But does the tanks' size even matter ?

While they do affect the probabilities of being hit, I don't think the size really matters for the first shot as any competent player uses some recon near his tanks...

_________________
THANK YOU TROTSKYGRAD FOR THIS EPIC SEAL OF APPROVAL !

Some recon won't be able to show hiding unit at weapon range. So yeah, it still count.

_________________

I field the base T-80 all the time, don't want to waste a load of points on a useless ATGM.

NATO tanks are already the best tanks that can be fielded right now, the base T-80 cost is just fine.

Also note the M1 has better stabalizer and side armor than the T-80.

The T-80 is pretty cost effective for its points, being a take-all-comers sort of tank (sans ATGM). It's an entry-level heavy tank and a go-to for many folks.

The problem is, comparing it to the more specialized NATO AMX-32 makes dicey argument. To me, the T-80 is like an assault rifle, the AMX-32, like a sniper rifle.

A better comparison, I think, would be between the T-80 and the M1 Abrams, as they are similar, slugger-like, stand up and fight, kind of tanks.

Oh wait! It looks like you are on to something. I think I am seeing a pattern over here.

Pact will always get passed over. Popular opinion plays more of a role than anything else over at eugene Whatever makes them more money i guess.

Do you have facts to back up that rhetoric or are you another one of those who doesn't play both NATO/PACT equally and ends up making baseless posts......?

Being one of those who does actually play NATO/PACT fairly evenly it is my opinion that the faction-faction (as in NATO/PACT) balance in W:EE is pretty damn near the sweet spot at the moment. Sure some unit-type balance etc. still needs to be looked at, but everything in time.....

Again, i've won with both. Yes, i've played both evenly. Im just not going to close my eyes and say nothing is wrong though. There IS a faction imbalance. Not a major one, but certain units do need to be fixed to make things better. And those units mostly happen to be Soviet.

Faction imbalance? How can you serve this as a fact?

I play both factions equally, and have no preferences. I find them to be equal in total strenght.

IMO NATO is actually stronger:

Recon: NATO wins, more better options.

Arty: One word - Mortars. OTOH, PACT's rocket arty does jack sh*t now.

Tanks: Heavies - PACT has 2 very good ones, after that NATO is better. If the game is not low point NATO is better.
Also, RISE Patton - PACT got nothing comparable.

AA: Ground AA about even, 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.

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

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

_________________
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