Fulda Gap Campaign PACT weak?

[Curcă]

I'm playing as PACT during the Fulda Gap, and it seems that the pact is really weak in terms of what individual units can do. It took 6 konkurs to kill one abrams, as you can guess it takes a bit to coordinate that many attacking units getting them into firing range from a semi protected position so they don't get 1 shotted. They often die or get stunned while rockets travel so I'm losing stomach just keeping them there until they hit.

The AI is dumb so i can rush 2 capture points and basically bunk up to wait for their push, bruise them and then maybe counterattack. The problem is counterattack with what? T55 has to get really close because they can't pen. Bmp 1s suck, yes i can mass them for a huge charge but by the next battle i won't be able to repeat that because i lose so many to abrams/Bradleys.

I'm also forced to use massive amounts of artillery which i like but is very costly and hard to pin down enemy armor long enough to get a shot on them and even when i do they're only half damaged by a barrage from 2-3 artys. I know I'm not very good at this game but it doesn't make sense for the attackers to be so weak. I also can't just maneuver around and flank because while the map is big it doesn't offer much, a couple Bradleys and Abrams in some wooded area can kill off or severely weaken a formation coming at them even after I've barraged the whole sector with 12 artys and used smoke from mortars.

You're also pressured by time because you can't play around flanking / killing off enemies, you're forced to take and hold one of 4 points. How do you guys play as PACT because for me even when I win it leaves a sour taste, like I'm playing the Soviet Union in a propaganda film just sending human waves to die until the heroic Americans get bored and leave.

[CORRIDA]

I think its an AI issue, which really sucks since realese
I played as Nato against a equally skilled friend and i was lacking units left and right.

For me it feels like Nato is too weak, maybe the rest of the 5th Panzer should appear as well, like in Bruderkrieg

[Červajz]

Soviet troops have worse equipment than they actually had in 1989, probably due to balance. NATO troops have better equipment than in 1989. I think it's all for better gameplay so that Soviet troops don't win too easily.

[oddball]

So let me get this straight. You’re upset that you have to play PACT historically in the Fulda scenario? That rather than simply mowing down the Amerikanski with stalinium plated T-55 you must use arty spam, ATGMs and mass?

I mean… ok? May want to look for a different game tho 😂

[SlavicName]

Originally posted by oddball:

So let me get this straight. You’re upset that you have to play PACT historically in the Fulda scenario? That rather than simply mowing down the Amerikanski with stalinium plated T-55 you must use arty spam, ATGMs and mass?

I mean… ok? May want to look for a different game tho 😂

This

[Grant]

Originally posted by Červajz:

Soviet troops have worse equipment than they actually had in 1989, probably due to balance. NATO troops have better equipment than in 1989. I think it's all for better gameplay so that Soviet troops don't win too easily.

Ah, no. The General campaigns are organized base on known PACT and NATO war plans. The less well-equipped East German divisions were designated to take the Fulda Gap.
Moreover, the game totally does the opposite. In real life, NATO would have been able to field far more F-15s and F-16s than the PACT had of SU-27s and MIG-29s.
The Soviets/Russian also produced only a single T-80UM as a prototype in the 1990s (after when the game is based) before deciding to ditch it for the T-90.
From 1984 to 1997, the Soviet/former Soviet block produced a whopping 3000 T-80U (rough estimate). Meanwhile, the US pump out 4,800 to 5,000 M1A1 Abrams between 1986 and 1992.
In other words, if Eugene went full historical, most of PACT BGs would have mostly older T-80s, T-62s, and T-55s versus mostly M1A1 Abrams decks.

[Curcă]

Originally posted by oddball:

So let me get this straight. You’re upset that you have to play PACT historically in the Fulda scenario? That rather than simply mowing down the Amerikanski with stalinium plated T-55 you must use arty spam, ATGMs and mass?

I mean… ok? May want to look for a different game tho 😂

No. What I'm saying is that map design is pretty bad and pushes me into choke points/ capture points where the NATO battalions have clear advantages. Sure i can mass but the PACT doctrine focused on maneuverability all along the front, not time limited rushes into a randomly designated point.

Just to clarify it's not a skill issue, I'm not having difficulty beating the NATO battalions, in fact they could use some reinforcements or buff to numbers because the campaign is really short. I'm saying it's not as enjoyable as it could be because of the constraints.

[oddball]

Originally posted by Curcă:

Originally posted by oddball:

So let me get this straight. You’re upset that you have to play PACT historically in the Fulda scenario? That rather than simply mowing down the Amerikanski with stalinium plated T-55 you must use arty spam, ATGMs and mass?

I mean… ok? May want to look for a different game tho 😂

No. What I'm saying is that map design is pretty bad and pushes me into choke points/ capture points where the NATO battalions have clear advantages. Sure i can mass but the PACT doctrine focused on maneuverability all along the front, not time limited rushes into a randomly designated point.

Just to clarify it's not a skill issue, I'm not having difficulty beating the NATO battalions, in fact they could use some reinforcements or buff to numbers because the campaign is really short. I'm saying it's not as enjoyable as it could be because of the constraints.

Well this may shock you but Fulda is a narrow valley and the plan for NATO was to canalize PACT movements through it so that they could attrit the bleeding edge while avoiding the full force of the Soviet thrust until CENTAG could fully mobilize.

The Soviet plan was to feint at Fulda to draw away NATO while sending the main thrust through the plains of North Germany which are of course ideal open tank country.

[SlavicName]

Originally posted by Grant:

Originally posted by Červajz:

Soviet troops have worse equipment than they actually had in 1989, probably due to balance. NATO troops have better equipment than in 1989. I think it's all for better gameplay so that Soviet troops don't win too easily.

Ah, no. The General campaigns are organized base on known PACT and NATO war plans. The less well-equipped East German divisions were designated to take the Fulda Gap.
Moreover, the game totally does the opposite. In real life, NATO would have been able to field far more F-15s and F-16s than the PACT had of SU-27s and MIG-29s.
The Soviets/Russian also produced only a single T-80UM as a prototype in the 1990s (after when the game is based) before deciding to ditch it for the T-90.
From 1984 to 1997, the Soviet/former Soviet block produced a whopping 3000 T-80U (rough estimate). Meanwhile, the US pump out 4,800 to 5,000 M1A1 Abrams between 1986 and 1992.
In other words, if Eugene went full historical, most of PACT BGs would have mostly older T-80s, T-62s, and T-55s versus mostly M1A1 Abrams decks.

Also this.

[Fungus Cobb]

You can just auto resolve all battles if you don´t have the guts for the authentic Warsaw Pact experience lmao. I find NATO to be much more tedious and boring to play.

[Curcă]

Originally posted by oddball:

Originally posted by Curcă:

No. What I'm saying is that map design is pretty bad and pushes me into choke points/ capture points where the NATO battalions have clear advantages. Sure i can mass but the PACT doctrine focused on maneuverability all along the front, not time limited rushes into a randomly designated point.

Just to clarify it's not a skill issue, I'm not having difficulty beating the NATO battalions, in fact they could use some reinforcements or buff to numbers because the campaign is really short. I'm saying it's not as enjoyable as it could be because of the constraints.

Well this may shock you but Fulda is a narrow valley and the plan for NATO was to canalize PACT movements through it so that they could attrit the bleeding edge while avoiding the full force of the Soviet thrust until CENTAG could fully mobilize.

The Soviet plan was to feint at Fulda to draw away NATO while sending the main thrust through the plains of North Germany which are of course ideal open tank country.

If the campaign didn't have the same 5-6 recycled maps for all scenarios I'd agree with you. Besides, why can't we have different victory conditions for battles? Such as one big point to capture in the middle of even no point just mass killing until one side withdraws? Yes we have morale but the overwhelming imperative is the same: hold 2/3 points for set amount of time. Works for multiplayer but campaign can do better.

[Červajz]

Originally posted by Grant:

Originally posted by Červajz:

Soviet troops have worse equipment than they actually had in 1989, probably due to balance. NATO troops have better equipment than in 1989. I think it's all for better gameplay so that Soviet troops don't win too easily.

Ah, no. The General campaigns are organized base on known PACT and NATO war plans. The less well-equipped East German divisions were designated to take the Fulda Gap.
Moreover, the game totally does the opposite. In real life, NATO would have been able to field far more F-15s and F-16s than the PACT had of SU-27s and MIG-29s.
The Soviets/Russian also produced only a single T-80UM as a prototype in the 1990s (after when the game is based) before deciding to ditch it for the T-90.
From 1984 to 1997, the Soviet/former Soviet block produced a whopping 3000 T-80U (rough estimate). Meanwhile, the US pump out 4,800 to 5,000 M1A1 Abrams between 1986 and 1992.
In other words, if Eugene went full historical, most of PACT BGs would have mostly older T-80s, T-62s, and T-55s versus mostly M1A1 Abrams decks.

I absolutely do not understand the meaning of your post. Who is talking about T-80UM, T-90 or SU27 here? Find out something about the real situation and from 1989 and then write something here. So why do the Soviets have, for example, MIG-23s in the game for units that have actually already been rearmed to MIG-29s? Why, on the other hand, do the Americans have F-15E in a unit where there were only F-15C? And there are many such examples.

[Newbie4life!!!]

Putting aside all the historical facts, in terms of gameplay, pact is ALOT easier on any army general and so far I've beat 4 scenarios (starting from top to bottom) on elite for both factions.

Russian divisions are self sustainable, meaning a tank division will always have a company of mechanised infantry with AA and artillery; while a mechanised division will always have a company of t-80 tanks, aa, and artillery. The only division that is like that for NATO is the US armored CAV division, which is rare to have. I have seen one german division in the left hook but it has weaker leopard 1 tanks in it's mech division and no artillery.

For some reason russian divisions aren't equipped with t-55, t-62, t-70, etc, they only have t-80 tanks which are better than all NATO tanks except maybe the m1a1 series and I'd argue they are still comparable.

Most russian infantry are equipped with rpg7VL or rpg7vr, easily can take out or atleast half hp all nato premium tanks. Nato mostly has M72 Law, PFaust 44, or RL-83, all of which will barely damage a T-80 frontally (14pen vs 17-20). If you're lucky you will have ghurkas with law 80 which is very rare. Also another big thing is russian BMPs being equipped with konkurs ATGM. So even simple troop transports are lethal or atleast deterrents to NATO tanks.

Even helo divisions aren't equal, a russian helo div will always have everything you need from fire support, AT, to even AA. NATO will usually have AT and fire support but no AA, some might not even have fire support (rockets). Not to mention russian helos have more hp and have armor which is funny considering russian divisions have tunguska, strelas, and Iglas in both mech and tank divs (don't get me started on fliegerfaust).

For fulda gap, the east germans are weak, alot more compared to the russian, but I still remember destroying the american armored cav division. I forgot what I did but I probably baited the abrams to get close to my mob of T-55 with it's atgm and then I'd bum rush the abram. I'd also have the konkurs atgm jeeps behind the tanks to shoot at the abrams. The abrams doesn't have the range to hit the konkurs and it'll prioritise killing the T-55s first. If you have air support with ATGMs even better, have them loitering before the fight so you don't lose units while it's "travelling". Remember to always have a recon unit with them so it spots the bradleys.

[bucks]

why would the ♥♥♥♥♥♥ attack if they thought they were in a weaker position in this what-if scenario??? do you think they'd just march to their deaths? ww3 is attrition style warfare as we've seen in the SMO

[Marek]

Originally posted by Červajz:

Originally posted by Grant:

Ah, no. The General campaigns are organized base on known PACT and NATO war plans. The less well-equipped East German divisions were designated to take the Fulda Gap.
Moreover, the game totally does the opposite. In real life, NATO would have been able to field far more F-15s and F-16s than the PACT had of SU-27s and MIG-29s.
The Soviets/Russian also produced only a single T-80UM as a prototype in the 1990s (after when the game is based) before deciding to ditch it for the T-90.
From 1984 to 1997, the Soviet/former Soviet block produced a whopping 3000 T-80U (rough estimate). Meanwhile, the US pump out 4,800 to 5,000 M1A1 Abrams between 1986 and 1992.
In other words, if Eugene went full historical, most of PACT BGs would have mostly older T-80s, T-62s, and T-55s versus mostly M1A1 Abrams decks.

I absolutely do not understand the meaning of your post. Who is talking about T-80UM, T-90 or SU27 here? Find out something about the real situation and from 1989 and then write something here. So why do the Soviets have, for example, MIG-23s in the game for units that have actually already been rearmed to MIG-29s? Why, on the other hand, do the Americans have F-15E in a unit where there were only F-15C? And there are many such examples.

+1

[Grant]

Originally posted by Červajz:

Originally posted by Grant:

Ah, no. The General campaigns are organized base on known PACT and NATO war plans. The less well-equipped East German divisions were designated to take the Fulda Gap.
Moreover, the game totally does the opposite. In real life, NATO would have been able to field far more F-15s and F-16s than the PACT had of SU-27s and MIG-29s.
The Soviets/Russian also produced only a single T-80UM as a prototype in the 1990s (after when the game is based) before deciding to ditch it for the T-90.
From 1984 to 1997, the Soviet/former Soviet block produced a whopping 3000 T-80U (rough estimate). Meanwhile, the US pump out 4,800 to 5,000 M1A1 Abrams between 1986 and 1992.
In other words, if Eugene went full historical, most of PACT BGs would have mostly older T-80s, T-62s, and T-55s versus mostly M1A1 Abrams decks.

I absolutely do not understand the meaning of your post. Who is talking about T-80UM, T-90 or SU27 here? Find out something about the real situation and from 1989 and then write something here. So why do the Soviets have, for example, MIG-23s in the game for units that have actually already been rearmed to MIG-29s? Why, on the other hand, do the Americans have F-15E in a unit where there were only F-15C? And there are many such examples.

Why do the Sovets have a full squadron of KA-50s in 1989 when it didn't enter service until 1990 and most being produced later (a mere 18-19) in the mid to late 1990s?
Again, why do the Soviets get numerous T-80UM in General Army when like I stated only one prototype was ever produced in the 1990s?
Why do the NATO are limited in numbers for F-15cs and F-16Cs to be equal to the PACT MiG-29 and SU-27 when in real life they had a lot more?
Wow, almost like PACT get the same treatment. Only difference is the US part is actually possible while the PACT is pure fictional, hence debunking the claim that Eugene favors NATO.