Tank Balance

[Marathon]

Russian tanks are currently too strong, but they should also be cheaper and more available to maintain balance. Russian tanks were built cheaply so they could field more of them to overwhelm western defenders.

I think a few things might help even this out and make it more realistic:

1) As stated at the top, Soviet sides should get more, but cheaper tanks. Not a small quantity of super-heavies, it is just not how their doctrine worked. T-series tanks crumple in comparison to western counter parts, if you want proof look at Iraq in 1991, only 2 years after this game was set.

2) The ERA is a good idea, but should only be effective against heat rounds. KE rounds should be exempt (or something).

3) Many Russian tanks have very poor reverse speed compared to western counter parts, this isn't reflected in game.

just a few ideas which i hope provide some inspiration. Keep up the good work.

[Abashed the Devil Stood]

3. is definitely a valid point, but the Russian tank formations in the game so far are the sharpened tip of the Soviet spear. The USSR had tens of thousands of older T-72s in reserve but they are not in play at this point of the conflict/Eugen hasn't added those divisions as DLC yet.

Comparing Iraqi monkey models with Russian tanks used with full support from artillery, aircraft and the rest of the Soviet war machine is a flagrantly bad comparison.

[Marathon]

Yeah i'll take that, it isn't an exact comparison, Russian front line models would be far more competitive. My main point here is Russia's focus on quantity over quality.

[AlextheTower]

1. This is not the case for the late cold war designs - the T-80 models were very capable for their time. Sure there would be a lot of cheap tanks for most divs - but if you got the high end tanks then you could definitely compete with most Nato armor.

2. This is true aside from the ERA found on the high-end T-80s, they have 2nd gen ERA.

3. Not against this - they would need to be careful with balance here though.

[B]

They should add Thermal Optics as a special feature to NATO tanks (just as they did the ERA feature), which gives Blur tanks a boost to either aim time or optics or a little bit of both.

[EarlGrey]

I disagree about this completely. If we constantly pursue balance between nato and redfor tank forces, what will inevitably happen is a very boring game where tanks are just classified as heavy, medium, light, with a skin on them. The game is currently asymmetrically balanced. Dont try to destroy soviet tanks with tanks, thats not the NATO way. Destroy them with helicopters and planes. The best T80s are locked to a division with practically no AA and infantry that cannot grind out a battle in the forests, so bomb the every living daylights out of them, and watch out for their AA planes, which is all they have keeping you at bay. Otherwise the russian divisions dont have access to superheavies. If you are finding that a massed formation of T80BVs are ending your ♥♥♥♥, you are just allowing the enemy to develop too much combat power without blowing enough of it up over time versus your own. Your optics are better. Your TOW missile infantry are way better. Your bradleys are way better. Massed soviet armor formations should fear open-field pushes. Even in a stand up fight, M1A1 abrams and Leopard 2a3s easily hold their own against everything except T80Us and UDs, and even then, if you attack them the right way they die all the same.

[Thourq]

I don't think they're too strong just.. More like NATO's just overpriced for it's capabilities to force a faux asymmetry rather than make them asymmetric. But to answer your statements:

1. Only existed for the T-55/54 and T-72 (up to the start of the 80s) tanks. The T-80s are a different beast. With the later T-80s only being inferior to similar NATO tanks (Leopard 2A3/4 and M1A1) in base armor protection (no ERA bricks) and no thermal imagers (except for the T-80UK).

2. Incorrect. This only applies to the smaller Kontakt-1 bricks. The larger Kontakt-5 (as on the T-80U) were capable of affecting APFSDS. This is reflected in game by the armor stat bonuses they provide. Honestly tho, I don't mind how WP tanks are now, but if a change is needed I'd propose instead that ERA trait only increases HP, with the exception of tanks equipped with Kontakt-5. Tanks with this later ERA should remain as they are to represent the ability of Kontakt-5 to defeat APFSDS

3. While correct and it would be interesting to see implemented.. Not every tank has the same reverse speed and reverse acceleration, even within NATO. T-72s are notorious for having the worst of the bunch at only 4km/h, but the T-80s do have a fairly respectable 10km/h reverse speed. For simplicity I would propose that WP MBTs just reverse at half whatever the speed is currently for MBTs.

[OrangeGills]

When talking about the price of russian tanks, I think you guys are ignoring the autoloader trait that pact tanks benefit from. Yes you pay more points for the same on-paper stats of NATO tanks, but the autoloader means you can keep throwing lead downrange while NATO tanks in a protracted fight will start to have a useless RoF. While not easily quantifiable, it is definitely an advantage in tank fights.

[CPU - Normal]

Originally posted by EarlGrey:

I disagree about this completely. If we constantly pursue balance between nato and redfor tank forces, what will inevitably happen is a very boring game where tanks are just classified as heavy, medium, light, with a skin on them. The game is currently asymmetrically balanced. Dont try to destroy soviet tanks with tanks, thats not the NATO way. Destroy them with helicopters and planes. The best T80s are locked to a division with practically no AA and infantry that cannot grind out a battle in the forests, so bomb the every living daylights out of them, and watch out for their AA planes, which is all they have keeping you at bay. Otherwise the russian divisions dont have access to superheavies. If you are finding that a massed formation of T80BVs are ending your ♥♥♥♥, you are just allowing the enemy to develop too much combat power without blowing enough of it up over time versus your own. Your optics are better. Your TOW missile infantry are way better. Your bradleys are way better. Massed soviet armor formations should fear open-field pushes. Even in a stand up fight, M1A1 abrams and Leopard 2a3s easily hold their own against everything except T80Us and UDs, and even then, if you attack them the right way they die all the same.

i agree partly.. but it cant be Pact has nearly everywhere the best units .. cant be

best Tank ATM , best ATGM plane .. a10 cant consistenttly kill T80ud .. SU25 can kill everything ...

[molnibalage]

Originally posted by Marathon:

Russian tanks are currently too strong, but they should also be cheaper and more available to maintain balance. Russian tanks were built cheaply so they could field more of them to overwhelm western defenders.

I think a few things might help even this out and make it more realistic:

1) As stated at the top, Soviet sides should get more, but cheaper tanks. Not a small quantity of super-heavies, it is just not how their doctrine worked. T-series tanks crumple in comparison to western counter parts, if you want proof look at Iraq in 1991, only 2 years after this game was set.

2) The ERA is a good idea, but should only be effective against heat rounds. KE rounds should be exempt (or something).

3) Many Russian tanks have very poor reverse speed compared to western counter parts, this isn't reflected in game.

just a few ideas which i hope provide some inspiration. Keep up the good work.

1. Nope. This is a game and not a economy simulator. BTW the Soviet tanks were not so cheap as many ppl think...

2. This is not a simulator

3. Not many ALL. It is 100% insane that the reverse speed is the same for EVERY vehicles as the forward speed.

[Marek]

1. Nope. This is a game and not a economy simulator. BTW the Soviet tanks were not so cheap as many ppl think...
Truth soviets tank not cheap just not...Btw soviets refleks still nerfed fine beacuse i dont wanna see like nato kids cry.

[AlextheTower]

Originally posted by Marek:

Btw soviets refleks still nerfed fine beacuse i dont wanna see like nato kids cry.

Whats wrong with Refleks?

[Marek]

Originally posted by AlextheTower:

Originally posted by Marek:

Btw soviets refleks still nerfed fine beacuse i dont wanna see like nato kids cry.

Whats wrong with Refleks?

Acurracy

[Amormaliar]

Originally posted by CPU - Normal:

Originally posted by EarlGrey:

I disagree about this completely. If we constantly pursue balance between nato and redfor tank forces, what will inevitably happen is a very boring game where tanks are just classified as heavy, medium, light, with a skin on them. The game is currently asymmetrically balanced. Dont try to destroy soviet tanks with tanks, thats not the NATO way. Destroy them with helicopters and planes. The best T80s are locked to a division with practically no AA and infantry that cannot grind out a battle in the forests, so bomb the every living daylights out of them, and watch out for their AA planes, which is all they have keeping you at bay. Otherwise the russian divisions dont have access to superheavies. If you are finding that a massed formation of T80BVs are ending your ♥♥♥♥, you are just allowing the enemy to develop too much combat power without blowing enough of it up over time versus your own. Your optics are better. Your TOW missile infantry are way better. Your bradleys are way better. Massed soviet armor formations should fear open-field pushes. Even in a stand up fight, M1A1 abrams and Leopard 2a3s easily hold their own against everything except T80Us and UDs, and even then, if you attack them the right way they die all the same.

i agree partly.. but it cant be Pact has nearly everywhere the best units .. cant be

best Tank ATM , best ATGM plane .. a10 cant consistenttly kill T80ud .. SU25 can kill everything ...

Nonsense, A-10 much better than Su-25

[Thourq]

Originally posted by OrangeGills:

When talking about the price of russian tanks, I think you guys are ignoring the autoloader trait that pact tanks benefit from. Yes you pay more points for the same on-paper stats of NATO tanks, but the autoloader means you can keep throwing lead downrange while NATO tanks in a protracted fight will start to have a useless RoF. While not easily quantifiable, it is definitely an advantage in tank fights.

IIRC, NATO MBTs really shine when vetted over WP MBTs because of the same autoloader. Sadly, you can't take advantage of it because of how small the availability pool is, making it not really worthwhile to get veterancy for some units.

[CPU - Normal]

pact has aleady to much accuracy