The problem is PACT ATGMs still outrange NATO's ATGMs most of the time, and more importantly, have a bigger range advantage over main guns than before.

Trying to charge with heavies is just asking to meet a wall of ATGMs before even firing a shot...

If you want this to succeed, you'll need to shaken the ATGMs before charging with artillery/mortars/rocket barrages.

_________________
THANK YOU TROTSKYGRAD FOR THIS EPIC SEAL OF APPROVAL !

Get me a count of how many missiles out-range NATO's ground based ATGMs.

Off the top of my head we have the T-62M-1 and M-V, there's two, the T-80U and the next lowest T-80, there's four, and the Shturm, making it five. The rest tend to max out around 2626m now, perfectly within I-TOW range. T-80s need to be within a closer range than their max missile range to get the most amount efficiency out of them, so... Where we goin' with this? These are kinda of supposed to be the game's sniper missiles, I guess, hence why we've seen their price adjusted but stats not so much as touched (T-62s).

Nearly every single one of those units, like every single one of the AP over 13 units on NATO I-TOW jeeps aside, all cost over 50 points, making it pretty worthwhile to kill groups of these units with fairly extreme amounts of prejudice. Nearly every PACT unit which has an AP 13 or more breaks the 50 point barrier a piece as well.

Now, then, lemme put it this way: if you're camping and in some tight little hole like TheWord suggests the game leads out to, which keep in mind this sort of suggestion is likely more for his benefit than how he actually feels, you're going to be pushed into a box where the real advantage PACT has over NATO on the ground becomes apparent: ground based exceptional recon coupled with pot-shots. Enjoy being shot at by ATGMs you can't see but who can see you, even while you've got recce. Hell, they're probably shooting ATGMs at your very good recce vehicles.

As a whole, with NATO, if you aren't maneuvering against PACT, you're losing, this was the same as before this patch, arguably less with the heavy tank prevalence, moreso with the patches and states of the meta before that. That is, at least, if who's playing PACT is worthwhile. Besides, it tends to be more beneficial to PACT to be on the side that isn't pushing but being pushed, obviously vice-versa for NATO.

If you feel this is unbalanced, than I think the only thing we need to tip it to where it should be is:



Preferably on more than just ATGMs; it would be better if everything had a lower chance to be hit by everything shooting at it while moving.

_________________

I am fighting the same way as I was pre patch, only with mroe success, the nato, gunship umbrella with heavy front and scouts galore, pact, Bmp1P swarm and deep AA defence, the patch was bad for balace Imho, but that because I prefere modern MBT's armour to match its actual effectiveness, not that im knocking my AP16 apaches

_________________

Yet to lose a game as Nato in ranked, game seems balanced for now at least.

_________________

Some thoughts about Pact atgms and how they became too powerful.

After playing more on very open maps I got to say that Pact has gotten very and in my opinion too powerful. Nato is at a serious loss with its atgms and its anti air that forces it to spam either arty or heli or massively spam ground units when they can't use hillsides or forests to overcome a defensive pact player.

The Tank battles pretty much vanished thanks to 20+ atgms coming from pact with extreme efficiency. All Pact tanks with atgm have received a major improvement over all Nato tanks and the few tanks that have atgms on Nato side are pretty bad in comparision when it comes about atgm battles. It is nice that a MBT 70 can fire both guns but that wont help when there's a T62 sniping it with a much better atgm for cheaper.

The problem arises with a pact player deploying apart from atgm carriers also tanks that have even better atgms than the dedicated atgm carriers. If you face a defensive postion with 2.8km atgms and BMP1P with their Konkurs and an exceptional recon in the back and even more in the back some 4 Malkas then you pretty much lost if you try to use ground units in a way that is not massive spam.

The Nato heavy tank that would be neeeded to fight the Pact heavy tanks don't get into gun range before many atgms hit them and destroy them. The Nato atgms got already under fire by counter atgms before even getting to aim, and with some Malkas they barely get to fire at all.

Same is it with Nato AA. The rolands have lost the range advantage against pact choppers like Hind P and before a Roland gets 2 hits on the P its missiles or atgms destroyed it. Without Chaparals which got serious disadvantages a pact airassault can not be stopped. And they are a real Arty magnet that instantly pop from HE7 Arty.

I don't mean that Nato can't overcome a defensive pact player in the open. But without a massive bombardment or some massive spam, pretty much only by extreme means because the advantage on Pact side is just too big to even dare to face them fair and directly.

I have stopped using Tanks with Nato. If at all its MBT 70 and maybe Kpz 70 everything else can be achieved by a cheap vehicle that does not cost 100p upwards when getting hit by one of those many atgms. On Pact side I pretty much rely on the T62s that are the best ground units because no matter how much armor the Nato unit got its gonna die hard from a range where its still closing in making the 10acc even more accurate.

The main problem comes from Pacts tanks which are now also perfect atgm units, so much that they barely fire their gun anymore and instead Nato got 20 atgms coming at them from a range where Nato still has to close in. Especially the 8 T62s that pact got are perfect for atgm duty and the T72B and the T80 series got very good atgms as well. In fact I see barely a T80 fire its gun, it rather fires atgms that are extreme with 15AP and their 2.8km range. How should any Nato Tank or vehicle stand against that. So one Idea that came to my mind was to not change anything about the core stats of atgms but change some of the others.

Would be an increase of the aiming time and reload time and an increase of the supply cost and supplying time by about 50% for all tank atgms as well making them more inaccurate from morale loss. That would encourage to fire atgms from atgm carriers and would make Nato not loose that hard in Tank battles which pretty much vanished. A pact tank would have his ATGM advantage only for as long as it got atgms to fire, then its massive paying time to resupply. So Pact players would have to choose what to fire on instead of just autofire at everything that comes in range. The Aiming time increase is badly needed as the atgm fires faster than the tank gun being even more of a middle finger into Natos face.

I doubt that tank crews were just as good or better at firing atgms as a dedicated ATGM crew, and if they were at least for the gameplays sake it would be better.

Also increase the reload and aiming time of the Hinds so that rolands actually have a chance at taking them down before they blow them up. Mostly before a roland gets 2 hits at the hind, it gets stunned or hit by the atgm. Its already bad enough that Nato got only 2 good AA units, that one of them now fails hard at its AA duty while Pacts OSA and BUK and Tunguska just massacre Nato air doesn't help either.

With those changes, the Pact atgms would still be just as powerful when launched but they would count more since you have fewer and you get encouraged to fire from carriers instead of tanks since they aim faster and are cheaper to supply so they perform overall better without being any better at the core of it that would be accuracy and AP power and Range.

Yea just wanted to throw that out into the forum.

_________________
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

Rocket tanks use depend on the terrain very much. sure open terrain is where they shine (and should do). on the more closed maps nato tanks will do better with good stabs and acccuracy. I think its fair lol. look at ITOW for 30 money and milan F2 for 35 they are absolutely silly. 14-15 ap both. 6-15 atgm team in comparison to 7-12 konkurs lol.

I speak about OPEN TERRAIN with some HE7 arty in the back.
Your tanks blow up and your inf dies horribly.
Most of what you wrote doesn't even apply to my text.

_________________
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

Now analyze how resistant they are to high accuracy artillary like he pointed out in his post and think again.

I think he has a point. There's little to no reason to take tanks at NATO.

While NATO AA does work it's clearly inferior and you need twice as much and vetted to do the same amount of work.
If it wasn't for NATO's autocannon's we would get trumped hard alot.
I also don't use heavy tanks at all. Starships, sheridans, Pattons maybe mbt70.
I try to be fluid and moving but as was said there has to be a penalty for hitting moving targets or NATO's maneuverability is wasted. Any attack is quickly beat down with ATGM's before you get in range and if you do good luck getting enough hits in time to kill them with accuracy being what it is.

I have had no problem's winning as NATO but PACT does have some clear advantages. Their missiles also seem to hit alot more than NATO ones. And you often come across units that outrange yours. On more cluttered maps that is negated some, but on any open areas pact has the advantage.

In general though It seems to be teammates alot as well. I have won both as PACT and NATO against the same people, but against a very good player, PACT has advantages.

_________________

Sounds quite situational to me. Yet you are suggesting balance changes that affect ATGM in all situations - I would say even more seriously when it comes to medium to close range battles - tanks would just totally wtfpwn ATGM before they have a chance to fire and land a hit.

I think you describe a real problem though. You could even leave out that HE7 arty and you occasionally get these open ground standstills, where Pact has the nice advantage of long-range recon+ATGM+AA. Just spam rushing isn't a straightforward solution there, so NATO players are mostly encouraged to arty spam. However the meta breakage is quite situational and not nearly as bad as it was with heavy tanks.

Also NATO has the advantage with their jeep spam. Screen them with some empty transports and you can overwhelm Pact ATGM with numbers. Play recon wars and take what forest there is with your infantry, make good use of what arty you have (still quite effective against the shturm) and you just might win it. Artying the ATGM jeeps is not as straightforward a counter as you claim - if you have a strong, well planned offensive, the arty doesn't have time to really reduce you numbers. Of course it takes skill and so on, but the tactic is there and it can work.

Also consider that we're likely to get a 1+ AP nerf on ATGM units. This will make them less overpowering and even tanks might become usable in the scenario.

The net effect is that this will be a problem we can live with, I hope.

If you wanted a really real solution to the problem, that would be map design, I would think. Put a few more hedgerows and little hills on the open areas, and we have something to maneuver in and around. Would make it more feasible to ambush enemy ATGM forces or even just play the recon+arty wars on them. Could be done on the old maps and certainly any new ones as well.

_________________

Fix decks and save minor nations - viewtopic.php?f=91&t=28335