Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Pluto is a planet

Vehicle imbalance

Recommended Posts

I mean, i literally took out a T-72 with a Bradley when i only had one TOW missle, the rest was just my 30mil ammo. I was able to sneak up on it and pretty much wrecked it's turret before it could really do anything. I can take out a Bradley with a BTR-82A, it takes a bit of work, but it's easily doable if use my speed advantage, and some dismounted AT lads helping me out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, embecmom said:

but your thinking so lateral though

 

8 hours ago, embecmom said:

bigton of theory none of which works in real games

I see what you did there, fella. But I'm not getting into this 'no tank map mission - how to take down IFV with infantry'-thing. 

 

Just ask yourself why is there 2 T-72s + 2(?)30mms against 1 Abrams + 2 Bradleys on Gorodok? Shouldn't it be like tank each plus bradley and 30mm BTR on each side, if you're right? 

All I am trying to say is that all this fiction about uniting ATs, building TOW fobs which take 9 people away from PTFO etc etc has nothing to do with real games.  Yes, Irregulars and Militia have no such things, yet they still can win, but they are set on dominant assymetric layout of maps, and even GB with Warriors is set against Militia on Basraah only on Invasion mode, which explains why do they get vehicular upper hand in first place.  

 

Russian IFV implementation is needed for symmetric layout maps where regular armies are facing each other. This is too obvious if you spend at least few days playing on those maps on russian side.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was playing and we rolled up in a BTR-80 on a stryker's 6 o clock. Pumped a whole clip of 14.5 into its rear + CROW gun and he spun his 1-man turret around and kaboomed our APC with one continual stream of .50cal to the frontal armor arc and turret mantlet. WTF? Unacceptable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, extaa said:

 

I see what you did there, fella. But I'm not getting into this 'no tank map mission - how to take down IFV with infantry'-thing. 

not sure what you mean no tank map mission?  

11 hours ago, extaa said:

 

Just ask yourself why is there 2 T-72s + 2(?)30mms against 1 Abrams + 2 Bradleys on Gorodok? Shouldn't it be like tank each plus bradley and 30mm BTR on each side, if you're right? 

balance?

11 hours ago, extaa said:

All I am trying to say is that all this fiction about uniting ATs, building TOW fobs which take 9 people away from PTFO etc etc has nothing to do with real games.  

9 people? it takes 3 .. radio..supplies... tow....

11 hours ago, extaa said:

Yes, Irregulars and Militia have no such things, yet they still can win, but they are set on dominant assymetric layout of maps, and even GB with Warriors is set against Militia on Basraah only on Invasion mode, which explains why do they get vehicular upper hand in first place.  

what vehicle upper hand? both Insurgents and Militia have little to no vehicle support...so what you are saying is that it balances due to the map so no need to have BTRs etc....

11 hours ago, extaa said:

 

Russian IFV implementation is needed for symmetric layout maps where regular armies are facing each other. This is too obvious if you spend at least few days playing on those maps on russian side.  

 

Ive got nearly 3000 hours in game so I know the maps etc pretty well... 90% of the time its usually a loss because of the rush and isolation of a single vehicle against an opponent who has more firepower...  no its not a fair match sometimes.. but then again I as a medic would not try to destroy a BTR with a grenade..and Im not crying about balance by saying give medics HATs..I would avoid and hide... but when it comes to vehicles there is this attitude that you must go toe to toe with whatever you see, and when you lose .. balance is and issue...

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Right, so my overall opinion. Russia needs an IFV as soon as possible, but not purely for balance, more just to cap off the completion of that faction's ground assets imo. One bradley vs one BMP2/3, is just as balanced as two 30mil BTRs vs one bradley and a stryker.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, embecmom said:

Ive got nearly 3000 hours in game so I know the maps etc pretty well... 90% of the time its usually a loss because of the rush and isolation of a single vehicle against an opponent who has more firepower...  no its not a fair match sometimes.. but then again I as a medic would not try to destroy a BTR with a grenade..and Im not crying about balance by saying give medics HATs..I would avoid and hide... but when it comes to vehicles there is this attitude that you must go toe to toe with whatever you see, and when you lose .. balance is and issue...

Not only you read my post upside down, which makes your replies absolutely nonsense in first place, but you are making this 'I have more hours I know' stuff. You are hilarious. But more and more I think you are that infantry guy with so little vehicular experience trying to turn every argument into 'people git gud, everything has balance'. For my last reply, I will make it clear, we are not discussing infantry against armor balance here. Number of your hours doesn't matter nor your silly arguments about medics not having HAT. 

1 hour ago, embecmom said:

balance?

You just proved yourself wrong. If Russians basically have 2 tanks against 1 tank and 2 Bradleys - that is for balance purposes I agree and you agreed yourself here - then this by default means that russian BTR has nothing even close to what Bradley is capable of and is weaker (breaking news, APC is weaker than IFV right?). 

So what we are saying here, is RU needs IFV. So, for example, the same layout on Gorodok would look like [RU] 1 Tank, 1 IFV, 1BTR(kpvt) | [US] 1 tank, 1 IFV, 1 stryker.

In case by reading all this upside down as you did previously you still gonna argue about infantry not having HATs and stuff like that, think about symmetrical vehicular layout map (Gorodok) where 2 regular armies face each other.

(RU) 2 tanks + 2 30 mils = 4 | (US) 1 tank + 2 bradleys = 3 --------------->   4>3 If russians are given more vehicles this confirms once again that they are lacking that important IFV part.

 

Im out.

Edited by extaa

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BTR vs Stryker just feels like a MTLB vs Stryker from back in the days when the name "shitbox" originated.
And this as a passionate driver just doesnt seem right.
Before the armor change it took a Stryker 10-15 seconds to kill a BTR. Now its gone with in a handful of seconds and i think even without touching the overheat. Althoug yesterday i did some testing on Jensens till i figured out there is a small sweet spot on the front of the Stryker (above the top of the barbwire) where you actually can damage it (and kill it even with less than a Magazine, which wasnt possible before) so i will have a look into it while playing online
 
PS: Squad is asymetrical. We all know. Still there need to be done balancing to cope with this. Noone would ever play insurgents or militia if they wouldnt have the dangerous HAT kits, rocket techies, IEDs or Tank grenades. Russians lack all of those ... besides they also got HATs now. You can also do balancing on numbers like in Gorodok.
 
All in all Russians could have a BMP.
Britains a Challenger
And the BTR a little bit of love. Stryker vs BTR was fun. Ist not anymore.
 
/edit
PPS:
Another thing i would like to mention or actually ask is why you cant place a rally point as a crewman leader? Especially with Fireteams now why cant i lead a squad from the commander seat or even drive myself supporting the squad with rallys where my vehicle is positioned.
Edited by gshAT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 30/12/2018 at 1:20 PM, extaa said:

Not only you read my post upside down, which makes your replies absolutely nonsense in first place, but you are making this 'I have more hours I know' stuff. You are hilarious. But more and more I think you are that infantry guy with so little vehicular experience trying to turn every argument into 'people git gud, everything has balance'. For my last reply, I will make it clear, we are not discussing infantry against armor balance here. Number of your hours doesn't matter nor your silly arguments about medics not having HAT. 

sigh... another butt hurt person when people are only responding based on a comment that wasnt clear and also sounded like you were suggesting others know nothing....so to clarify I mention I have the hours and do know what Im talking about...  

 

It matters because you cry about balance because you dont know how to use the vehicle combat properly.. (yes like u I am now making an assumption)... 

On 30/12/2018 at 1:20 PM, extaa said:

You just proved yourself wrong. If Russians basically have 2 tanks against 1 tank and 2 Bradleys - that is for balance purposes I agree and you agreed yourself here - then this by default means that russian BTR has nothing even close to what Bradley is capable of and is weaker (breaking news, APC is weaker than IFV right?). 

not sure how tbh... but hey whatever floats your boat.

On 30/12/2018 at 1:20 PM, extaa said:

So what we are saying here, is RU needs IFV. So, for example, the same layout on Gorodok would look like [RU] 1 Tank, 1 IFV, 1BTR(kpvt) | [US] 1 tank, 1 IFV, 1 stryker.

In case by reading all this upside down as you did previously you still gonna argue about infantry not having HATs and stuff like that, think about symmetrical vehicular layout map (Gorodok) where 2 regular armies face each other.

(RU) 2 tanks + 2 30 mils = 4 | (US) 1 tank + 2 bradleys = 3 --------------->   4>3 If russians are given more vehicles this confirms once again that they are lacking that important IFV part.

 

Im out.

bye.

23 hours ago, gshAT said:
 
 
/edit
PPS:
Another thing i would like to mention or actually ask is why you cant place a rally point as a crewman leader? Especially with Fireteams now why cant i lead a squad from the commander seat or even drive myself supporting the squad with rallys where my vehicle is positioned.

you used to be able to?  just needs 3 plus commander.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, embecmom said:

you used to be able to?  just needs 3 plus commander

+3 doesnt really come in handy. Would like to be able to set a Rally Point normally like a regular SL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, gshAT said:

+3 doesnt really come in handy. Would like to be able to set a Rally Point normally like a regular SL

but you said you cant place rally? anyway.. I agree not sure why the difference.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, embecmom said:

but you said you cant place rally? anyway.. I agree not sure why the difference.

when im SL i even could place a Rally with a LAT kit (+3). I was just referring to the regular kit! sry

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After some testing online i think that the 50cal is just too strong. and while it is too strong, the 30 mil is too weak. It was sometimes easier to kill a btr with 50cal than another 30mil.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×