They had WAY more T80U in 1986 than US had M1A1s

Im not good at the game and probably pact biased but what i see:

-nato has better recon (this has been beaten here to death already).

-nato has much better attack choppers.those mi 24 are lol compared to kobras. pay twice more for less firepower, crap accuracy and twice more hp (which in turn is not useful against fast fireing m48 or amx roland, only against autocannons, blowpipes and small arms.)

-nato has better infantry and faster 105 km/h ifvs for 10 points which is a big advantage on its own.

-nato have better tanks: elites are more numerous and cost effective. t80s and the like are defensive and you wont be able to attack nato elites with them effectively (atgm missile advantage is nullified and fire on the move accuracy is crap). NAto ones will be able to attack yours because they just dont lose accuracy on the move and have very good side armor.

-nato have autocannon IFVs for 15-25 points(french and german).

-mortars really freaking spoil the game for me, i d just play nato to NOT be shelled by these. too good at accuracy, rate of fire and price.

-buratino is good sometimes if used properly and if 100% aimed but they have so small fire distance it makes them so bad.

nato has all sorts of advantages. yay. I would love to know that it ISNT because the devs have their favourite side.

I dont know about the historical accuracy of units really.

Nato better recon: I don't think so. Best air recon, maybe.

Better attack choppers but much more fragile. PACT AA is much better, also compensating.

PACT has the most cost effective transport with the SKOT: Really fast, and acceptably tough for really, really cheap. Infantry are really different, but saying one is better than the other... Nope.

Tanks... I guess it's a matter of opinions. Saying the T-80 family is inferior though is plain wrong.

NATO has autocanons, PACT has more ATGMs. It's a faction specialty. Use more BMPs.

But not too good damage. An annoying aspect, sure. On the other hand, PACT has the best MLRS type of artillery with SMERCH and the like.

Both sides have their advantages. The most "Gamebreaking" one miht be the ATGM vs AUTOCANONS one.

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

My Youtube Channel

Got to try using the BMP-1P more often and see if they really as good as people are saying. transport infantry and then act as a sort of atgm team in a bush. problem is they get spotted early. BMP guns are rly good vs infantry though, they can take like 5 -6 people with one shot if it lands.

The best series are the BMP2. BMP 1s lack good ATGMs and good firepower.

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

My Youtube Channel

The D is my friend, grenades ftw.

_________________
Hey Ya
Mighty-I-dee-I-dee-I (Mighty-I-dee-I-dee-I)
Odee odee odee oooo (Ode odee odee oooo)
Mighty-I-dee-I-dee-I (Mighty-I-dee-I-dee-I)
Odee odee odee oooooo (Ode odee odee oooo)
Mighty ighty ighty ighty ighty ighty O

Yeah I buy motostrelki in BMP-1Ds

source please its a known fact that russia had more tanks in general but the u variant specifically i'm not so sure

Dat OBR 1986, and in the pre-patch meta, the BMP-2D was probably one of the best IFVs.

_________________

BMP 2'86 is fraking expensive but they got an atgm which will two-shot a 10 armor tank which is great (damage = 5).

BMP 1P is like twice cheaper but has a missile with less accuracy and ap (it will do 3 damage to 10 armor).

I wonder which one is better. you ofc would also consider the autocannon but as an atgm launcher and for more infantry bmp1p is better i think