This is mostly a copypaste from the T80 thread, not to derail that. Basically it's my rant on how NATO has advantages in several key areas.

-------------------------------------------------------

IMO NATO is actually stronger:

Recon: NATO wins, more better options, also NATO units just generally have better optics.

Arty: One word - Mortars. OTOH, PACT's thing - rocket arty, does jack now.

Tanks: Top-tier heavies - PACT has 2 T80Us, after that NATO is better. So, if the game is not low point NATO is better. Also, RISE Patton - PACT got nothing comparable.

AA: Ground AA about even (fully vet chap costs the same and performs roughly the same as Buk, Roland roughly like Tunguska, etc), but NATO has a good AA chopper whereas PACT has total crap. Also, autocannons.

Infantry: About even. NATO is stronger but PACT is cheaper. However, NATO has better SF and more scouts.

Helicopters: 25pt Gazelle canon. AP13 Hellfires. The Cobra line. Do I really need to say more?

ATGMs: Would be PACT advantage if they weren't bugged. And totally nerfed. Also, the only reliable ATGMs (SALH) are mostly NATO.

Vehicles and APCs: Again, autocannons. Not totally one-sided though as PACT can field some pretty good APCs of its own (e.g. BMP1P), it's just that most people don't.

So, pray tell, what advantages does PACT have? Flame tanks? Great, a cannon on a unit that's not supposed to use it in the first place.

Now I'm not saying PACT is much weaker or unplayable. Both are not true, and generally speaking units on both sides are similar in strength. But overall I feel NATo has a slight edge in several areas.

Best wishes,
Daniel

Just out of curiosity, do you actually play both factions?

To my mind, both factions are balanced. It's just a thing of personal preference that might give you the feeling that one faction is slightly better. For myself that's Pact.



Ehm, no. The Tunguska is a lot better than the Roland at roughly the same price. And due to NATO helos only having 5 HP, they get even much more powerful. Iglas can one shot NATO helos, whereas Stingers need 3 shots to down any Pact helo at the same price.



Yes, you do. NATO helos have 5HP (except for the Apache), making them totally vulnerable to any kind of Pact AA.



You noticed that only Pact has a ground recon with Excellent optics?



Don't let us get started about Top-tier heavies, I think we discussed that long enough. Low-tier: It does. T64A.



Overwhelmingly better AA, the best tank in game, the cost efficient base T80, ground recon with Excellent optics, better supply trucks (IMO), flame tanks and so on and so forth.

_________________
Newest Video on my channel: Wargame: AirLand Battle | Playing the Danes with Firestarter
Basic Tutorial for Newbies: Wargame: AirLand Battle | The Very Basics

Pact has APC's that come with tank guns, recoilless rifles and/or ATGM's for dirt cheap. They have transport choppers with rocket pods. Everything is bristling with guns on Pact side.

Also Pact has way better tube artillery. You forgot to mention that NATO has better command options though in terms of survivability.

EDIT: Also, 99,9% of all active players are not even remotely at a level skill-wise where they could exploit possible balance issues.

_________________

• Read my video game blog
• Follow me on Twitter

Formerly shugyosha on these forums and still shugyosha ingame

I play PACT 90% of the time, that's true. I play NATO occasionally but not much.



I never use the Tunguska or Roland so can't say. I stick to big missiles or infantry SAMs - IMO having autocannons doesn't compensate for high price/lack of range, if I field an AC unit it's a Praga 59 or something.



Iglas are absolutely great, that is true, but they are actually outranged by Hellfires. Passive forest defense AA, can't cover PACT in the open.
Also, I'm pretty sure Iglas don't always one-shot each and every NATO chopper other than Apache, I'll need to check that though.

When it comes to long-range AA, Buk and fully vet Chap are about equal. Buk can fire longer without a reload but chap is more likely to get a quick kill, and you should keep a supply truck by each one anyway.

So I'll agree that short-range AA for PACT is better (or rather, NATO helos are more fragile). But as I've mentioned, NATO actually has a decent AA chopper, which is a huge advantage.



Not any kind. To defeat Hellfires, you need the Buk - Iglas and Tunguskas often don't have the reach.
To defeat mass rushes, you need several AA - sure, you can one-shot Gazelles, but NATO can field a horde of them cheaply, whereas you'll generally have 1 Buk and 1-2 short-range AA defending any armor group.

So yes, generally PACT choppers are tougher, however as we all know helo rushes are easier to do with NATO because you can just field so many of the damn things.



That gets used how often? There's hardly ever a reason not to get 2 Very Good optics stealthier recons for the same price, or a helo recon for 20 pts more. If BDM (or whatever its called) was 15 pts cheaper I'd agree, but currently it's more of a curiosity.



Similar but not quite as good. Can't fire accurately on the move. Otherwise similar, yes - more armor and higher ROF but fewer numbers, works out to about the same firepower/survivability when stationary. But if you just use those guys to sit in place you're better off with T64BV.



Sort-of better short-range AA (but no chopper, long-range AA about the same), two best tanks total - great in a small game but not that important in standard size, overpriced recon that hardly anybody uses. And that MMG on supply trucks is literally game-shattering... Oh, and as I've mentioned before - crap cannon on a flame vehicle that usually prevents it from using the flamethrower like it should.

Best wishes,
Daniel

_________________
wore explaining that Western superiority comes from education and willpower:
Russian ingeneers ... couldn't make something more or less capable due to lack of education, competence and willigness to develop

I'm sorry man......but that one line right there invalidates your entire thread.

To competent players who do in fact play BOTH sides (NATO/PACT) as evenly as possible there is nothing more you could say to make any claim of imbalance you make here worth listening to.

It is what it is.......

Personally I find WP closer to my tastes, even though I play both and find NATO stronger.

_________________

We need more missilez code for the missilez god.
Praslovan:
"Tactical Ikalugin inbound on this position in 10... 9..."

Sort-of true, but NATO isn't any worse.

APCs: Autocannons actually rape most cheap PACT transports without much problem (seriously, how often do you see TOPAS2A kill something worthwhile), and the higher-tier PACT APCs are not worth their points.
The big gem is the BMP1P (armor, gun, and Konkurs ATGM for 25 points - cheaper than a Konkurs team!) but even that is not too effective. Crappy ATGM performance makes them not very good against armor (unless you vet them, in which case they cost as much as a medium tank), and low main gun accuracy makes them not very good against everything else, not to mention lack of AA capability. Overall, PACT vehicles are pretty good, but I'd say NATO has enough good ones of its own.

As for armed transport choppers, yes those are good, but NATO can field cheap helos of their own that are much more varied.



Malka is the only one I can think of that is clearly better than the NATO counterpart. I'll give you that.



PACT commands are faster though, and you get 4 to a pack, so I called it even.



99.9 percent of people don't use mortars, Deltas, AA choppers, or Gazelle Canon? Cause those are balance issues.

Now I agree these are not major or game-breaking, PACT has its strengths, and it's 95% up to the players on how the game unfolds. However, the remaining 5% - are in NATO's favor IMO.

Best wishes,
Daniel

_________________
wore explaining that Western superiority comes from education and willpower:
Russian ingeneers ... couldn't make something more or less capable due to lack of education, competence and willigness to develop

... Only people that play both sides EXACTLY 50/50 can talk about NATO/PACT balance, only mulattoes can talk about racism, only transsexuals can talk about gender discrimination... Wanna go any further?

It doesn't take a genius to figure out that NATO's mortars are more cost-effective than PACT's rocket arty, or that NATO's APC autocannons are not bugged like PACT's APC ATGMs, or that Hellfire is superior to a Kokon.

I'll agree that you're in a slightly better position to discuss the balance than me, as you have a more balanced perspective. Well, do so. Discuss. Simply dismissing my points because you don't like my army preferences is not reasonable.

Also, I agree with "it is what it is" comment. I'm not advocating for a sudden nerf or buff of anything, and if I did it would most likely be directed at nerfing heavy tanks or buffing top-tier ATGMs (see the heavy tank tread). I am simply checking if other people have the same impression of the game.

Best wishes,
Daniel

_________________
wore explaining that Western superiority comes from education and willpower:
Russian ingeneers ... couldn't make something more or less capable due to lack of education, competence and willigness to develop

Is this guy serious?

NATO has better recon options I'd say. (Think luchs). Though the exceptional recon on pact side doesn't hurt at all.
Pact has much better tube and rocket arty. Pact has Malkas that have 7 HE and much more accuracy than the nato counterpart. Nato has mortars.
Pact has much better AA. No, chapparals don't compare, they need 2 missiles to kill the chopper if they don't miss. Pact is 1 hit = 1 kill.
Heavy tanks is debatable, but it's about even. Nato has more choice in heavy tanks, but economy wise you can still wield max 4 per game anyway.
Infantry: Pact ATGM inf is better, spetznaz are best anti inf, but NATO has better "standart" infantry like chasseurs.
Helo: Cobra line is good only for the 40$ cheap one, the rest is garbage as their ATGM doesn't hit. Pact has 10 HP choppers and pact transport helis are very cheap for what you get. Havocs are about equal to apaches because they have double the apache ammo.
Nato has a clear autocannon advantage.
ATGMs: Pact ATGMs are better due to 2600 SALH missiles.

Both factions are quite well balanced.

Ok then.....

Here are just a few points (which may have already been mentioned by others but as they are also my own opinion I'll re-list them).

1. NATO transport choppers unless you spring for the Lynx-TOW variant are simply useless after the INF has been deployed (unless you intend to micro them and transport more units to the front.......some maps support this rather well). PACT transport helos on the other hand are very useful (think Mi-8 with 64.......yes 64 rockets!!) and I've used them in pairs or quads to successfully stun an entire group of NATO heavy tanks.

2. The AA has been mentioned but I'll do it again. NATO AA is highly situational and while that is not necessarily a bad thing it means the NATO player must commit to a course of action, get the appropriate AA and then roll with it. PACT AA is far far more flexible in terms of options for the battlefield and I find that with a BUK or two and a few Tugunska's I'm more than covered for whatever twists and turns my strategy might have to make in the game.

3. Infantry has also been mentioned but here goes. I find that PACT infantry compliment each other's weaknesses much better and as such a nice grouping of a few types has ALL of your bases covered. NATO infantry is again more specialised and although you can compliment them as well it tends to cost you more so you end up with less manpower on the field. That can spell the difference between winning and losing an engagement against a similar-skill level opponent.

4. While mortars are definitely effective for NATO when brought along with frontline forces it usually requires 3 or 4 of them to be as effective (in my opinion) as a single well-placed Buratino (also brought along with front-line forces).

5. Tanks as far as I'm concerned have been debated to death in other threads and suffice it to say that I think they are effectively balanced as far as faction-to-faction goes. Do heavy tanks need some looking at in general? Maybe....

6. Recon? Well sure any competent NATO player has a Luchs in their deck, but as pointed out PACT having one with "exceptional optics" is a nice plus. Also, the recon helos on the PACT side may not benefit from smaller size but they are much better armed in my opinion and do not fall out of the sky when a NATO player farts!

There are more things we could talk about but my fingers are getting sore and I'm sure no one wants to read yet another wall of text.

All I can say is.........please play the factions more evenly. You will see......the faction-to-faction balance at the moment is pretty spot on.