安装 Steam
登录
|
语言
繁體中文(繁体中文)
日本語(日语)
한국어(韩语)
ไทย(泰语)
български(保加利亚语)
Čeština(捷克语)
Dansk(丹麦语)
Deutsch(德语)
English(英语)
Español-España(西班牙语 - 西班牙)
Español - Latinoamérica(西班牙语 - 拉丁美洲)
Ελληνικά(希腊语)
Français(法语)
Italiano(意大利语)
Bahasa Indonesia(印度尼西亚语)
Magyar(匈牙利语)
Nederlands(荷兰语)
Norsk(挪威语)
Polski(波兰语)
Português(葡萄牙语 - 葡萄牙)
Português-Brasil(葡萄牙语 - 巴西)
Română(罗马尼亚语)
Русский(俄语)
Suomi(芬兰语)
Svenska(瑞典语)
Türkçe(土耳其语)
Tiếng Việt(越南语)
Українська(乌克兰语)
报告翻译问题
In larger games, it is balanced. You probably just were just unlucky to meet weak pact players.
As mentioned Nato does seem to win 10 v 10 tactical games a lot. When you have little to no AA or fighters "Night Hawk > Everything Else"
I do prefer Nato to Pact though, I mostly play as the British ( which to me seem like a medium nation, good stuff like USA, Germany, but lacking quite a bit. namely SEAD, flame infantry, ATGMs, and some better APC's.)
Very generally speaking, NATO has far superior aircraft and helicopter options in pretty much every category (except perhaps ATGM planes), more cost effective tanks, cheaper heli transport options, inferior infantry in top-end performance and cost-effectiveness in most categories, far more cost effective AA vehicles (marder roland 2 and AMX roland 3), and generally fast, cheap transport options like 5 point 150km/h vehicles.
USSR offers top end performance in tank, support, and vehicle categories but are less cost effective. They also offer unique units that NATO has no direct counterpart to (BMP-T, TOS-1, Ka-50 Akula, hind transports.etc), but again, these are considered unnecessary and cost-ineffective. USSR's greatest strength in my opinion is their great infantry lineup, which pretty much smashes NATO with options that are both superior to NATO and the same price or CHEAPER (motostrelki vs riflemen for ex.). Mixed PACT is used mostly for NSWP infantry and transports which are awesome, otherwise its just a ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ USSR.
In response to some of the statements in your original post, PACT players are considered superior to NATO players simply because more people play NATO than PACT, and NATO attracts idiots. There is a general imbalance mostly because of mixed NATO, which is noticeably OP. PACT is definitely not as user-friendly as NATO. The balance is at least close enough that a slight advantage in player skill is enough to turn the tide to either side, but in top-level play i'd imagine PACT would be at a disadvantage.
And the infantry? Forgetting Jaegers? I can't think of a unit that can tackle them one-on-one in a fair fight... But then again war isn't fair so forget trying to fight them fairly anyway.
PACT is way more fun than NATO, i agree. the only NATO nation i enjoy as much as any PACT nation would be France.
Depending on which deck you use it can really get crazy.
Category C...[pre 1975] has the most units per card [+80%] but least number of units types.
Category B...[pre 1980] has the mid range units per card [+20%] but bit more variety
Category A...has the most variety of unts but the lowest unit counts per card.
A mixed deck[coalition]...has alot of units available...however in chosing this deck you also lose alot of flexibility, and special faction specific units and prototypes are not available. Also its generally bound by a 33 card point limit.
A national deck [nation specific]...has nation specific units and prototypes unlocked and can have point bonuses that stack to your decks advantage.
USSR-34pts
DDR-42pts.
FRG-42pts.
There is one NATO deck that has a whooping 48pts.
Then you have the bonuses based on what type of deck you have
Motorised
Armored
Mechanized
Air Assault
Airborne
Paratrooper
Marine
These give you bonuses in the cost of certain unit cards being reduced or you are able to get more cards to play with. Armored gets you more tanks...but reduces your infantry choices down to three cards only.
There is also factional differences
NATO has alot of aircraft many which are highly trained. And usually have better optics medium to good regularly on their vehicles.
PACT has alot of tanks,infantry, and artillery. Their downside is bad optics on vehicles...with the best being only being medium.
Try out playing either DDR [East Germany] or FRG [West Germany] they have 42pt decks and three choices of deck types. Motorized-cheaper planes, Armored-more tanks, Mechanized-Support/Vehicle bonuses. Also both of these units have some very varied infantry units.
However, DDR has more emphasis on Recon and Infantry with some good showings in the Armored choices.
And tons of air unit choices
also they have alot of infantry that have high veterancy levels.
They only have one attack helicopter card though.
The FRG has really devastating armor choices and some infantry variety.
Limited in the air category though. And their CV vehicles are more pricey.
Also FRG has no flamethrower infantry a critical weakpoint.
But all their infantry have high Anti-Tank capacity with their PZF-44..even their reservists!
I play PACT it requires alot more thinking out of tactics.
Just try out some of the unit in particular remember these units.
Ontos if you are playing NATO U.S.
BM-24 if you are playing PACT Poland/East Germany
Zhalo if you are playing PACT USSR
SPG-9 if you are playing PACT USSR/East Germany
KanonenJager if you are playing NATO West Germany
There are alot of unit ways to play and you will find your distinct playstyle and it will help you develope your skills.