Even the Chieftain is supposed to have a 98% hit chance at 3000m, the MRLS have 644 submunitions in each rocket, etc... Thanks god the devs favored balance over realism at all costs, the fights are brutal enough now.

_________________

Lol rifle men are expected and trained to achieve 90%+ hit rates on the range (up to 300 metres). Funny thing during real contacts 90% of our bullets do not actually hit people. . .

It's as of combat and range shoots are different situations.

I completely agree, but unlike a rifle with a rate of fire of ~900 rpm, you usually don't use a MBT gun for suppressive fire against armored targets.

_________________

I'm not even sure about the 90%, I guess it is lower, because there is an important thing: Suppressing fire.

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

My Youtube Channel

As has been suggested by many people already, veterancy could be modeled by having the increased accuracy while moving scaled to the kind of stabilizers the vehicles has.

_________________
Support better and more accurate aircraft loadouts.

If you have trouble viewing videos on YouTube because they are blocked in your country, try using this proxy service.

I think I would take the realism over gameplay balance because in real life you wouldn't get so many latest modern units.

The rocket fire is deadly in real life and it should destroy almost anything on area what just is there. But in game it should be as costly and slow as it is in real life. So you do not just shoot, move and shoot again. But you almost only use those units once or twice and then you can not afford to fill them.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RI_aI3O5VMM
More WP nerfs. How predictable.

_________________
<click

You say that, yet the main "nerfs" (if its even worth calling them that) increased arty reload time (good, no more arty stunlock spam) and Eugen limited the number of "spammable" vehicles, im sorry but if you complain about PACT nerfs, then surely you must have been one of the players who spams either of the above, also, the Havoc has been improved as far as im concerned, and playing both sides i can still put any unit on either side to good use. I prefer NATO myself (being from a NATO country so feels better) but i can safely say, no side is better than the other. A lot of the top players play NATO as well as PACT.

_________________

Why the number of infantry men were halved for the WP ?
This is not very realistic (well the initial number was not too but still)

Now we have 5 riflemen by BMP or OT64 ?
let me just give back some informations
but the BMP1 is supposed to carry 8 passengers (yes it is known to be a cramped vehicle)
The BMP2 : 7 passengers
The SKOT and OT64a : 10 passengers
The BTR 70 : 7 passengers

on the other hand we have for NATO 10 riflemen by vehicle when it was supposed to be
6 or 7 for the Marders
8 for the AMX10P
8 to 10 for the VAB
9 for the Saracen
10-11 for the M113
6 for the M2 Bradley

All that makes sense and should be taken in account
heavier and more armed/armored vehicles carry less troopers
lighter, less armored vehicles carry more troopers
Let's stick to that and not unilateraly push for numbers that make no sense, either in game or in term of realism

2 SkylineR33FTW quick summary of patch
NATO: 4 huge buffs and nerf of VTS1.
WP: 5 nerfs, 2 helicopter missile changes and buff of useless RM-70. Fair enough?

_________________
<click