Blue v red game balance... Question?

[Phoenix]

Is it me or do the reds seem underpowered? I always win when I play blues but get trashed with reds. Plus whenever you play the game most people always seem to fill up the blue side first.

[Bavar]

People love to play as the Blues as they are perceived to have the more powerful units. The two sides have different play styles. ie Blues quality over quantity and vice versa for the reds. Ive found when playing as reds you can cause the blues to crumble if you take out key units of theirs. Helicopters, AA and Aircraft with emphasis on the last one.

[TRIUMPH]

USSR and multi are strong. NSWP(a huge newbie trap at the moment b/c almost nothing is updated) and RD have holes.

[Northern]

I think it's balanced, but redfor players mostly bad at game.

[OpforFriendly]

I tend to spam 100 polish infantry squads at one, the bluefor leave in minutes when i start

[Azzak]

Although Redfor feel underpowered they can compete with some very strong units. Chinese anti-air helicopters can take out early blue airdrops, russian buratinos annihilate cities and forests, BMPT are the strongest vehicles available for forest/city cleaning, chinese/russian special forces are also strong.

[Phoenix]

OK.. I understand the quanity over quality idea. I also understand that the Blues have some great kit to play with. So could the game be balanced better by making the Reds units cheaper or maybe inscreasing the Blues unit cost? Thoughts?

[CinnamonRoll]

that redfor quantity and bluefor quality thing you guys are talking about may be true in real life but certainly not in this game. Unit availability,prices and amout of unitcards available are exactly the same for both sides, you get access to low priced "spammable" uints no matter if you're playing US or USSR, Anzac or North Korea etc. In fact USSR which historically should be one of the countries mostly focused on quantity has the lowest unit availability of all nations... so you cannot really play redfor the way it would hstorically make sense. Also, bluefor has received a lot more attention from eugene this time around since they've added 3 new nations and and reworked all of the old bluefor countries exept for scandinavia whereas in redfor they've only added 2 and reworked only USSR so bluefor has a lot more new stuff which probably makes people want to play it more often. Another thing is that you have access to more interesting alliances in bluefor which really nicely suplement weaknesses of nations within them, whereas in redfor you only have eastern block which again doesn't have any new units yet and red dragons which are imho pretty nice but still not really as superpowerful as eurocorps, commonwealth or imho even blue dragons. And finally, I personally think that apart from ussr, other redfor countries have pretty ♥♥♥♥♥♥ aircraft compared to most bluefor countries. These are imho the main reasons why redfor may seem underpoweredand.

[Aradragoon]

I find its fairly easy to win as USSR. THe T-80u (Sorry if i missed a letter) seems to beat the US abrams proto every time for me, my su-27p rips through every allied fighter 1 on 1, and the 27p and 27s along with the 29 and mig 31s seem to be a very solid air superiority

I feel like Blufor forces you to focus more on specialized areas by having strong units whereas many people try to play redfor as being good at lots of things at once in their deck which just doesnt work.

I feel like somethings could be changed though, as an example make the f-117 a little better drop the accuracy of inf AA especially against the high end aircraft and perhaps make the top end fighters a little better on ECM.

[Chestus]

the game focuses on real life so they don't invent units. and the russians have made less new stuff in those years then the blufor partners did.
it is obvious not? most of the nations in the game have a flourishing arms industry. but 80 % of redfor makes russians stuff under licence and all blufor partners have their own R&D and industry.

[Dokta Stench Weasel]

Red is powerful enough, no problem killing Buefor at all. I have only played 11 MP games, but out of the 4 Blue games, I drew 4 times. I won all 7 of my games playing as Red.

[MockingClone]

Balancing is still being done. The general consensus seems to be that Redfor is not as cost efficient as Bluefor at the moment. Eugen has said that they are focusing on fixing bugs at the moment though and major balancing will come later. Of course, Redfor can still work in the hands of a skilled player.

[Proper Skux]

I play Redfor in the majority of my games. It feels pretty balanced with a slight edge to blufor.

I do think alot of it comes down to Blufor's strengths being more pronounced and easier to play. Alot of blufor armour is heavier and their planes in general are more effective/easier to use.

On the other hand Blufor don't have the glory that is the WZ-551 so clearly they need all the help they can get.

[Алзксі Венс]

The factions are different and have units that need to be managed differently, it's a matter of knowing how to play. If you went back and played European Escalation you'd have no problem managing Redfor tanks and helicopters. It's generally true that Redfor units take slightly more basic skills to use correctly than Blufor ones (especially with tanks).

[ToughRussian]

Guys, I've played this game for a while... granted, I favored playing the red team more in the multiplayer, yet that's what I have to say:

The red force is extremely underpowered for me! Here are my arguments:

First, it's is a more or less known fact that the soviet countries along side their allies + china had a parity in terms of military with NATO and their allies - hence war never happened in real life! That's the key point! Now I'll go in depth...

Tanks: I really fail to understand why the tanks of USSR are less accurate than the Tanks of, for example, Yugoslavia? It pretty much means that Yugoslavia had superior technology than Ussr which doesn't make much sense to me at all! The Yugoslavian tanks seem to be much more cost effective as well!(best red force tanks??) In terms of tanks, generally, u bluforce guys may wonder why the Russians always have ATGMs on them(or most of the time) - that was to counter the NATO tanks at longer distances, before the NATO tanks could engage! That's where the parity came from... USSR used smooth bore guns for a reason - less accuracy on projectiles, yet possibility of using ATGMs... so the idea was and is to that very day, that one on one, in the open field, the Russian tank should be able to penetrate the NATO tank with the ATGM at a distance, before the proper fire fight occurs. In the reality of the game - tha ATGMs on the red force side are generally much less accurate than their counterparts in the Blue force.. when i get the Russian tanks I always disable their ATGM so that the tanks doesn't get spotted for no reason without destroying any counterparts. I saw people speaking here about quantity over quality argument. Granted, in some stuff that may well be true - well than make the price tag according to that idea! Red force has same availiability as the Blue force in terms of tanks numbers, for the same price, yet much worse quality wise( especially accuracy - its outrageous..). I am by no means an expert, but I'm nearly 100% sure that M1A2 Abrams cost at least like two T-64BV.. in the game though it is 180/170 points vs 120x2 - seems unfair to me!

Now let's get into jets:
Normally, I would be fine with parity in this section, yet there are some things which I truly don't understand...
1. Mig 31 - not going to talk about it since it's a ♥♥♥♥♥♥ jet in the game with low accuracy, long targeting and firing times, guided missiles - not fire and forget.
2. So let's talk about MIG31m vs F-14 tomcats!
3. Availiability is ridiculous ! Maximum of 1 Mig 31m vs 4 F-14!! On the big map with naval sectors where one can grab f14 card from the naval section, it becomes nearly impossible to penetrate Blue force skies. Nobody wants to fly there and loose their pricy jets ! Getting the Mig 31 M alone will not stand a chance against 4 tomcats !! If that is not unfair than what is?
4. Lastly, i really fail to understand why USSR has no precision bombs? Most of NATO countries do, china has, so why Russians don't? Does someone think that Russians didn't have them ? That's funny... so no proper air strikes for USSR. Because we all know that SU-24 m bomber is a one way flight if they have at least some sort of aa in the area.

Now we could talk about infantry - just for a while!
I really don't understand one thing - why NAVY seals seem to be more accurate with the AKs than Spetsnaz or any other specialized unit.. hmm maybe someone truly believes in Rambo movies ... oh well..🤦🏻‍♂️

Now, let's talk about the units themselves!
Not an expert, but is AH64D longbow truly the only helicopter capable of firing fire and forgets? Up to you to think about...

Also, the moment Russians got KA52 alligator being the only helicopter with anti AA missiles, the US got one - supercobra.. haha they just can't allow the USSR seem stronger even in the game 😂

Well, let's than ask a question of where is the Russian ATACMS, PATRIOTS, Lance?

Don't Russians have S-300 in real life? Don't they have TOCHKA-U or ISKANDER to counter ATACMS? Well at least not in the game ...

There are many, many other points to be made... and by no means what I wrote is a well structured essay.. yet, I suppose, one has to identify those flaws in the game!

P.s. Is USSR better than USA in anything - in terms of game of course - seems like it's only about NAVY.. let's face it - who plays it ?? There are like 5 maps for it.. and USSR navy better than the US one? Give me a break - there should be a parity - maximum...

Anyways, those were my points to why the game is extremely biased towards the Blue force!

[weedbaden]

+1 for ur point with the f14 and mig31m.