Huh... Derp.

Sorry, hardly can find anything else to say.

Some pact units need to be rebuffed maybe, some nato units need to be rebuffed maybe, but you complain mostly about some units that were abused in one way or an other.

_________________
"Rocks are OP. Paper is fine" signed: Scissors

My Youtube Channel

If nerfing one of the eight (?) APCs a unit can enter the battlefield on will make the unit useless the APC is probably too strong. I think you've just presented an arguement for a change to be made. Right now I think NATO changes are most required myself, but that doesn't mean Pact doesn't have some units which are slightly out of line.

You also have to consider the bigger picture that generally is not a like-for-like philosophy – PACT does not get an abundance of cheap (20pt) auto-cannons, which in my experience are far more versatile compared with recoilless rifles and other weapons PACT transports generally utilize.

I must admit, it went slightly off track to more general apc inf diretion.

But what comes to the points above, your explanations doesn't really stand good. The problem is that for a price of a 1st line MBT you can field around 10-15 pcs of 5(10)+5 apc inf, even more, if (when) your enemy has his MBT's vetted. The math just doesn't work well at all.

Half or even full decent tactician for that matter can try and see how far he can back up his MBT before 15x enemy apc's inevitably catch up. There's no talking about destroying the numbers required in time - not even nearly - and given the current apc hyperspeed+inf instalawing+shock effect defects the cheapest law infantry acts in very many situations as the best anti-tank weapon! They are expendable, enemy doesn't gain much points by destroying them, and they are just insanely effective when rushed close-by and easily can inflict points-wise much more casualties than losses, even when the destroyed-loss ratio is horrendous.

Of course the subject is also somewhat game size relevant, and for all-open field a decent player might readily prefer some another kind of tactic.

The thing is the half decent general doesn't have only his MBT to fend off the infantry horde: he has infantry on his side, + artillery + air units that will stun, panic, lock the infantry horde for the necessary time.

I should have saved replays, I faced two infantry mad hordes today. no sweat.

Sure, you can have tons of targets for cheap. But against a balnced army with cheap and costly units, the infantry horde will be stuck.

Back on topic:

Regarding the other available transports for PACT,the TOPAS is a pleasant addition. I'm not saying it should be nerfed to oblivion, simply that as it is now it can and will destroy any LAW armed infantry squad exactly at the same time as it dies to it. The main opponent the TOPAS will face is infantry in woods; Target aquisition time + reload time make the topas slightly too good for the job. it's not a problem of price, just lightly reducing the firing speed of the RR will bring this unit back in the balance. And maybe with a slight change like that, we could get back motostrelcis and piechota Zmech back in numbers.

_________________
"Rocks are OP. Paper is fine" signed: Scissors

My Youtube Channel

I think a nerf in RoF could lessen the problem since in real life, the recoiless gun is mounted externaly so the loader must expose himself to reload it and I have difficulty to imagine how you can do that when rolling at full speed.

Otherwise, I have the impression that this Polish APC is too fast in comparison to his realife capabilities. It's not the best source (far from it), but in the Wipedia article they say that the max speed on road is 60km/h and in the game it's rated to 70km/h. Remember that it's a improved version of the BTR-50 which wasn't very sophisticated. A nerf of the speed of 10km/h will not reduce their power in close combat, but at least you will have more time to shoot them to oblivion!

Why is everybody so keen on nerfing PACT?


Cmon guys - both sides have specific advantages they use for their benefit. I say JUST LET THEM!

Pact should spam infantry just as well as it should spam cheap tanks. It is their approach for combat.

You dislike kamikaze rushes? Guess what, pact forces had political commissars that were allowed to shoot own people if they disobeyed orders. Not counting penal formations (still existing in some post-pact countries) that were supposed to be expendable.

Same goes for NATO - they also have their uber units - like mobile fortresses (AKA Leo2a4) and mass numbers of autocannons and VERY good ATGMs. If you suck in multi, maybe you should change your tactic, not whine about some units being too strong.

You want to play perfectly balanced game - maybe it would be faster for devs to include NATO vs NATO or PACT vs PACT games for the likes of you. I prefer to identify strenghts of my side and use it to crush my enemy.

PS. I say NO to pact nerfs unless at the same time Marder will be decreased in numbers and upped in cost. You want balanced units - take care of that EXPERIMENTAL unit (still up to 12 units, WHY?), that is way better than its direct counterpart.

I play both NATO and PACT, but it is really going in a bad way should all pact tactics were to be nerfed because ppl hate to adapt to counter them.

If you had read the OP, you would have realise that it is as a PACT player that I consider them a bit too strong. It's not because, as a whole, you don't feel PACT to be strong enough that tweaking down SLIGHTLY a unit that isn't that often used (I rarely see them, It's more often SKOTs for their speed) is hatred towards them.

If I had asked for the LEO 2A4's main gun to be down a bit, no one would complain.

I repeat: This is as a PACT player that this felt wrong. Not as a NATO player. If I feel some things are wrong, whether they are PACT or nato, I report them, by proposing solutions.

That tweak would hardly be gamebreaking.

_________________
"Rocks are OP. Paper is fine" signed: Scissors

My Youtube Channel

Again going to the side track, sorry for that,

But I can't help (once again) stressing that winning/losing or presumed sucking in mp doesn't equal with good enjoyable match. There are people who whine for sucking or promoting "their" side and there are people who whine for a better gaming experience. Don't make the mistake of putting all to the same basket.

Big part of the whole conversation too as we can see in these forums - is while some people like me demand more authenthical historical feel for a game to really be good others are completely comfortable with kamikaze rushes as they are now. And so it should be, universal game for every taste is impossible to achieve.

A bit of a strawman argument there, but for a guy called black and white, you certainly think in shades of grey!

I based this tweak on evidence: RoF reduction due to external + no ejection. Also for gameplay reasons: Slightly too good synergy with it's transported troops. All of this for a more enjoyable experience overall. I won duels against numerically equal troops, with regular transports and higher prices because of these topas, in situations where the opponent should have the advantage because they were specialised anti-tank and infantry, but they lost. I even won with a few individuals still alive in a 4 AMX 10P + LEGION FAMAS vs 5 TOPAS A2 + MotostrelCi. Seriously...

I just oppose the guys saying "this side is already too weak, stop nerfing our good units" or "this side is already too strong, stop buffing their units". I find sides balanced with a really slight overall advantage, with my play-style, to NATO.

_________________
"Rocks are OP. Paper is fine" signed: Scissors

My Youtube Channel