Wargame: AirLand Battle

Wargame: AirLand Battle

Visa statistik:
Nato v Pact
There's only been one game so far where I've seen Pact win a match. Or at least that I can remember anyway. But I can't help but wonder why. Is there a genuine imbalance in the game or the players? Does the majority of people favour Nato and therefore suck as Pact or is Pact actually underpowered and shouldn't be played as in serious games? Considering how well battles don't go for them I'm beginning to think the latter personally...
Senast ändrad av Sergeant Ballache; 10 mar, 2014 @ 7:24
< >
Visar 1-15 av 15 kommentarer
The game is balanced. It`s only you. Winning a match mostly depends on the players skill. Most people tend to play Nato for unknown reasons.
Celmeo 10 mar, 2014 @ 8:37 
What kind of games are you playing? If you are playing solely 10v10 tactical, Nato tends to have an advantage there. (the advantage nearly entirely due to nighthawk - as tactical games bringing in more lightly armoured troops that can be bombed and more players mean poorer coordination between players setting up air defence networks and recon networks)

In larger games, it is balanced. You probably just were just unlucky to meet weak pact players.
Senast ändrad av Celmeo; 10 mar, 2014 @ 8:37
McMacky 10 mar, 2014 @ 12:01 
They are balanced, but some people are better at one faction than another as they have different strengths and weaknesses. People seem to want to play Nato more than Pact, and I find Nato minors are more interesting to play than Pact ones as they have a more unique flavor, while most Pact nations (Czech especially) play like the USSR, just worse.
Nowadays I tend to play larger games 10 v 10 tactical with randoms or smaller, more typical games with my friends. Since the overwhelming opinion is that the game is balanced I'll look to improving my strategies and read through some guides. Anywhere anyone can recommend?
It's definately balanced. Of course not everything is. In my opinion Nato has better planes and infantry, but Pact has better tanks, especially the low cost ones compared to their nato counter parts. Plus I think Pact has a hell of a lot more ATGM choices compared to Nato.

As mentioned Nato does seem to win 10 v 10 tactical games a lot. When you have little to no AA or fighters "Night Hawk > Everything Else"

I do prefer Nato to Pact though, I mostly play as the British ( which to me seem like a medium nation, good stuff like USA, Germany, but lacking quite a bit. namely SEAD, flame infantry, ATGMs, and some better APC's.)

i play pact almost everytime and win like 7 out of 10 times :D it is balanced
Hmm, I wonder if there any Nato v Nato tactical servers...
Uncle Urkel 13 mar, 2014 @ 14:04 
The general concensus is that mixed NATO and USA are equal or superior to USSR, with mixed PACT worse than all of them (but still viable). The game is far more balanced than it used to be, but still NATO has a slight edge, but not enough to influence win rates very much I don't think.

Very generally speaking, NATO has far superior aircraft and helicopter options in pretty much every category (except perhaps ATGM planes), more cost effective tanks, cheaper heli transport options, inferior infantry in top-end performance and cost-effectiveness in most categories, far more cost effective AA vehicles (marder roland 2 and AMX roland 3), and generally fast, cheap transport options like 5 point 150km/h vehicles.

USSR offers top end performance in tank, support, and vehicle categories but are less cost effective. They also offer unique units that NATO has no direct counterpart to (BMP-T, TOS-1, Ka-50 Akula, hind transports.etc), but again, these are considered unnecessary and cost-ineffective. USSR's greatest strength in my opinion is their great infantry lineup, which pretty much smashes NATO with options that are both superior to NATO and the same price or CHEAPER (motostrelki vs riflemen for ex.). Mixed PACT is used mostly for NSWP infantry and transports which are awesome, otherwise its just a ♥♥♥♥♥ier USSR.

In response to some of the statements in your original post, PACT players are considered superior to NATO players simply because more people play NATO than PACT, and NATO attracts idiots. There is a general imbalance mostly because of mixed NATO, which is noticeably OP. PACT is definitely not as user-friendly as NATO. The balance is at least close enough that a slight advantage in player skill is enough to turn the tide to either side, but in top-level play i'd imagine PACT would be at a disadvantage.
Senast ändrad av Uncle Urkel; 13 mar, 2014 @ 14:13
I guess being spammed by planes isn't much fun for PACT. Still trying to work out how to avoid those damned things when they have a recon advantage. The balancing you're talking about seems logical but mixed PACT is bad? RUS > PACT?
And the infantry? Forgetting Jaegers? I can't think of a unit that can tackle them one-on-one in a fair fight... But then again war isn't fair so forget trying to fight them fairly anyway.
WantaFanta 13 mar, 2014 @ 18:03 
idk if the game is balanced properly... nowhere near enough game time to input my feelings there.... but i will say playing with a PACT deck is far more fun in my opinion
Uncle Urkel 13 mar, 2014 @ 20:04 
Ursprungligen skrivet av TFKWantaFanta:
idk if the game is balanced properly... nowhere near enough game time to input my feelings there.... but i will say playing with a PACT deck is far more fun in my opinion

PACT is way more fun than NATO, i agree. the only NATO nation i enjoy as much as any PACT nation would be France.
PACT is overpowered. End of story. They can be beat, but if you're playing good PACT players it's tough and not much fun. If you are good and play against good NATO plays it's a rout.

Traffic Conez 13 mar, 2014 @ 22:55 
More people tend to play NATO more than PACT. Its mainly because NATO has more variety and playstyles to accomadate for new players who eventually settle into playing NATO
Tachyon 14 mar, 2014 @ 21:45 
PACT has nice anti-air. Switch off the Radar guns on your Tunguska's so they don't attract Anti-Radar planes. You can use the missiles instead.
The game has dynamic variations of gameplay in it.

Depending on which deck you use it can really get crazy.
Category C...[pre 1975] has the most units per card [+80%] but least number of units types.
Category B...[pre 1980] has the mid range units per card [+20%] but bit more variety
Category A...has the most variety of unts but the lowest unit counts per card.

A mixed deck[coalition]...has alot of units available...however in chosing this deck you also lose alot of flexibility, and special faction specific units and prototypes are not available. Also its generally bound by a 33 card point limit.

A national deck [nation specific]...has nation specific units and prototypes unlocked and can have point bonuses that stack to your decks advantage.
There is one NATO deck that has a whooping 48pts.

Then you have the bonuses based on what type of deck you have
Air Assault

These give you bonuses in the cost of certain unit cards being reduced or you are able to get more cards to play with. Armored gets you more tanks...but reduces your infantry choices down to three cards only.

There is also factional differences
NATO has alot of aircraft many which are highly trained. And usually have better optics medium to good regularly on their vehicles.
PACT has alot of tanks,infantry, and artillery. Their downside is bad optics on vehicles...with the best being only being medium.

Try out playing either DDR [East Germany] or FRG [West Germany] they have 42pt decks and three choices of deck types. Motorized-cheaper planes, Armored-more tanks, Mechanized-Support/Vehicle bonuses. Also both of these units have some very varied infantry units.

However, DDR has more emphasis on Recon and Infantry with some good showings in the Armored choices.
And tons of air unit choices
also they have alot of infantry that have high veterancy levels.
They only have one attack helicopter card though.

The FRG has really devastating armor choices and some infantry variety.
Limited in the air category though. And their CV vehicles are more pricey.
Also FRG has no flamethrower infantry a critical weakpoint.
But all their infantry have high Anti-Tank capacity with their PZF-44..even their reservists!

I play PACT it requires alot more thinking out of tactics.

Just try out some of the unit in particular remember these units.
Ontos if you are playing NATO U.S.
BM-24 if you are playing PACT Poland/East Germany
Zhalo if you are playing PACT USSR
SPG-9 if you are playing PACT USSR/East Germany
KanonenJager if you are playing NATO West Germany

There are alot of unit ways to play and you will find your distinct playstyle and it will help you develope your skills.
< >
Visar 1-15 av 15 kommentarer
Per sida: 15 30 50

Datum skrivet: 10 mar, 2014 @ 7:23
Inlägg: 15