Wargame: AirLand Battle

Wargame: AirLand Battle

View Stats:
DarkStar Jan 20, 2014 @ 11:07am
Name Some Units You Will NEVER Use.
So we've all put that one unit in our deck that just... didn't pan out. Some scenarios are more disaterous than others... For me personally, I can never seem to use the VAB ADAA effectively, and the M1 Abrams family seems too expensive for what they do. What are some units you would recommend people generally stay away from?
< >
Showing 1-14 of 14 comments
Ultimaratio Jan 20, 2014 @ 1:58pm 
I always fail using the SU 25 series. As for me it is far to expansive, bad optics, bad ecm is getting shot down by nearly everything.
The Mig-21's with the rocket pods... they seem so underpowered and useless.... Dont even dent tanks, have trouble against vehicles, and just barely hurt infantry...
doubleqHY? Jan 20, 2014 @ 2:33pm 
The Apache gunship and the Akula Ka-50 both seem way to expensive for me to be risking.
DarkStar Jan 21, 2014 @ 11:08am 
I lost an F15 to an SU25 once, it's all about the training. I wouldnt ever recommend using fighters that arent veted to at least "hardened". Bombers I'd be more lenient with, but fighters pretty much have to be hardened or veteran in order to be effective.
Mark.223 Jan 21, 2014 @ 4:09pm 
Originally posted by Made-in-America:
The Apache gunship and the Akula Ka-50 both seem way to expensive for me to be risking.

I like the Apache. What you do, is get a tank with medium or good stabilizers like the Patton, and bring the enemy into your territory for the Apache to kill, when the enemy overstretches their AA.
SMEAGLEBUTCRACK Jan 21, 2014 @ 4:39pm 
Those TOW missile jeeps that you can easily spam and take out whole armoured columns without any care of losing them seeing as their expendable and fast moving
SMEAGLEBUTCRACK Jan 21, 2014 @ 4:41pm 
But as for never being able to use well i'd say T-80 its just so expensive that i get way too over-cautions with it and end up losing it in stupid ways.

Much prefer T-62 OBrs
McMacky Jan 21, 2014 @ 11:58pm 
The akula, I find it suffers from t80u syndrome, but without any survivability or effective use. Any t62 with the exception of the 45 pt. one. I find the higher tier ones to be the ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ children of tanks and atgm vehicles that cost to much and perform neither role well. The cheap t62s are inferior to t55s, so that rules out them as well. The sheridan as well. It's a glorified IFV that costs 45 pts. and comes without infantry to boot.
♥Prinzsu♥ Jan 22, 2014 @ 6:40am 
I don't like to say never.

But so far I don't see any reason why I would ever use T-34s... That is unless I want to throw them at someone intill they run out of TOWs and I guess that would work if you have enough of them.
Last edited by ♥Prinzsu♥; Jan 22, 2014 @ 6:40am
Chestus Jan 22, 2014 @ 8:05am 
about 2/3 of the airplanes to start with, because "i have no clue who's the crewchief that mounted this absurd loadout on most of them" most of the US/Nato are multitaskers but are reduced to mere caveman"waargh me throw bomb's " like airframe's.
DarkStar Jan 22, 2014 @ 4:04pm 
Norvegien LHV are about as useful as the T34. cheap and plentiful but not very good at anything
thomas633957 Jan 26, 2014 @ 5:12pm 
Buratino never used and don't see why I would start.
McMacky Jan 26, 2014 @ 8:35pm 
The burantino is amazing if use correctly. I love it, it makes attacking so much easier.They are a napalm plane, but they can never can get shot down, and with t72 chassis artying it is a waste of supply.
< >
Showing 1-14 of 14 comments
Per page: 15 30 50

Date Posted: Jan 20, 2014 @ 11:07am
Posts: 14