels, not merely between the top players and "everyone else".

You do, however, need to make the game actually fun for the rest of the playerbase. You want it balanced at the top end, and fun for everyone else. They're only implementing the first half of that (and even then fairly questionably). The real problem isn't that the game is unbalanced, it's that the things Russia is doing to win at the majority of skill levels are just insanely fucking retarded and having to go to huge lengths to counter the most braindead simple RU strategies is infuriating to most people.

>>2142456
See you've fallen for the same specious trap most inexperienced devs fall for.
Game activity will always normalize around an 'average' where the largest number of players are and thus the quickest matches. It doesn't matter if these players are playing the game incorrectly, because that's how most people are playing it. You need to balance the game around the state in which it is actually being played, not a hypothetical ideal state it would be played at if a chess computer was the player, or the state the game may be played at in 6 months when the tourney meta trickles down.

The reason there are usually distinct metas at the normalized average, where the overwhelming majority of players play with one another, and at the top isn't just because the top players are better. It's because the top players are segregated. Top players are stuck in a little matchmaking cagematch with one another, pressured by the level of competition at that tiny bracket, a level of competition none of the rest of the playerbase will ever experience, to minmax their strategy to the extremes. The average playerbase experiences none of this, because matchmaking naturally protects them from the sweatlords and there is no actual pressure or incentive to 'adopt' the top-level meta. If top players were just thrown into children's sandbox to stomp around you would see metas converge very quickly, both as regular players adapt to getting stomped by sweatlords and as sweatlords encounter enormously greater variety from casual players, get memed on every now and then and incorporate those meme strategies into their play. But everyone hates getting stomped by an unemployed career-streamer and his stack of eastern european welfare babies so matchmaking is designed to trap them in chinese server hell while we all play the game. Kind of like Australia. Only those damned souls and their fawning orbiters think the game should be built around them.

>>2142541
>most inexperienced devs fall for
Link a quote of an experienced dev who says that competitive strategy games should be balanced around shitters.

>>2142541
>Game activity will always normalize around an 'average' where the largest number of players are and thus the quickest matches.
It doesn't. Especially not with strategy games. Even trying to claim that reveals you really have no idea what you're talking about. Disputing that idea was fully half of my post and you didn't even attempt to address it.
The simple fact is that there is no one "average". Randomly dumping everyone into two groups of "good" and "average" is moronic and misses the wide breadth of people playing at different skill levels. The difference between the 20th and 50th and 70th percentiles of player is extreme, and oftentimes far larger than the gap between the "top" players and everyone else in RTS. There is no one state to balance the game around with regard to these people.

Furthermore, the entire idea of balance in a situations with variable player skill is farcical. What is the difference between playing against someone who's 10% better than you, and playing against a faction that's 10% better than you, from your perspective? It's nothing. This only gets more absurd when you factor in that player skill is not some linear number; if one faction requires better micro than others but less skill elsewhere, that faction could appear comically busted when played by someone who's relatively better at micro but worse in other game aspects.
The more you drive down into it the more it very quickly becomes clear that you literally CANNOT balance around anything but the highest skill level. What you can do is make sure the game is FUN for the majority of players, which even you seem to be aiming at but got distracted by some detached rant about "sweatlords" you already had in your head.
>See you've fallen for the same specious trap most inexperienced devs fall for.
It is literally the opposite. Every single experience strategy dev has had to learn the lesson about balancing for the top and while making non-balance driven adjustments for the rest.

In strategy games - and that includes RTT like BA - the reason why you never balance around shitters is because shitters are not bad at the game due to mechanical skill. They are bad because they don't know how to use the tools the game provides them with.
For instance, the dreaded Sentinel is countered by either having a loitering fighter (which you need to know how to build efficiently, i.e. <300 pts and 300 flight time) or by placing long range AA closer to the front. Most long range AA pieces are 200 pts - base Buk is an exception - so the devs balanced Sentinel by increasing its cost to 200 pts, so risking your AA is now worth it. This is proper balancing. If the game was balanced around "an average player" who just doesn't have a clue how to counter a Sentinel - or what it does - devs would gut this unit or outright remove it.

>>2142619
Except in the real world the US team just loiters their own fighter, often an f-18 with 9k missiles, and checks for an opposing loiter before a drone is called in. Then, when the SF player wants to call in a sentinel, they can lead with an F-22 and force off the opposing loiter with its 9k missiles and call in the drone unopposed. The RU side then has to feed planes into the contested middle of the map, covered by us planes and air defense in order to even see if a sentinel was called in or not. RU never wins out on value in that trade, and even if they manage to eventually kill the sentinel without throwing away planes, they're going to lose shit on the ground to artillery and air strikes after the sentinel revealed everything.

Sentinel is one of those units that's broken at every skill level. Nobody would complain about it being nerfed, as long as other aspects of US got buffed to compensate. If anything, it's contributing more to US winrates in high Elo where it's exploited much more effectively than at low Elo where it's countered much less effectively.

>>2142682
You're talking about counters to counters, which have their own counters. At the end of the day Sentinel cannot see your units beyond your closest long range SAM with its radar on. US gets to have this advantage because it doesn't have access to things like TOS or BMP spam. US has Comanche that can fly to the heli or ground spawn and farm free kills with nearly zero counterplay. Russia has Tu-22M3 cruise spam which is equally strong at all skill levels. Etc, etc.

>>2142732
>like TOS
USMC literally has its own TOS.

>>2142746
Not the same range as Solntsepek.

>>2142372
Nice projection. I'm very satisfied in life, and I'm highly competitive.

>>2142682
>the US team just loiters their own fighter, often an f-18 with 9k missiles
This, but with an AMRAAM F-35. The F-22 is too good of a stealth strike bomber (due to its speed) to use it as a fighter. The F-35 can beat anything but the most expensive of Russian fighter jets, and it is virtually immune to AA return fire due to its stealth.

>>2142746
catfae is good but come on man 1200 meter range smaller area no napalm? not a literal tank with armor to match?

>>2142682
you can nerf the sentinel if you also nerf russian cruise missiles

>want to play
>My Little Dark Age edits start playing

>As part of our ongoing commitment to transparency and open communication, we’ll be adopting a faster-paced communication approach. We aim to keep you better informed on the progress of development and share updates regularly so you can follow along every step of the way.
Only post last week was their delayed post from the week before...and it contained nothing of substance.

>>2144505
Trust the plan
Patch next week will fix everything
Steel Balalaika will rise their eyebrow and Eugen will understand and start counting their crest eggs ass to ass
Z

Doomsaying aside, we should expect the patch to come sometime next week going by the schedules of previous release.

Shills stopped playing it. Without replays there'll be no community. It's dead jim.

>>2145066
yeah actually i just realized you cant cast the game with no replays and no observers lmfao

>>2145102
You can't, this was such a shit choice. They probably can't do it because of their spaghetti engine implementation that allows cheating, lag missile dodging and why you can't save in SP, but no replay was always going to be a death sentence to the game having any long term scene and they should have realized it.

Checked some numbers for the Abrams because I was confused about something, so I'll share them here.

We all probably know by now that the HEAT shell on US tanks is ass but I wanted to know exactly how many shots it takes to kill things.

An up-armoured BMP3, up-armoured AMPV and up-armoured Bradley with 400CE armour all force an Abrams to use its AP shell, taking 3 hits to kill them.

Up-armoured BMP1/2s and other similar vehicles with 180 armour or more all take ~7.5 damage from the HEAT shell, taking 3 hits to kill 16hp.

Anything with less armour will generally only take 2 hits to kill. This includes Kurganets, unupgraded BMP3s (especially the coastal ones) and most other unupgraded vehicles.

Terminators force the AP shell and take 3 hits to kill at most ranges, but can take 4 hits at long range depending on the Abrams variant.
Barbaris take 4 hits minimum but can take much or more depending on range and variant.

2 hits to kill is good, it's basically the average for most weapons, though the Abram's fire rate makes those 2 hits kind of slow unless you use them in pairs. 3 usually pretty bad for a slow-firing weapon, especially one that's too expensive to reasonably stack 3 of. It's the point where you'd usually look for something else to shoot that target instead. So in brief: Coastal BMP-3 spam and Kurganets spam are actually good targets for Abrams. Pairs of cheap variants will one-tap these vehicles and can withdraw with smoke to avoid being overwhelmed, taking good trades. Against RU Mech IFVs, Abrams pick off targets too slowly and are probably just going to get overwhelmed.

On a different note:
All Abrams gain an additional HMG when adding the TUSK upgrade. This HMG has a DPS of 2 vs infantry. The HEAT shell most abrams carry has a DPS of 1.5 vs infantry, while the HE shell on the FEP and V3 have a DPS of 2. That's a lot of DPS coming from the machineguns. Effectively, the Abrams damage output vs infantry triples when it comes within 800m of its target

File: 1408584728652.jpg (21 KB, 429x410)

21 KB JPG

In hindsight, 45 minutes as the default match length is probably too long, it's exhausting to play this game. Maybe 30 minutes should be the max

>>2147429
A lot of slavjank games settle on the 45 minute timer, I don't know why. It's far too long to be hostage in a lost game, far too long to sit around in a game that was won in the opener, and mentally exhausting if it's a close game that runs down to the wire.

matches should just be 3 minutes long so zoomers can maybe pay attention

File: don't bunch your tanks.jpg (25 KB, 1107x121)

25 KB JPG

Unf

>lose a close match where I carried the entire side but teammates decided to huff glue and collapsed in the 3rd phase
>higher destruction score than my entire team combined, lowest losses
>game doesn't care, -50 elo carry harder fgt

>can't leave on a loss, try again
>stack instavotes Kaliningrad
>dodge
>try again
>whole fucking lobby votes Kaliningrad
>dodge
>try again
>same stack again, instavotes kaliningrad again
>they lose the coinflip and all 5 dodge, cancelling the match

>finally get a game
>we dominate the opener, take all but 1 point
>winning my side 2v1
>one opponent blatantly cheating map vision and spamming arty, other side collapses from it and teammates start leaving, then I get spammed too
>realize there's no point playing a losing 4v5 vs cheaters
>dip
>now too late to play another match

Man it's a fucking chore just looking for a decent match in this game. That's a whole evening wasted

File: file.png (57 KB, 948x73)

57 KB PNG

I love this stupid thing sometimes

>>2147762
This will keep happening until you quit playing. It's not worth it right now.

>>2147784
The game will become markedly worse when next patch rolls around and I can no longer dodge kaliningrad.

>>2147268
Realizing that the FOUR MACHINEGUNS made up for the lack of HE shell was revolutionary.
Especially since they aim so fast.

File: 1539138972778.png (37 KB, 661x698)

37 KB PNG

Using the machineguns on an Abrams is a noob trap. If you're in range for machineguns, you're one sprint away from losing your tank.

>>2147813
HMGs have 800m range, literally double the range of most infantry AT. And nothing except the Gvardii/GRU can even threaten an abrams frontally anyways. It's an absolute waste keeping the tank back to plink away with its tickle cannon. You're paying for that armour, smoke and machineguns. Use them.

>>2147824
There are three types of infantry.
>Infantry meant to fight tanks
Will either destroy your tank with ATGMs or sprint at it and then destroy it (or mobility kill it) with launchers.
>Infantry meant to fight other infantry
Will never be in a position where your tank can shoot it (unless they're currently murdering your own infantry). If they are, the enemy is playing poorly.
>Infantry meant to fight helicopters
The only valid target for tank machineguns, provided they aren't flanked by AT infantry (meaning the enemy is playing poorly).

When buying tank upgrades, you are paying for the extra health and the APS, not the machinegun. If you wheel your tank into 800 meter range to use machineguns against infantry, either you are making a huge misplay or the enemy is making a huge misplay. And all of this isn't even mentioning the ATGM APCs just around the corner (two infantry units plus their APCs still cost less than a single upgraded tank). So, what are you shooting at with those machineguns?

>>2147832
You're wrong on basically all accounts. Why doesn't this game have a tutorial for retards like this?
>ATGMs
They have a minimum range. Closing in is literally how you counter ATGMs with vehicles. You can use smoke to cover your approach.
>Launchers
Most launchers can't hurt a tank frontally and take more shots than they carry as ammo to have any reasonable chance of a mobility kill. Only GRU and Gvardii need to be watched for. Everything else needs side shots. You run them over.
>enemy infantry will never be out of position ever
Do you even play this game? Infantry are fragile and lack mobility, and are routinely forced to put themselves at risk in order to accomplish anything. What happens if my infantry stay with my tank? You'd need to brave those machineguns to get any value out of your Ingenery, then.


I would say "play the game more before running your mouth" but I honestly understand if you'd rather not in its current state. While you wait for patches you should probably just keep your opinion to yourself.

>>2147841
>They have a minimum range
Good luck driving your tank from 800 meters to minimum range without getting blown up by an ATGM team stack. Are you facing shitters that don't put oneshot stacks in buildings? What's your ELO?
>Most launchers can't hurt a tank frontally
AHAHAHAHAHA
I've killed more Abrams with GRU and MAAWS than I have with pre-nerf clusters. Again, what ELO are you at to hold such dumbfounding opinions? Oh, I see. You think regular hybrid infantry somehow falls into the "anti-tank" category because they have an RPG with three rounds that Ivan found at the back of the APC. If you can't even correctly categorize infantry units, why even bother engaging in this discussion? You're really projecting with that tutorial shit, since you need it more than anyone else.
>enemy infantry will never be out of position ever
Correct. If you play well, your infantry will never be out of position because they'll always have an APC in a safe spot nearby that they can duck into to GTFO if shit goes south, or they can just hop out of whatever building they're in, or they can just walk back into the forest they're in. You sound like you play dogshit ELO and then presume that the retardation you see there is how the game is actually played. It's not. Unless your ELO has four digits and starts with a two, shut the fuck up and learn to play.

File: 1747466524529257.jpg (63 KB, 976x601)

63 KB JPG

>>2137497
It's worse in different ways

>>2147904
>Gets called out
>This entire cringe larp follows
Embarrassing

>>2147912
how so?

File: news.png (215 KB, 1886x997)

215 KB PNG

News
>Still no release date for the next patch
>confirmed there will be more balance changes and not just technical stuff
>whatever the fuck "improved order functionalities" means
Guess we're not getting shit this week.

File: date.png (33 KB, 1020x142)

33 KB PNG

>>2148005
Targeting early next week apparently.

>fighting off a chinese stack
>my SEAD planes are getting shot at by SAMs across the map as soon as they leave spawn, but their ARMs won't fire
>when they do fire, they're intercepted instantly
>chinese SEAD plane fires its missiles from long range
>my AA won't target them for the longest time
>finally do target them, intercepts successfully
>die to a phantom missile a second later anyway
>2m left in the final phase, ahead on score with most of the capzones and a kill lead
>server conveniently "breaks" and our entire team freezes
>score instantly flips to +9/9 for them despite the capzones still being under our control
>reconnect to a loss screen telling me they won with 30pts
This game will never be fixed as long as there's no region-locking/server selection.

File: official statistics.png (221 KB, 993x348)

221 KB PNG

>>2148037
All regions cheat an equal amount. Do not falsely accuse certain regions of cheating more, the data shows otherwise.

>>2148005
> the update will contain a plethora of balance improvements,
More US nerfs?

>>2148245
Abuse the F-35A while you can, it'll probably go down to 1 availability and go up to 450pts.

>focused more on multiplayer
>dies a slow death
you get what you fucking deserve

File: 1743004406045434.png (87 KB, 958x564)

87 KB PNG

>>2148278
>focused on singleplayer
>dies instantly
kek

Maybe the balance improvements can get RU APCs to have the same number of smokes as US APCs. No fucking clue why all RU have 2 smokes and all US only have 1 smoke.

>>2148031
Early next week means friday at best. They can't keep a deadline even if their life depended on it.

>>2148372
It's actually really weird and inconsistent
Every APC/IFV in the game has 1 smoke except
>BMO-T
>Barbaris
>BMP-3F with Shora upgrade (1 smoke otherwise)
>BMO-1
>BMP-3 with the 3M upgrade (1 smoke otherwise, even with the Epokha upgrade)
That's it.
You can kind of handwave the first two away since they're on tank chassis, but the others just reek of oversight.

Back in the betas, every vehicle with smoke had 2 charges, but the beta also didn't have ATGM retargeting implemented so you could completely negate ATGMs with good smoke micro and that made cheap IFVs with 2 smokes kind if insane to deal with. Standardizing smoke charges to 1 for transports and 2 for tanks was something players actually requested, but the few weird oversights just feel like units that were overlooked in the process. I also think it's extremely silly that they nerfed the smoke charges on smoke upgrades that cost points, but didn't adjust the fucking price of the upgrade to match. Imagine spending 20 fucking points to give a LAV-25 a single smoke charge.

>teammate whiffs a nuke in 3rd phase
>we instantly go from a +3 kill score to -6 and lose off of it.
If you don't know how to use it, just don't use it.

>>2147919
No argument, I see. Common shitter L. Go back to playing with the other retards in the 1200 bracket.

>>2148266
Nyoooo...

>>2148244
may we see these totally real stats?

"muh realistic real time magic the gathering with bigger numbers" is just kinda a shit genre in general. it's not actually realistic or milsimmy, it's not actually hitting good RTS micro feels, it's not hitting card game board state calculus feels, it's always just a jumbled fucking design mess. i don't understand why people like these games at all.

>>2148659
Warno is literally card game board state calculus, just in real time. The devs designed it after card games on purpose.

BA is more like speed chess. Or at least it would be if it worked right. After a year if patching, it will be speed chess.

>>2148741
>more like speed chess
it's nothing like speed chess at all though. it's not 1v1, you call in more units as the game goes, it's not turnbased, what the hell are you talking about.

>>2148646
Sir please stop your sinophobia
>That is simply not the case
They put it in bold. Thats how you know they are serious.

>two chinese players on the enemy team with blatantly cheated income do nothing but spam drones and killer eggs all game
What was the strat here?

>>2149483
>What was the strat here?
From Sun Tzu's art of war, called "stop being sinophobic laowai"

File: sexxoooo.png (506 KB, 931x846)

506 KB PNG

>>2149683
I want to rape Barbaris-chan

File: American History RIm.gif (278 KB, 500x281)

278 KB GIF

Wishlist for changes:

>TOS reduced to 1 availability
>move Russian S300 systems out of Guards (and not to Coastal)
>all APCs standardized to 1 smoke charge
>all APCs standardized to 2 APS charges (looking at you Kurganets you fucking piece of shit)
>BMP 3 gets a +20 cost increase
>that bullshit 12 capacity unicorn APC with 400 chemical/120 AP armor loses its uparmor upgrade
>Barbaris loses 10 speed, forwards and reverse
>Abrams no longer lose speed when adding armor packages
>Russian hypersonic cruise missiles move at high altitude when travelling so HIMAD can target them at max range
>Katran loses its cruise missiles
>Tulpan loses one availability, and increased aim time to 12 seconds

>Overall cost increase for cutting-edge US jets
>AMPV can no longer get a Javelin with the Bushmaster 2
>KEGs can no longer take Hellfires
>lower Ghost Hawk availability
>F35A reduced to 2 availability
>SOF B2 loses the nuke
>F16CJ loses one availability

US unironically don't need nerfs, but only nerfing RASHA would make every vatnik screech

>>2149714
I would add:
>decrease the cost of M8, decrease the cost of the APS upgrade (the armor upgrade is better anyway)
>Sentinel loses 1 availability, reverts to 170 pts
>decrease the cost of Troopers, add an x4 AT-4 loadout for an even cheaper price
>increase the cost for mavericks on both Harriers
>add a Sidewinder loadout to Supercobra's inner pylons

>decrease the cost of Bereg
>increase the cost of Malkas
>increase twofold the amount of supply needed to rearm TOS and Smerch
>increase the cost of Terminator
>increase the cost of both Su-24

>>2149714
>US unironically don't need nerfs
Yeah except the US is completely dominating upper elo since people figured out how to stop bmp spam decks.

>>2149714
Overkill honestly
>TOS
Doesn't really address the issue. You only need one TOS because its firing uptime is insane. The problem is that it's obnoxiously hard to kill. Gut its range. It had way less range in the Open betas (same range as CATFAE) and was much less of a problem
>take S-300 out of Guard
Ehh, no reason to do this. Every meta Guard combo already gets some kind of SAM so you're not really changing anything
>standardize smoke/APS
Yes, good
>nerfing the coastal box
Not really necessary? How is this unit a problem but not the AMPV?
>Barbaris
Honestly, the cost nerfs were good enough. If anything the parade floats should have their reverse speed cut (it's shit IRL) but I get they want them to have something 'modern' over the soviet shitware.
>Abrams speed
It literally doesn't matter but the fact that they lose a little speed because they're already dangerously over-capacity IRL is good flavour. IMO every vehicle should lose speed for armour upgrades
>fast cruise missile
This thing probably just needs to go up in price so that it's not as cost-effective to mindlessly spam it. In its current state it breaks even point-wise if it kills a single squad. Increase the price per missile and it becomes less economical to spam. Interceptibility barely matters since the servers fuck over interception in 90% of matches anyways
>Katran
No fuck you, this unit is unique and cool. Its missiles aren't an issue now that they have actual downtime because they're slow enough to dodge on reaction. Just move out of the way
>Tulpan
Literally not a problem. If it needs any change it should be a setup/teardown time to make it harder to dodge counterfire but this is not even the best RU artillery.


The US changes are unironically insane. What the fuck are you smoking with any of this?

>>2149722
M8 is a dangerous unit to buff because its upgraded gun is so good. Overbuff it and it would be crazy oppressive. I'd support a base cost reduction, but not an APS buff
>sentinel availability
Yes, good solution. It's hard to nerf this thing without gutting it but hitting availability would reduce its uptime without stripping its identity.
>Troopers
Disagree. They are great for their price already even with the low jav ammo and the US is already replete with cheapo AT-4 squads in every other spec that fit in Strykers.
>maverick nerf
Kind of pointless? Mavericks fell off quickly because you can just smoke to negate them, and the harriers are so slow they're likely to get one-tapped as they climb for the strafe. Speed affects the success rate of ECM/flares, this doesn't get talked about enough. Almost every slow plane without afterburners is bad for everything but high-drag bombs because they'll always get hit as soon as they climb and get cucked out of their run. That's why they're made so cheap
>Supercobra sidewinder
Would be neat, actually. I like this

>Bereg
Yes please.
>Malka
Like with the Tulpan, I would rather they get a setup/teardown time to make them less nimble shootig and scooting. These are not highly mobile platforms. Slowing down their cycle of shoot, scoot, resupply, shoot would make them more counterable
>TOS and smerch
Yes, especially TOS. I think hitting supply and uptime is the correct way to nerf the TOS.
>Terminator
Yes. I don't know why this unit with full tank armour is half the price of a tank.
>Su-24
What loadout here do you think needs nerfed?

File: output.webm (3.72 MB, 1280x720)

3.72 MB WEBM

>>2149735
>Mavericks fell off quickly because you can just smoke to negate them
Mavericks have broken ass terminal guidance, which I'm pretty sure negates smoke (definitely doesn't auto trigger it) and has ridiculous range. If they do fire at all they will hit something, they can one shot many things (including Barbaris), and with the price of 180 pts for a plane it's just too easy to trade positively. You can pair Harriers with Prowlers, they fly with the same speed so it's easy to micro, a package costs 400 pts (four hundred points) for four mavericks and three harms, and you almost always get back with the Prowler. For some reason I have way less success using mavericks on a Fighting Falcon.
>What loadout here do you think needs nerfed?
Pure SEAD 24MP for 220 pts and cluster 24MP for 240/280 pts. 500 pts for a survivable fast moving package is very oppressive.

>>2149724
>since people figured out how to stop bmp spam decks.
QRD?

Because if it's AMPV + RRC/MAAWS, they just loiter bombers, and then you're stuck with your dick in your hand waiting for the AMPVs to roll back up on the line as they flood marines in

>>2149724
>upper elo
Irrelevant

>>2149755
Mavericks and their RU equivalent require LoS for the entire flight. On a good connection you can smoke any time between seeing the plane rise to begin it's strafing dive and actually seeing the missile fly to break los and make it retarget or miss entirely. For the most part, you smoke when it begins the rise and you're always safe, even if it's a little laggy. The plane never survives to circle back or escape so it's just a free point swing as long as you have smoke available and you're paying attention.
>>2149758
Bookers and Dragoon Strykers. BMP-3s melt to the heavy autocannons, so you use your cheap vehicles to counter their cheap vehicles and then spam out anti-inf squads like Combat Engis, CQC Rangers, Delta etc to eat Morskaya. BMP spam is already old and busted at high level and replaced with Terminators and air spam of their own.

Organized teams also snipe RU Shorad with F-35s and then completely shut down their ground units with heli spam. The F-35A is basically the lynchpin of the US meta right now because it's a delete button with impunity and makes it impossible to ever mass enough force as RU to seriously match the US on the ground. The average US match at 2k Elo is like 2-3 SF/Armour, 1-3 SF/Cav and 0-1 USMC/Cav or SF/Airborne. It completely revolves around dominating the air.

>>2149724
>US completely dominates at upper ELO
https://youtu.be/0iC9_FLm9V8
>weakest RU deck outperforms the best performing US deck
But it's okay, that's only looking at 1600+ ELO, I'm sure this doesn't matter

>>2147832
Assuming perfect play from your opponent, you lose the game.
>I don't need anything to catch my opponent out of position because if they're out of position they're playing poorly
is retard shit for someone that fundamentally doesn't understand strategy games.

>be australian
>progressively realize I'm just locked out of core game features like smoking missiles, shooting down cruise missiles, etc
I don't fucking understand how those retarded russians managed to make a STRATEGY GAME that's unplayable at high ping. Truly obscene.

>>2151675
Even Brood War is unplayable at high ping.

>>2151689
>Even
90's RTS in general were. AoE2 used to be unplayable at high ping, something that was fixed since in later versions since it's not hard.

File: file.png (44 KB, 360x237)

44 KB PNG

Patch
https://store.steampowered.com/news/app/1604270/view/536613594671876837

>>2151716
Surrender option looks fine but the leaver penalties seem far too low. I’m ultimately glad that the feature is there in any form but I don’t think this will deter leavers much at all. Someone in the Steam replies had a good suggestion of forcing the player to wait for however much time was left in the match when he left. I think this patch might bring the game back for at least a little while and they really did put out a bunch of bug fixes. I’m optimistic for this game again

>>2151716
Pretty good, I'm honestly impressed
They correctly assessed that bug abuse with the F-35's strike was the main thing propping up US winrates in top elo, with most of the rest of the playerbase being unaware the bug existed at all. It's a shame they didn't actually fix the bug, since the F-35 is far from the only plane abusing it, but reducing availability is an acceptable stopgap until they do fix it.

There's a tonne of bugfixes and QOL that's too much to list but it's all good. The QOL changes to laser designating is especially a big deal

As for balance
>T-23 missile nerfed
Good. Changing its flight pattern is ideal because it means interception is more reliable on bad connections, which is where it was really cancer
>SHORAD buffed
Good change. Anybody that's been on the receiving end of deliberate heli spam feels how inadequate most SHORAD can be.
They should have buffed AoE/pen to make damage more consistent
>Abrams/M8 HEAT shell buffed
This one's HUGE. The only RU light vehicle that now survives two hits is the up-armoured Mech. BMP-3. Everything else is 2-shot. This is an indirect nerf to like half the RU vehicle roster (and an indirect nerf to a lot of stopgap US vehicles like the CEV)
This is going to make it hard to justify building a deck that doesn't include Armoured or USMC for a while, at least until the meta adjusts. Abrams are now just plan anti-everything.

It's noteworthy that HESH rounds for the 105s were not buffed so now they're even worse than they were relative to Abrams. I'd argue it's probably those that should have gotten this buff instead
>PAC-2 to USMC, PAC-3 to Armoured
This is a big deal. USMC no longer relying on its partner for air defense means USMC + Airborne & USMC + SF are no longer dead pairs. They instantly went from having the worst air defense to the best.
PAC-3 is a slight nerf for Armoured but mainly means that now the PAC-3 isn't stuck being a redundant dead choice in Stryker.

cont'd

>>2151782
>>2151716
>heli changes
Nerfing APKWS is whatever. I don't think the two options were ever differentiated enough to make their differences matter outside of silly stuff like lasing enemy helis and using rockets as AA
Moving the Guardian to Airborne is a little weird. It's a direct nerf ton SF but wholly redundant in AB. The Longbow and Guardian now just compete in cost-effectiveness for the same role
The asymmetric Apache loadout is just a cost-cutting option in practice, the fuel tank has no effect. Might be worthwhile.

Zuni rockets for the Superconbra is extremely funny. With high pen these things can murder light IFVs like Strykers, Kurganets etc. Excited to mess around with this

Comanche nerf was needed. By flickering hold fire you could launch missiles from stealth with impunity. Staying revealed after you launch a missile will actually make them counterable.

A weird grab-bag here, honestly.
>transport changes
While this looks like a buff, the truth is that most players were just trucking their infantry to the front in logi vehicles because they're fast and cost-effective. Those got their prices nerfed, so this was more like a deliberate attempt to push players to actually use dedicated transports instead of massed trucks. It doesn't really matter
>Airborne squad size
5 pts for a rifleman is very cost effective and this brings the point efficiency of basic Airborne closer to pre-patch Morskaya. They don't mention it in the patch notes but the NGSW upgrade went down by 5 pts (staying the same price in the end) so this is a free buff to them.

Weapon Teams are just flat buffed here and they were already a premier AB spec unit.
>Stryker SPH
I still don't think anybody will use this. If they wanted to make this an attractive option they should have just given it guided shells.
>Hawkeye Smoke
There's now a reason to use the Hawkeye. Honestly they should just give this thing Mortar aim time.

cont'd

>>2151806
>>2151716
>Stryker spec shifted 250 pts from Support to Inf
This is a nerf to Stryker/SF disguised as a buff to Stryker/AB.
>standoff rangers buffed
Okay? This squad was seeing much more use since the last patch and I don't think they were underperforming but I guess it helps justify their cost over vs Airborne.
>F-15EX
As far as I can tell, most loadout options either stayed the same price or got more expensive because now you can't leave the fuselage empty. You can bring 4x SEAD missiles now, but for a whopping 420 pts minimum.
This plane is bad mostly because it's just too expensive with no real option to control its price and it feels like they've just made that aspect worse and tried to claim it as a buff. Most loadouts are playing in the price range of a strategic bomber

>Sparrow/R-27
This is literally just walking back a pointless nerf from the open beta. Both the F-18C and the F-15C have well-priced loadout options with 4 Sparrows so this might actually matter for them.

>RU atgm reload nerf
Good. Pre-patch the Khrizantema could literally duel an APS tank in short range and win.
>aim time nerf
This actually helps vehicles not accidentally waste missiles on a target only momentarily visible as they move between sightblockers
>BMP-3 smoke standardized
Obviously good. I maintain this was probably just an oversight since they were such weird outliers.
>Morskaya & transport nerfed
Good. 5pts doesn't seem like a lot but when most Coastal decks were bringing 8x and calling in dozens of squads per match that price change adds up very quickly. This makes them cleanly less cost-effective vs infantry than most peer squads, which is entirely justifiable since they carry much better AT than anything equivalent.
This nerf combined with so many US inf buffs will make it hard for RU to compete with US in close combat. I'm surprised other RU squads, like Motostrelki, weren't buffed up to help compensate for the cumulative changes here.

cont'd

>BMP1 gun can fire on the move
Bmp spam chads we are back

>>2151827
>>2151716
>TOS nerf
Good. Hitting the resupply time instead of the cost or damage means it still has a reason to exist but it's not going to be as oppressively spammy as it was before. With a 4 minute resupply time, it now has the same amount of downtime as a bomber.
I don't like the fact that the TOS regularly cripples/kills IFVs or even tanks caught in its AoE and would have advocated a damage or penetration nerf, but this is at least a start.
Bear in mind that the TOS still has 2x availability so a player properly rotating them can fire one off every 2 minutes. However, 4 minutes sitting still on a supply dump is a big liability and makes it more practical to keep the TOS out by sniping it or its supplies as it sits there.
>Groms can fire on the move
lol. This gun is actually pretty good statwise for its price. Maybe people will start hurling swarms of these things at tanks now. Or maybe not.
>Meteorit buff
The reason nobody used this thing is because they just used the TOS instead. The reason the US Assault Breacher sees so much play is that the US TOS equivalent isn't nearly as good, and is stuck in USMC.
I don't think this changes anything. People will still mainly use the TOS despite its longer downtime. The US Breacher might see less use now that USMC got a slew of buffs.

>VDV armour buffs
The new armour affects the BMD-4, Rakushka and Kornet-D1. It's 16hp and 80KE/180CE.
Last patch this would've been a big deal but since Abrams now 2-shot this armour threshold it doesn't really make much of a difference except vs AT-4s
>Naked BMP-2
funny look but useless. It's only 5pts for the ATGM and you'll basically always want to pay that.
>KH-29 nerf
Needed. Since it's a missile instead of a bomb you could input the strike late and at weird angles and as long as the plane was in range it would launch it. You could do weird shit with it like reactively launch it at a SAM site firing at you to trade kills.

cont'd

>>2151716
>patch notes that dont make me say "what the fuck are these retards doing"
Might give it a reinstall. Still wish the US had some cheap(er) infantry to spam. I love getting Ural trucks loaded up as clown cars of 3/4 squads and just unloading motopekhota and motostrelki non-stop to the frontline.

>>2151835
>>2151716
>RTB nerf
This is good since refunding artillery instead of resupplying to cut off downtime was gay as fuck and way too easy to abuse.
I hope they limit the nerf to artillery and don't accidentally fuck over planes RTBing or something.

>Conclusions
USMC is the big winner here. Gaining the PAC-2 opens up dead spec combos that will need some play to really figure out.
Tank buffs are a huge change to US meta overall but especially Armoured and USMC.

Airborne infantry buffs are small but valuable. Thunderbolt gets windfall from the tank buff, which is big because they're cheap enough to roll around in pairs.

SF made it off easy. The F-35A nerf cuts down on the sheer volume of spam but doesn't address the core issue of bug abuse making their strike effectively uncounterable.

Expect USMC + Stryker to be stronger now, and watch out for Stryker + Airborne and USMC + SF possibly entering the meta.

RU also got off easy. The Morskaya buff is good but small enough to keep them in the meta. The TOS is still a delete button, just on a longer cooldown. The Khrizantema won't win duels against virtually every armoured vehicle in close range but it's still by far the best ATGM carrier in the game.

The RU meta will likely need to adjust to how many US inf squads got better while Morskaya got worse. I expect VDV (which retain competitive inf) to grow into that gap. Expect more VDV + Guards, and possibly VDV + Mech.

>>2151806
>The Longbow and Guardian now just compete in cost-effectiveness for the same role
In theory it'd free up Airborne for taking different loadouts if they had a bit more flexibility. If it was possible to take a decently priced AA-focused guardian or whatever, or if you were ever taking either as a rocket heli, it'd help airborne more.
In any case SOF getting the best Apache instead of the literal airborne spec was retarded anyway.
>While this looks like a buff, the truth is that most players were just trucking their infantry to the front in logi vehicles because they're fast and cost-effective. Those got their prices nerfed, so this was more like a deliberate attempt to push players to actually use dedicated transports instead of massed trucks.
Very funny that they're learning the same lessons as Wargame the hard way on this one, one patch at a time.

>>2151834
Doesn't it trigger APS for some reason too?
BMP-1 bumrush with ATGMs in support could be something

Testing the new Cobra Zuni rockets:
They seem to be bugged, probably not worth using right now

Unlike normal rockets, they don't fire from the right and left pod simultaneously. They empty each pod one at a time.
They don't increase their rate of fire by having more pods. It increases their total ammo, but that's it.
Their firing cycle appears bugged. Rather than firing all 4 rockets out of a pod at a steady firing rate, they will randomly fire either 2 or 3, pause, then finish the pod, then pause again before moving on to the next pod.
They are very inaccurate, worse than their listed accuracy would suggest and worse than other rockets with the same listed accuracy. They'll waste a lot of shots just missing their target entirely.

Overall I don't think these are worthwhile in their current state. They're cheap, yeah, but they kill slowly because their firing cycle is fucked and they miss so much and they don't really bring enough ammo.

I'm working on updating the spreadsheet I made a while ago with infantry stats and I'll post it when it'd updated.
As a preview: New Airborne have the same damage/cost efficiency as Old Rangers with better health efficiency
New Rangers have even better damage efficiency and are now on par with Berety in CQC (minus launchers, of course. The Berety launcher is really good). Rangers are now almost as cost-effective as dedicated anti-infantry squads.

NGSW went up a bit as well. They're now roughly on par with Troopers for anti-infantry firepower (notwithstanding their range advantage) and their hp efficiency is no longer recon-tier. I think this squad makes a lot more sense now.

Morskaya are now on par with VDV Dsh for cost-effectiveness and outclassed by Desantniki.

>SHORAD reload times reduced
Ok but does RU SHORAD still have way more pen and blast radius and US Stingers are still useless dogshit?

>>2151934
RU having better shorad was never the problem and was always intended asymmetry.
The problem is that US SHORAD would get bumrushed and die to helos constantly, which is less of a problem now. It also buffs the wide variety of RU SHORAD that was never taken because it wasn't TOR/Pantsir.

>No touching of the Tulpan

Oh boy I can't wait to push a position and 6 seconds later lose half my infantry stack AND AMPV

>Mavericks and the russian equivalent nerfed
why
Planes are already suicide missions, why make them even less appealing to use by making the ATGM launched from a plane less effective

>>2151992
Because they made lasers retarget after LOS break, which would almost certainly make self-lasing ATGM planes incredibly retarded if they didn't make that change.
It's still probably a net buff for them.

>>2151992
Mavericks had some extremely stupid behaviour because the acquisition angle was so wide, like ignoring a tank right in the strafe line to fire off a missile at a random backline unit a few km away, or getting decoyed away by a teammate's laser half the map away and shitting all 6 missiles into the side of a building.

The 'nerf' doesn't actually hurt their effectiveness in practice. Everything visible within the strafe area is getting fucked. It just makes it so that you're not constantly getting grief by allied laser designators or randomly killing units on the wrong side of the map.

>>2151992
>why
=> >>2149755
The Russian equivalent is trash tho.

File: Armoured + Airborne.jpg (327 KB, 1462x1101)

327 KB JPG

Behold the new meta
>Cav Scouts
Use them in pairs (not in the same building) to screen over long sightlines. Self-spotting ATGM is good even if the unit itself is a little weak
>CFVs
You don't actually use these to transport Cav Scouts, they're basically just an ATGM carrier that has stealth and optics and APS. Hide them in treelines all over the place
>SEP TUA
Only use this for its laser designator, since all your indirect fire is guided. Being able to designate in combat for pre-aimed fires is strong but if it's too autistic for you, you can cut it.
>NGWS
They're good now, nuff said
>Mech Engis
These are for forest fighting, because it's the one thing NGWS are bad at. Carry them in pairs with the AMPVs
>Shitboxes
These are just so your whole army doesn't job to artillery. Stuff squads in them and move them around.
>Stinger/TOW2
You bring both of these together in a single ISV for your opening rollout. It's a good, cheap way to get set up
>tanks
tanks
>M8
Move two of these around together. Snipe a vehicle, then smoke and withdraw. Micro well and they'll stay alive all game. You can probably bring another pair if you cut the TUA
>SLAMRAAM
You roll this out early since it's cheap and keep it pushed up to catch drones and low-fliers early. It's cheap so you can be risky with it, while you keep the patriot back in safety.
>Brutus
Guided Shells. I prefer these to Iron Thunders because you get more for less, but if you need the range you can swap them.
>GMLRS
You can cut the TUA for a second or swap it to PrSM
>Hawkeye
Smoke
>Guardian
Rocket + ECM loadout. Cheap and tough to kill
>D Apache
Literally just 4 missiles. Use them in pairs to snipe things and run away.
>Kiowa
Naked with optics. You just use this to sweep for hidden snipers, or to laser designate frontline targets. Yeah, it has a laser designator.
>Eagle
4 Sparrows, 4 AMRAAMs, 1 fuel tank. Air tax + loiter
>Streagle
6 500lb JDAMs + designator. Abuse the bug until they fix it. Lase a tank to oneshot it.

is the game saved?
its been so long i already forgot how to play

>>2152479
nothing really changed

>>2152479
It's better

File: 1743810113378509.png (137 KB, 944x806)

137 KB PNG

I rarely bring it up, but what's the point of complaining about the decreasing playerbase? It happens to almost every game, including its main competition, Warno, but Warno players aren't complaining. Their main complaint is the game still randomly crashing during matches.
It's not like nobody is playing the game, and you can still easily find matches.

>>2152488
Steam charts posting has genuinely fried people's brains and they think the average game is supposed to be one of the like, 10 hyper successful long-term service games.

>>2152353
>DAGR guardian
Are people lasing the targets for these or just using them raw?
210 for a hydra-chopper with slightly better accuracy seems high

>>2152506
mulches shitboxes without armor upgrades and blasts infantry if they're not in cover

Optionally pair them up with kiowas, that can lase enemy helos

>>2152353
Thunderbolt with APS is a meme, it gets two shot by 57mm. You should always pick the ERA version.
Not having strong anti helo units is very scary against RU. I use 3x manpad kiowas for that when I run the airborne spec.

>>2152506
You can really do either. They're good enough on their own but you can do some neat shit with lasing, like killing helis with them.
The main reason you use the Guardian is that it is the only US heli with 15hp and 25% ecm. Rocket helis benefit a lot of from survivability since they inherently need to play more risky, and with some lucky they can duel manpads.

You can also use it to screen for your ATGM helis to buy them time to secure a kill, or even just blitz down a lone Tor or something. If your opponent doesn't invest in enough Shorad the surprise helo swarm can snipe it and then just wipe their whole army.
>>2152609
You comfortably outrange autocannons and two-tap Kurganets, so that's not really an issue. Against T-15s you either just keep your Thunderbolts away, or hawk a plane at it.
The ERA upgrade doesn't actually give you enough armour to survive autocannons, which is why it's a trap. APS helps you at the range you actually want to fight, the Thunderbolt is a sniper, not a tank.

>>2152479
I’ve played 4 matches and did not have any leavers. There were short disconnects in each game, less than a minute each, often less than 30 secs and no one had repeat disconnects. I quit in July due to the leaver problem so that’s all I care about and it feels so damn good to be able to play proper matches. The game also runs better on my toaster. I can’t speak to balance issues but at 900 ELO, Russia won twice and US won twice

>>2152488
i wish 2v2 was alive in warno...

>>2152636
1500 Elo here. Also no leavers yet. Game has been more stable but still not good.

I've played 6 (4 US, 2 RU) games and US won every time. Airborne+Armoured is everywhere right now. US games felt way easier than last patch, mainly because of buffed Abrams. Maybe RU side just hasn't adapted more tank counters yet but idk what those counters would be.

One game as US had 2 RU players on mech doing the 35pt bmp1 spam and it was so effective that it broke right through my teammates and gave them a 2 cap lead all game, but they ended up losing on kill score. I wasn't facing them directly so idk if it was actually effective or if my teammates just jobbed to it.

Now that US tanks can pop all the cheap transports in 2 hits, how do I deal with expensive US tanks

>>2152727
have you tried using your tanks or helis or air or

>>2152727
Su-30SM / Su-57 cluster cruise is untouched and still the best tank-deleter in the game, 2 missiles kill every vehicle in the game except up-armored T-14

>chinese with 1 trillion ping driving around with all his units de-synced so can fucking shoot at him
REGION LOCK NOW REGION LOCK NOW REGION LOCK NOW REGION LOCK NOW REGION LOCK NOW

>>2152727
Up-armoured BMP-3s from mech. still take 3 hits, as does the khrizantema in Guards. Cheap BMP-1 spam (35pts) with Vampyrs, Gvardii or Morskaya inside can overrun individual expensive tanks
Cluster cruise missiles from Su-57s or a laser-guided KAB from the one plane whose name I forgot will oneshot them. Abrams have much less top armour than RU tanks so it's easier to kill them from the air
Heli spam still works well. The Shorad buff doesn't really stop a couple of alligators from just brute forcing through US air defense to kill a tank.

And when all is said and done, RU tanks aren't completely outmatched anyways. A t-90m and sepv2 trade basically even and you can bring lots of cheap shitter tanks to take wide angles and fish for side shots.

It used to be that you didn't really need to vare about US tanks and could just blow past them to dump infantry into the point. Now you actually need to use the dedicated counters to deal with them, but you have plenty and none of them were nerfed

>>2151806
> silly stuff like lasing enemy helis and using rockets as AA
That's literally what they're used for in real life, low cost air to air missiles for slow targets.

File: image.png (2.05 MB, 1919x1079)

2.05 MB PNG

A new and hitherto unseen feature is being introduced into the game as an opportunity to L E C A P I T U L A T I O N
In the very first fight, my faggots clown team did not last even 10 minutes, as they give up.
I fucking hate this game.

>>2152755
Why are you scared of Chinese people?

What is the respawn time on a T14 or SEPv3
Do I get at least 5 minutes after I kill one where I dont have to worry about them again

>>2152778
why are you russian

>>2152841
Respawn time scales with cost so it varies a little depending on upgrades.
A 400pt Armata (up-armoured) is 6 minutes and 50 seconds.
A fully upgraded sep3 is 6 minutes and 40 seconds. Without the APS, it's 5 minutes and 41 seconds.

>>2152629
What >>2152756 said but I would add on that Russian high end ATGM carriers are still good, you just have to actually use them right instead of them winning in forests and other absurd shit.

>>2153113
Meant to reply to >>2152727, not that post.

>>2152727
idk, still easier to kill than armata

File: file.png (145 KB, 1005x177)

145 KB PNG

Nothing more iconic

>>2137073
what the fuck even IS this game

>>2153193
Wargame (the series, not the genre) successor. A RTS/RTT game with relatively high focus on realism and pre-game list building. Modern RU vs US setting.

File: 15876298899802.jpg (341 KB, 1280x853)

341 KB JPG

>>2152857
That's what God decided.

>>2152488
warno has been UNIRONICALLY dead as fuck since BA launch
like good luck finding a remotely even match

dude why does it take 15 minutes to respawn a prowler

>>2153216
>why can't I have anti-rad coverage up literally 24/7 alone
Gee I wonder

>>2153206
God, for some reason, has decide you to suffer

>>2153224
anti rad isnt even useful everyone perfectly flickers their radar now
they really need to make it so HARMS dont take a detour to timbuktu just because a radar got turned off

>>2153206
Sorry to hear that

vros why is it so fun to fight in suburbs with NGSW or clowncar-ing RRC/MAAWs teams with the AMPV

I've basically stopped using tanks and support units. It's all airstrikes and infantry micro. It's so much fun.

>>2153216
Planes have a base 4 minute reload time if they RTB safely, and then double the respawn time per cost of an equivalent ground unit on top of that. This means most planes take ~10+4 minutes to respawn if they die.

This is on purpose. Basically if a plane dies, it's out for the entire phase.

>>2153249
In the betas, ARMs would continue to the last known target if radar was shut off.
For some reason they changed this for release so that now it just flies straight into the ground if it loses lock. They won't even retarget to another radar unit, they just suicide.

It was nerfed because RU players were complaining about losing their s-300s and then getting airspammed

Made a discovery yesterday.
Because all US vehicles have such little top armour, you can consistently kill any of them, including the Sepv3, with just two 500lb jdams or a single 1klb jdam.

Virtually every plane with access to a laser designator carries at least that much or more, so you can make a "mirror match" version of your US decks with extremely minmaxed air tabs. For example, a marine f-35b can run two cheapo jdams for only 275 pts and with drop micro it can snipe tanks with impunity.

>>2153448
oh is this why the last mirror match I played was against a stack that spawned 3000 points of aircraft immediately

Are servers absolutely shitting themselves for anybody else?

Got massive desync, BMP3Ms flying over my house, motopekhota not being able to see the rangers shooting them in the back of the head, etc

>>2153570
Apparently there's a known issue right now when russians connect to non-russian servers and vice versa

>>2153643
Surely there will be a fix included in the November patch

>>2153648
November 2026

>>2153654
Pump your brakes kid, don't expect too much

Bring the price of the Rangers MAAWS back down. This is bullshit.
And since they are increasing the size of transports make the bradley able to carry fucking anything besides dogshit mech riflemen.

>>2153736
just make mech riflemen good instead of the worst infantry squad in the US arsenal
like add a nigsaw upgrade or something

>>2153752
>>2153736
also while we're at it bradleys with the engine upgrade should not cost 20 more than generic bmps and deliver less firepower

>>2153753
the pricing overall is ridiculous
and russian infantry should cost more in general
take the lowest cost general inf of each country
VDV Dsh VS Mech. Rifleman
>both 50 points
>VDV can be paradropped
>VDV weapons beat armor by 3 and do more damage vs mech's 1
>VDV has double the AT capacity while having better pen
>VDV has one less guy
make it make sense

>>2153821
Troopers (90pts) VS PTO Metis (70)
>5 AT shots vs 10 AT shots
>does 2 roles poorly vs does 1 role decently
>9 dudes vs 8 dudes

>>2153752
>the spec with the best tanks, best IFVs and best support tab should also have the best infantry!
No, bad anon. This shit is what made the design of Guards so aids.
If you want good infantry in your bradleys take fucking Specops and get a plethora of good 6-man squads. If your spec can fill out 90% of a deck with just its own units then balance is fucked.

>>2153924
just because bradleys are USAs best IFVs does NOT mean they are good
bradleys are worse bmp3s with a 20 point surcharge for the fucking lolz

the whole US faction needs a rework
RU 3 Specs with MBTs vs US 2
RU 4 Specs with usable support tabs vs US 3
Ru 5 Specs with usable Inf tabs vs US 2.5

Weapon Squads need a price reduction to like 95
Russian counterparts cost even less than that

>spend the whole match cycling out pairs of SEAD planes with for missiles each, flying into close range on hold fire before dumping their entire payload straight over the opponent's radar AA
>after 8 runs of these, they have killed 0 things, every missile is perfectly intercepted or randomly loses lock (the target's radar is still on) and flies into the ground
>meanwhile a single Su-24 successfully SEADs my MSE 3 times in a row, with 0 successful interceptions.
Why did they make this fucking shit client side?

>>2153983
Brother the US just got a whole laundry list of buffs can we at least wait until the body's cold before we ask for more?
>the whole US faction needs a rework
The specs are loosely based on real-world army formations on both sides, except for specops and guards which have a bunch of made up shit. The US has fewer tank specs because that's how the US army is organized. Most of the fighting is done by light infantry or marine expeditionary units, because it's easier to truck them around the globe than a battalion of 60-tonne tanks.

>>2154022
>muh buffs
Tanks being able to kill light vehicles in under 3 hits is just how it should have been
Marines getting PAC2 is just making sub par combos slightly less viable
Viper and S Cobra rockets don't change anything
Transport numbers let Specs actually intermingle more
Slight Ranger buff (no one was bitching for this)
buffing VDV vehicles to tank a Hellfire bc i guess the already strong spec's one weakness needed a buff
Stryker spec getting a cluster arty option
F-15EX can now be an overpriced SEAD since you have to take 4 missiles with it
Buff Russian plane to have cheaper ECM
glad they made bmp1 shoot on move
nerf F-35 availability
nerf Comanche which most people don't use anyway

idk nigger i think the ruskies came out on top

>based on real-world
discord cope
game first, larp second
or did stealth US planes getting shot down so easily or russian tanks eating tows and javelins not come up

>>2154075
f15ex is only good vs russkies because you can surprise SEAD with a decent loitering fighter
vs US the ex gets assraped by f18s or f16s since for some reason the plane with up to 16 AAMs only gets to fire one or two at a single target before closing to point blank range instead of being able to actually missile truck

>>2154089
The game has an anti-overkill system that prevents units from firing more shots if the current shot in flight CAN kill. This fucks over a lot of weapons with a high theoretical fire rate.

You can override this system by giving a manual attack command. A full 20-missile SPAMRAAM EX will fire off 1 missile a second until they're exhausted, and the missiles can retarget mid flight (right click the new target) if the original target dies so it's actually pretty powerful.

This biggest victim of this are the anti-missile SAM sites like the upgraded S-350 and PAC 3s. They are supposed to fire 2 missiles per target, which would be useful since interceptors can miss, but it won't because the game's logic tells it that one interceptor is enough to kill its target, so that second shot just gets held until it's too late. You can't manually select incoming missiles, so in practice these launchers are just worse in every way compared to the regular ones. This anti-overkill system can actually fuck you over entirely if the server or a teammate is lagging, as the game will prevent your SAM from firing an interceptor at an incoming missile if an ally is already trying to intercept it, even if that ally is going to miss because their SAM isn't in the right position.

>>2153736
MAAWS remain the best AT infantry in the game by a wide margin.
Bradleys carrying good infantry would be busted. Low cost bradleys are very points efficient and are only held back by their speed and the fact that they have a tiny carry capacity.
>>2153924
There are a horde of people that legitimately think that armor/sof should have the best in things in every single category and get viciously mad if you give different US specs actual purpose. This patch exposed that hard.
>>2153979
M2A2 are cheaper, better armored, and have a TOW compared to base BMP-3. A 60pt transport with a decent ATGM AND a good autocannon is highly efficient.

>>2153908
>1.3km top attack terminal guidance ATGM vs 2x 800m semi-active low-pen ATGMs
>bonus LAWs for point-blank
>2x mg vs 1x mg
>2x gl vs 1x gl
Come on man, troopers aren't amazing but pretending this is some clear russian bias is retarded.
>>2153983
What Russian counterparts? Weapon Squads with 2x Javelin are really fucking good even before factoring in them being 8-man with 2x MMGs. How the hell are you complaining about them?
Different factions having doctrinal differences is also not a bad thing. Variety is good.

>>2154089
>>2154116
20 AMRAAM EX will also fling missiles at every available target simultaneously if you don't target an attack. It's basically impossible to lose an airtax battle with one on your side.

>>2154147
>Weapon Squads with 2x Javelin
I do not understand why Weapon Squads has 2 Javelins, but will never, EVER, fire both of them. It's not even firing to cover the reload of the other - It fires, reloads, then fires again. The second javelin is entirely cosmetic.

>>2154147
>2 shots that MIGHT kill one light vehicle (you wont bc smoke) then you need to resupply
give troopers Gustavs or something, or more AT4s

>>2154183
i noticed the smaw teams weren't firing both when i was testing them in that scenario, is it a bug?

>>2154185
All weapons in the game work this way.
Think of it like this:
A rifle fires once per second
If a squad has two rifles, it will fire one, then after 0.5 seconds fire the second, then after 0.5 seconds fire the first again. It's effectively double the rate of fire, but they alternate instead of firing together.

All weapons work like this, from rifles and machineguns, to disposable AT launchers, to Hellfire racks on Apaches and AMRAAMs on planes. More weapons = higher rate of fire but not higher alpha strike.

>>2154191
that's retarded for AT/AA weapons
having an intentional slight delay between the two makes sense
but just reload speed up is fucking retarded
maybe have a button to enable equal stagger or alpha strike

>>2154191
Except, of course, VDV Kornet with ripple-fire.

>>2154183
They fire them off essentially twice as fast as a squad with only one. This is generally a positive in the weapon's team's case because it means you're not losing two missiles to an immediate smoke.
Two weapons also allow them to aim and separate targets if one target has enough missiles en-route to kill it.
>>2154184
>10 shots that can barely pen an IFV from the front
>with barely half the range
Damn, guess we better give metis fucking RPG-30's to balance them out, huh?
Troopers are line infantry with an added bonus of an ATGM that can threaten even tanks. Giving a unit both gustavs and javelins would be disgustingly busted.
>>2154191
Not all weapons. Some Russian units are specifically given two seperate versions of a weapon with an aim time difference to make them ripple fire. Or just arbitrarily allowed to. THAT is the real retarded russian bias in this game.

Best cheap US infantry? Is it Rangers?

>>2154199
i wasn't talking about Javelins+Gustavs
talking about either giving them more javelin shots and remove AT4s or make them regular line inf with more AT4s and no Javelin, bc in their current state they suck at both
hell make that an upgrade
base having only AT4s but more of them, then upgrade to have just Javelins

>>2154153
thats crazy because I spawned 2 one game and watched 6 enemy cheapo f16s kill them instantly

>>2154140
>M2A2 are cheaper, better armored, and have a TOW compared to base BMP-3. A 60pt transport with a decent ATGM AND a good autocannon is highly efficient.
no they have the same armor as bmp-3fs
bmp-3fs have almost 2x the anti infantry dps as well. the TOWs are slightly better than arkans but the bmp-3fs are also 20kmh faster for free instead of paying for that

File: meds.jpg (33 KB, 453x560)

33 KB JPG

>>2154280
He's retarded, the SEX is too expensive as an ASF. Interceptors, excepting the raptor and super hornet wit their JAGMs, should at most be 300 points or less.

>>2154140
>Bradley
>good autocannon

>>2154147
troopers never kill anything with the jav because the softest tin can shitboxes in the game can soak 4 and you can smoke
if troopers had 4 javelin shots then yeah they would be pretty good, but paying a 30 pt premium for not killing any armor is shaky

>>2154286
oh and i forgot to mention the bradley tow is stationary fire which makes it arguably worse than the arkan in real gameplay

>>2154291
The one thing the Bradley can do is look down a road. It hits just hard enough that you can't A-move it, and it's just cheap enough that it's not worth bombing, and just tough enough that you can't just artillery it away. The recon brapley is a bit pricey to leave in the open, but getting two of the A3 with just upgraded engine is a handy tool to leave on overwatch

>>2154315
yes its much better when you have an actual atgm sightline on defense because it has 7 missles. but the bmps are competitive or outright superior everywhere else

>>2154315
the recon bradlies are terrible tbqh you have to pay 90 to get something with 2000 optics
recon vehicles in general need to be priced a lot closer to non recon versions instead of having at 20-50pt surcharge for optics

File: Untitled.jpg (912 KB, 2483x1315)

912 KB JPG

>>2154316
This is my only deck that uses the Bradley, and I just finished editing it. It's all about standoff and absorbing pushes; You fight at standoff range and mop up the clown circus, then resupply and reset. Kiowa hangs back and lases, Sheridan is an infantry support tank that just slings HE at its max range, snipers get sprinkled around to try and infiltrate backlines, etc. The Strike Eagle has 4 2000lb JDAMs to bomb anything that tries to brute force its way through me. FEX takes shots at backline. Kinda debating dropping the F15C for another FEX.

Tanks are there for a counter-attack in late phase 2, if I've been cost effective enough to push. Note that defensive does not mean stationary, you gotta reposition after, and during, fights or you just get artilleried to shit.

>>2154319
The Bradleys are just plain too expensive, but top-attack ATGMs are still nice to have

>>2154324
every time i use a defensive deck i end up in matches where the enemy squats on +1 points the entire game and blankets me with arty the moment i try pushing
the game is genuinely unplayable without a stack

>>2154326
If you don't get pushed, help your team and push yourself. Degrade them with FEX strikes, creep up your units. Buy the GMLRS and start firing salvos at their backline. Sitting still isn't going to win anything, and if you're getting hit by artillery, your teammates aren't.

>>2154319
Recon vehicles also have 1.25 stealth when normal variants are just 1 so they are also slightly harder to spot themselves, but yeah, it's a big premium on something fairly marginal. You usually don't have sightlines long enough for it to matter.
It's mostly a question of what tab do you want to spend points on, it was a bigger deal in betas when they didn't allow you mix transports between units.

>>2154334
>in betas when they didn't allow you mix transports between units.
You could always mix units and transports.

>>2154336
Originally you couldn't call in a transport with a different unit than it came with in the deck. Support tab trucks or helicopters could carry whatever, but not the ones that came with units in inf tab. Devs claimed it was a deliberate decision as part of unit identity. You could still call transports empty and infantry on foot to load them up but it was slower and a dumb APM tax so they changed their mind afterwards

>>2154382
Huh. I don't remember that from either of the betas, but you're probably right, as it wasn't until the end of the first beta that I realized you could mix infantry in helos

>>2154210
For general purpose? Yeah probably. Rangers didn't need a buff but now that they got one they're really, really strong. Just don't expect them to fight tanks.

>>2154319
The recon Bradley is the only one people actually use. The stealth value means it doesn't reveal itself when firing it's ATGM from a treeline, and even when you see it, it has APS and takes 3 shots from a tank.

Regular Bradley's are bad because their autocannon is literally worthless, and the lack of fire on the move relegates them to being glorified ATGM vehicles instead of IFVs. The CFV is good because stealth and optics make it arguably the best ATGM vehicle in the game for a price that's still reasonable for an ATGM carrier. Just skip the speed upgrade, because there's no point making it faster when it's job is to sit still.
>>2154288
Javelins two-shot any vehicle in the game. You need smoke or APS to survive it, and draining APS charges or forcing a smoke is itself innately valuable when it's coming from a 90pt infantry squad. Troopers just require a little more micro to keep well supplied, which is a literal skill issue. They're crazy cost effective.

>>2154280
An airtax battle your teammates actually participate in.
6 F16s also outcost your two EX's anyway.

>>2154286
AMRAAM SEX is not a replacement for <300 point ASFs and I didn't claim that it was one. Any time I have one it's alongside them, and obviously only in decks that fit it and can take advantage of it.

Primary reason I use one is to attempt an airdrop at gamestart. If you have teammates with a pulse that actually bring their own fighters, pulling your EX in from the side after the engagement starts is basically a guaranteed airwipe, meaning you can then call in a herc to take ground early for free unless they start trickle feeding planes in to die. I do this with Airborne/Stryker so I can call in wheeled units to take ground if this fails for some reason, and I can get units up to support the drop.

After the opening gambit it obviously has less use but if the enemy happens to have a lot of planes in the air at once at any point, it can mop up fairly effectively.

>>2154469
>>2154491
sex can carry harms and 12 AMRAAMs so theoretically you could also get free kills on enemy AA that they spawn at game start assuming you completely win air

>>2154903
12 AMRAAMs won't get your ROF up high enough to multi-target in the same way.
Just bring an ASF followed by a SEAD plane with its own two AMRAAMs at that point.

>>2154916
does the rof scale with the magazine size or something
that sounds stupid

>>2154946
For missiles yes.
It's not really a magazine to be fair, the plane does just have 20 missiles. Still dumb but it's how it works.

>>2154953
thats genuinely retarded if true lmao

>>2154946
Rof scales with the number of weapons, or amount of ammo.
IIRC, A2A missiles will exhaust their full ammo in 12 seconds, so 12 missiles is 1 missile per second, 6 missiles is 1 per 2 seconds, etc.

The same is true for disposable AT launchers. More in a squad means they fire faster.

>>2154916
>>2154966
they should add settings so you can tell ur plane "fire 4 amraams at each target" or shift-queue such an order

File: file.png (229 KB, 1483x150)

229 KB PNG

>>2154916
nah i have been using pocket harms loadout (2 harms 12 amraam) and the number of times it randomly nails a patriot spawned at the beginning of the match is hilarious

File: file.png (451 KB, 1489x269)

451 KB PNG

>>2155279
wrong pic

File: file.png (565 KB, 417x952)

565 KB PNG

while were doing balance discussions the upgraded strykers might be some of the worst units in the game
you are basically paying a 60 point surcharge over a bmp-3 for:
+2 APS charges
+slightly better armor (but still twoshotted by most tanks)
+javelin is better than arkan
+much faster on the road
-SIGNIFICANTLY less anti-infantry dps, no anti-vehicle dps other than the javelin AT ALL