Airows 2013 04 月 4 @ 6:28下午
pricing
am i the only one who finds it odd that the t55 is somehow more expensive than the t62s
and the bmps are more expensive compared to their higher quality Nato counterparts?
顯示 1-14,共 14 則回應
< >
Seraphim 2013 04 月 5 @ 9:30上午 
Yes I do find it odd that the t62 costs less than the t55, the t62 was actually more than twice as exspensive as the t55 in real life I heard, but I think the devlopers did this because of balance, maybe because the t55 is faster and more fuel efficeint I think, and thats why they raised the price for the t55, but I'm not sure. Now for the bmps I think they cost more because the bmp-1p i think its called carrier Konkers, and they already have a main gun that can deal with a lot of Nato's transports, rifle infantry, etc, so although Nato have high quality transports (I personally dont think they're better), they won't be able to deal with a bmp that fires rounds that can most of the time take out transports like m113s and vabs since they only carry machine guns in their transport versions.
Chris 2013 04 月 5 @ 11:30上午 
The prices were the opposite for the T55 and T62 in the previous patch. I think the main reason that it was changed is because of the speed of the T55, making it one of the most cost-efficient rush/push vehicles in great numbers. Now the T55 is not as cost-efficient and the T62 is still too slow.
Airows 2013 04 月 5 @ 12:00下午 
MetheNicksta 發表:
Yes I do find it odd that the t62 costs less than the t55, the t62 was actually more than twice as exspensive as the t55 in real life I heard, but I think the devlopers did this because of balance, maybe because the t55 is faster and more fuel efficeint I think, and thats why they raised the price for the t55, but I'm not sure. Now for the bmps I think they cost more because the bmp-1p i think its called carrier Konkers, and they already have a main gun that can deal with a lot of Nato's transports, rifle infantry, etc, so although Nato have high quality transports (I personally dont think they're better), they won't be able to deal with a bmp that fires rounds that can most of the time take out transports like m113s and vabs since they only carry machine guns in their transport versions.

m113 and vabs equivalents are those btrs
the bradley/marder would be the counterpart of bmp on nato
Dimonay 2013 04 月 5 @ 2:07下午 
Look at the german T-55
ŊЏ | Shifu 2013 04 月 6 @ 10:10上午 
And don't forget, the factions are not mirrored - so it might be a bad idea to just say: every unit must have an equal counterpart :)
KittyKitsune 2013 04 月 6 @ 2:48下午 
People who play NATO are bad, and according to forum polls about 70% of play NATO, they whined for month about how they could'n manage to stop a horde of T-55s because getting an MLRS or some Cobras were simply just too hard.
Airows 2013 04 月 6 @ 2:53下午 
KittyKitsune 發表:
People who play NATO are bad, and according to forum polls about 70% of play NATO, they whined for month about how they could'n manage to stop a horde of T-55s because getting an MLRS or some Cobras were simply just too hard.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defence_in_depth
nato doctrine emphasizes elastic defence to counter massive pact mechanized formations

yet again not alot of ppl are into military stuff, they are more used to traditonal rts strategy of massed assaults and kill/ratio as a measure of success
KittyKitsune 2013 04 月 6 @ 3:08下午 
Airows 發表:
KittyKitsune 發表:
People who play NATO are bad, and according to forum polls about 70% of play NATO, they whined for month about how they could'n manage to stop a horde of T-55s because getting an MLRS or some Cobras were simply just too hard.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defence_in_depth
nato doctrine emphasizes elastic defence to counter massive pact mechanized formations

yet again not alot of ppl are into military stuff, they are more used to traditonal rts strategy of massed assaults and kill/ratio as a measure of success

Yeah, it's silly that they changed balance because people were to lazy to make a counter strategy.
Dimonay 2013 04 月 7 @ 3:47上午 
@kitty they did not change the balance because of T-55 spam as I said before look at the german T-55 it still cost 15 so you can use that one for spam if you want to and your poll does not show anything about EE as it is for ALB and because not a lot of people have voted on it. There are two reasons why people would rather play NATO then pact in ALB 1, New nations 2, the focus on national decks pact is quite one sided and does not offer very much variety and I also think that people think that PACT minor nations will be weaker then NATO minor nations
FearNaughtSJ 2013 04 月 7 @ 1:55下午 
The reason that they changed the cost for the Soviet T-55 is because the later versions were a very cheep way of getting powerful ATGMs, hence why the NVA T-55 did not change in price.
Airows 2013 04 月 15 @ 6:59下午 
why cant they just increase the price on the t55 amvi ? keep the regular t55


Dimonay 發表:
@kitty they did not change the balance because of T-55 spam as I said before look at the german T-55 it still cost 15 so you can use that one for spam if you want to and your poll does not show anything about EE as it is for ALB and because not a lot of people have voted on it. There are two reasons why people would rather play NATO then pact in ALB 1, New nations 2, the focus on national decks pact is quite one sided and does not offer very much variety and I also think that people think that PACT minor nations will be weaker then NATO minor nations
Dimonay 2013 04 月 16 @ 9:46上午 
because then there would still be no reason to use the german T-55 as you still BOTH get all of the german T-55 version + a ATGM T-55. If you have the option to either get the T-55, the T-55am-1 and the T-55AMV-1 or only the T-55 and the T-55am-1? If you are not a idiot you will always choose the option that gives you all 3 tanks
Airows 2013 04 月 16 @ 2:34下午 
obviously i dont want to use both t55 for is vast numbers but i cant since the soviet t55 is somehow more expensive

Dimonay 發表:
because then there would still be no reason to use the german T-55 as you still BOTH get all of the german T-55 version + a ATGM T-55. If you have the option to either get the T-55, the T-55am-1 and the T-55AMV-1 or only the T-55 and the T-55am-1? If you are not a idiot you will always choose the option that gives you all 3 tanks
Max Damage 2013 04 月 17 @ 4:12下午 
Well the "t55 rush" never existed. These dont have machine guns and have armor 1-2. They fold to any amount of helicopters and easily lose to wiesels/amx10p not mentioning something bigger. The pricing went wrong with the patch and in favor of nato of course. The balancing was given to the community and most players are from nato countries so they would buff and play nato more eagerly.

Nato has super good recon(fernsparer, delta, bradley, luchs, amx10) and infantry, much better and more atgm(25 pt konkurs vs 20 pt tow, 30 pt itow, 8 shturm vs 16-24 itow), autocannon monopoly. medium tanks nothing really beats chieftain. t64a doesnt have enough ap to beat them, t64b/bm are too expensive for what they do and especially with the armor of 2, t72 works best in close range. Heavy tanks: nato heavies are better then any pact heavy bar t80u and the latter cost 160 and cant be replaced after loss plus its still a one shot target for atgm. Accuracy an stab is also better on nato units. Pact tanks would sometimes have rof of 10 but they also have lower accuracy, i think the 10 rof tanks have a slight edge in gunnery but they arent reliable to hit things NOW.

Things going for pact would be probably t80(base, bv and u), buk, igla, mot schutzen, mi26, brm1 and malka(although its not better then dana/amx, its just diffirent). BMP were thrown out of the window as were most ifvs bar the bradley.
顯示 1-14,共 14 則回應
< >
每頁: 15 30 50
張貼日期: 2013 04 月 4 @ 6:28下午
回覆: 14