简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
Help us translate Steam
Wargame: European Escalation
Wargame: European Escalation
Dec 31, 2012 @ 10:39am
Strategy for NATO and PACT?
How do general broad strategies differ playing as NATO or PACT? What and the pros and cons for each side?
Dec 31, 2012 @ 11:13am
In my opinion, PACT has better units. The AA is better for sure, the tanks are cheap and have nice AT, and the logistics are great.
Dec 31, 2012 @ 12:36pm
Just as a sweeping, general comment, I'd say that NATO units are better at attacking on the move, while PACT units are a bit better at defensive attacking. Also, It seems that PACT has cheaper units, so you can spread more of them on the battlefield.
Dec 31, 2012 @ 5:44pm
Pact in my opinion have superior Logistics capabilities, the Mi-26 has a cargo capacity of 5000L, even more than 2 Super Chinooks. Some may argue that it is necessary since with the Pact you sometimes need more supplies because your units are cheaper, but I think it is a positive cost to worth ratio.
Recon is probably about the same for both sides, they both have similar units with similar abilities.
Tanks I think can be broken into 2 categories, High level and Low Level. NATO I think has the advantage in High Level Tanks, since they have more of them, presuming you have the points, you can field 4 x Challengers, 4 x Leopard 2A4s, 4 x M1A1 Abrams. Pact have T-80s and T-72Bs, but you only get 2 of each of the good variants of the T-80s.
Low Level Tanks I think the Pact has the advantage though, the T-72 is perhaps my favourite for its low cost, NATO has some good stuff as well, but PACT units generally come in larger numbers and are cheaper to field. In general NATO tanks have better optics and stabilisers though, so they are much more effective when firing on the move.
For Infantry I think I like NATO the most, since you can get your SAM Infantry and ATGM Infantry in IFVs such as the M2 Bradley or the Marder 1, which gives those Infantry some extra fire support, Pact only get their Konkurs and IGLA in BTRs, which in my opinion are only useful as Taxis. On the other hand, Pact have some interesting advantages in Airbourne Infantry, since you can take Mi-24s as transport options for their Paratroopers and Special forces.
In support, Pact definitely has the advantage in my opinion, they have a wider selection of Artillery, and their AA vehicles are more effective all around, such as the Tunguska having both cannons and missiles, something every NATO vehicle of that role lacks.
For Helicopters, I think I like PACT most, NATOs units such as the Apache are more refined, but I find they can't really compete with the brute force aspect of the PACT Helicopters, I don't use Mi-28s because I regard them as too pricey, but I find them superior to Apaches in practice because they have double the amount of ATGMs. NATO has a lot of good ATGM Helicopters such as the Lynx AH.1 TOW, most of them are very specialised though, and I tend to prefer ones like the Mi-24 that can multitask.
In general I think the game accurately reflects the Military Doctrines of both sides during the cold war. The PACT's general plan was massed Assaults of Tanks and IFVs, supported by a lot of artillery and mobile AA units. NATO was planning on practising elastic defence against the PACTs superior numbers.
Dec 31, 2012 @ 11:11pm
Excellent comments, thanks!
Owen5ray, American to the Bone
Jan 1 @ 10:26am
My tactics for NATO hardly even use tanks for more than a defensive role. NATO's capability, in my opinion- revolves around their infantry, and their short ranged artillery.
Despite the lack of a Burantino type unit -short ranged MLRS- I still find the MLRS of the NATO to be quite effective to use at the front line. The last round I played, I took 3 MLRSes, they were spamming arty and infantry in BTRs- and just obliterated their force, their art could not get a bead on me since I kept the MLRS batteries moving, and in the end I blew away their defenses and we killed all of their CVs.
Apr 1 @ 3:28pm
NATO is better for defending, PACT is good for rushes but can be lacking in the tank department. NATO rely on fewer, better units, I usually use a lot of MBT's as they are a lot better than the PACT ones and PACT players often rush with massed light units.
Apr 1 @ 3:35pm
If it's ground rushes then NATO is better then PACT
Apr 1 @ 3:38pm
In my honest opinion it's more about the map then the factions so I am shamelessly going to promote my own (not yet finished) tread
Apr 1 @ 3:40pm
But of course the different factions plays a bit differently
Apr 4 @ 6:30pm
i used to have a strategy for pact using mechanized inf but the pricing on the bmps ♥♥♥♥ed it all up
Per page: 15
Dec 31, 2012 @ 10:39am
Start a new discussion
Discussions Rules and Guidelines
© Valve Corporation. All rights reserved. All trademarks are property of their respective owners in the US and other countries.
Some geospatial data on this website is provided by
Steam Subscriber Agreement
Report this post
Note: This is ONLY to be used to report spam, advertising, and problematic (harassment, fighting, or rude) posts.