ATGM balance?

[GAINSB]

Nato can destroy a T80 column with an ambushed Bradley or a couple Milan2
And the brits are getting a Milan 2 Ifv
There's absolutely nothing to do to stop a nato doomstack as you cant destroy a nato column with the horrible konkurs.
Every time pact has some kind of advantage, may it be historical, it gets nerfed.
Can we get some atgm balance?

It's not about being able to destroy a nato column or not, ofc its doable, but nothing pact has can do it half as efficiently and cheaply as TOW2 and Milan2, it's time for this huge imbalance to get fixed

[Bean]

Pact tanks are pretty good at defending for a similar cost, if you are playing a deck without tanks, they will probably at least have a 100mm at gun with an ATGM, that's also pretty good.

Also, use recon and fire support to defeat ambushes.

[Delle(DK)]

personaly i think atgm missiles are good and deadly.. The way to fight them are to use citys and forrest and other things to block their line of sight and get closer and then kill them vs long range combat.. It work for both patch and nato to reduce the distance.

( how good the atgm are is especially visible in the bruderkrig campaign as nato. In the first battle if you place the bradlys right and shoot at max distance you can get hough the first match only loosing a few bradlys while the bradlys that survive kill like +15 vehicles each.
That is kind of impressive.

But i dont know who has the best Atgm missiles, i honestly think they are tough and to be avoided at all cost if you want to defend. Dont risk your tanks, take and alternative route and shorten the distance vs long range fighting.

[GAINSB]

Originally posted by Bean:

Pact tanks are pretty good at defending for a similar cost, if you are playing a deck without tanks, they will probably at least have a 100mm at gun with an ATGM, that's also pretty good.

Also, use recon and fire support to defeat ambushes.

The 100mm gun take out 1 dmg in the front of an M1A1
The TOW2 takes 5 or 6 dmg from a T80BV
How can you even compare those?

[Marek]

Originally posted by GAINSB:

Originally posted by Bean:

Pact tanks are pretty good at defending for a similar cost, if you are playing a deck without tanks, they will probably at least have a 100mm at gun with an ATGM, that's also pretty good.

Also, use recon and fire support to defeat ambushes.

The 100mm gun take out 1 dmg in the front of an M1A1
The TOW2 takes 5 or 6 dmg from a T80BV
How can you even compare those?

When it's a pact, it's historic but nato oooo this is balance.
I will not mention the unrealistic and inaccurate penetration of M1A1 HA.
Milan 2 also has unreal penetration, but that's not enough, you can call a large number of them for that.

[GAINSB]

Originally posted by Delle(DK):

personaly i think atgm missiles are good and deadly.. The way to fight them are to use citys and forrest and other things to block their line of sight and get closer and then kill them vs long range combat.. It work for both patch and nato to reduce the distance.

( how good the atgm are is especially visible in the bruderkrig campaign as nato. In the first battle if you place the bradlys right and shoot at max distance you can get hough the first match only loosing a few bradlys while the bradlys that survive kill like +15 vehicles each.
That is kind of impressive.

But i dont know who has the best Atgm missiles, i honestly think they are tough and to be avoided at all cost if you want to defend. Dont risk your tanks, take and alternative route and shorten the distance vs long range fighting.

A full ammo Konkurs will on average not destroy a nato heavy with its 6 missiles
While a TOW2 can destroy one and put another out of combat with its full ammo

[Kamikaze Velociraptor]

Pact tanks have atgm. Also don't blindly send your tanks into battle without recon. NATO atgm spam is to combat Pact zerg rush.

[Vindicare]

How many threads with this exact same issue did you create already? Just comparing ATGMs is somewhat misleading, given that Pact divisions tend to be stronger in other fields. The framework of comparision should be overall balance between divisions, not a 1 to 1 comparision of NATO and Pact ATGM capability. Ofc it can be possible that at some point an overall ATGM buff is necessary, but it may not be, if the respective division has clear strengths in other areas or gets access to units, which fullfil a similar role. Right now, I don't see Pact underperforming, and even if it does at some point ATGMs may not be the main reason for that.

[thugnightly]

You dont have to use ATGMs or tanks to kill nato stacks. I ususally will just delete them with AT planes or ambush them with infantry. Basically just dont give them anything to shoot and and let them over extend. Then just clean them up with planes or rockets and drive your tanks foward.

You must be new.

[Ahriman]

Pact has better and more plentiful artillery on average, and even has the fastest ATGM in the game available to them, as a side note.

Every ground unit that has the TOW-2 or MILAN-2 is squishy, you have guns that can fire across the map with precision thanks to great Recon options, do the math. Shouldn't be that hard.

HA is available to a singular deck that has practically no Infantry that can compete against the average Pact Infantry selection outside of the 119, and in that comp, you have a tank that can duel them, as well as take hits from TOW-2s directly and still comfortably retreat for repairs, followed by shelling the positions those TOWs came from.

In the biz, this is called Asymmetrical balance, which means that you don't have both sides be identical, but have their own strengths and weaknesses to create more interesting gameplay. Just because you personally either refuse to learn and use the strengths you do have to overcome the opposition by exploiting their weaknesses does not mean there is a balance problem. This thread is debated to death ages ago, same as the 'T-80UD broken, delete from the game' threads.

[Squash]

Problem with armor is that this game doesn't simulate difference between kinetic and chemical warheads.
Konkurs should have 24 pen (same as Milan 2), cause in this game it's roughly 1 inch of RHA - 1 pen.
But original M1 had protection equivalent to 650 mm of RHA against. M1A1 improved it. M1A1 with DU inserts is far better.
So Konkurs wouldn't be terribly effective against them, frontally.
And this is kinda simulated in the game, isn't it?
To be fair tho, Milan 2 should have similar performance against Soviet tanks, true.

[Marek]

if the t-80 ud is broken, what about the M1A1 HA?

[Ahriman]

Originally posted by Marek:

if the t-80 ud is broken, what about the M1A1 HA?

That's the fun part, neither is broken. Both can be countered, and both are limited to single Division with glaring weakness to exploit. They only are a problem to people that don't know or don't want to learn how to fight them.

[Grant]

Originally posted by GAINSB:

Nato can destroy a T80 column with an ambushed Bradley or a couple Milan2
And the brits are getting a Milan 2 Ifv
There's absolutely nothing to do to stop a nato doomstack as you cant destroy a nato column with the horrible konkurs.
Every time pact has some kind of advantage, may it be historical, it gets nerfed.
Can we get some atgm balance?

It's not about being able to destroy a nato column or not, ofc its doable, but nothing pact has can do it half as efficiently and cheaply as TOW2 and Milan2, it's time for this huge imbalance to get fixed

The attackers always have the disadvantage unless they have air superiority or a lot of artillery support. PACT have a lot of rocket artillery that can pin large areas. The Allies have superior cannon artillery to snipe critical units.
Also, the NATO have stronger ATGM, but the PACT have longer range ATGM. Tor infantry ATGM units, the Mentis squad is far superior to the US dragon squads.

[Marek]

Originally posted by Grant:

Originally posted by GAINSB:

Nato can destroy a T80 column with an ambushed Bradley or a couple Milan2
And the brits are getting a Milan 2 Ifv
There's absolutely nothing to do to stop a nato doomstack as you cant destroy a nato column with the horrible konkurs.
Every time pact has some kind of advantage, may it be historical, it gets nerfed.
Can we get some atgm balance?

It's not about being able to destroy a nato column or not, ofc its doable, but nothing pact has can do it half as efficiently and cheaply as TOW2 and Milan2, it's time for this huge imbalance to get fixed

The attackers always have the disadvantage unless they have air superiority or a lot of artillery support. PACT have a lot of rocket artillery that can pin large areas. The Allies have superior cannon artillery to snipe critical units.
Also, the NATO have stronger ATGM, but the PACT have longer range ATGM. Tor infantry ATGM units, the Mentis squad is far superior to the US dragon squads.

No metis is really not better like dragon 2- Metis m is something different.