|
I'll take it panzercommander3d@yahoo.com
|
| # ¿ Nov 5, 2011 02:09 |
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 20, 2013 17:51 |
|
|
This is more of a tactical game than RUSE. It's not really the same kind of game except in its UI.
|
| # ¿ Feb 3, 2012 20:11 |
|
|
I actually think in this game for the most part, dirt cheap tanks are better than modern MBTs, from my experience in the beta. One has to consider that you can get 6-10 T-55s for the price of a single M1A1 or comparable MBT. That being said, the M1 can actually shoot on the move and will shrug off most of the shots but I still think that the 55s will beat the M1 on a cost for cost basis. It's a pity NATO doesn't have really cheap tanks like WP does, even the M60 costs a good bit more than the cheapest non-joke tank. The T-34 wasn't in the beta, though, I wonder if it would catch people off guard to see a huge rush, as you could quite literally get 50-80 and support with your starting cash.
|
| # ¿ Feb 4, 2012 18:54 |
|
|
Mans posted:So you have to buy units with xp? Won't that cause terrible unbalances to the game? Someone with a higher level can poo poo abrams on you while you're stuck on the t-52 lines. You can get 7-8 non-modernized t-55s for each abrams, and they will generally beat the abrams and be of more use in other roles, too. Once I get some money, i'll be picking this up.
|
| # ¿ Feb 11, 2012 04:48 |
|
|
radintorov posted:I've played a few matches with some friends and it's not bad. Well, the reason ATGMs predominate is because the starter deck tanks are not very good at shooting other tanks. ATGM teams are literally the best AT option in the starter decks. Even in advanced play they're still a good, affordable option, but you'll see different stuff come out.
|
| # ¿ Feb 11, 2012 20:31 |
|
|
The current beta is MP-only.
|
| # ¿ Feb 12, 2012 00:23 |
|
|
Hob_Gadling posted:I think there'd have to be a potential use for flamethrower tanks first. Unfortunately... People are really dumb in this game and do a lot of stupid stuff. I don't lose ranked games, practically ever because people tend to lean too heavily on artillery and helicopters. Artillery is nice against soft skin targets but trying to use it as your only defense against armor is dumb. They make dumb trades like 175-point Apaches for 30-point recon jeeps, and don't really get the point. There are a couple of balance issues, as a pact player. The T-55AMV-1 is really powerful for its cost, and should be something more like 65-70 than the 45 it costs now because it is a well-armored 10acc/10AP ATGM carrier with a gun to protect itself. Also, there's a 5-point czech motostrelci unit that is absolutely better than units much more expensive than itself, and it comes on a 5-point 95kph transport. People complain about arty, but I don't really think it's a big problem because of its price and lack of effect against non-spotted and armored targets.
|
| # ¿ Feb 13, 2012 02:46 |
|
|
Oh, by the way, where is the link to the goon WEE voice server?
|
| # ¿ Feb 13, 2012 02:53 |
|
|
DatonKallandor posted:Not much point in moving artillery when you need supply and the enemy would need insane numbers or recon to get a good counterbattery going. Not leaving MANPADS everywhere is down to bad player syndrome and the fact that most people haven't unlocked infantry-in-choppers yet. Mostly because they see the Abrams in the tank list and instantly unlock it, spending all their unlock points and throwing away games by building it en masse (because loosing an Abrams gives the other team a shitton of points). I don't get why people buy 175-point super choppers and not babysit them. What the hell? It costs almost as much as an HQ, and is still easily shot down by the long range SAMs. By the way, new guys, one of your first unlocks should be long range SAMs like the Chaparral and the BUK. That will immediately make attack helos be very careful.
|
| # ¿ Feb 13, 2012 03:34 |
|
|
DatonKallandor posted:Since HQ just go mentioned, you should always place multiple FOBs at the start of the match. I recommend 3, but if you think you're hot poo poo and you can win quickly you can get away with 2. They're insanely cheap though, so really, just place 3. I prefer just taking extra supply trucks over the FOB, because i keep forgetting to go back and get more from there.
|
| # ¿ Feb 13, 2012 03:39 |
|
|
Gamerofthegame posted:Problem is that the FOB has limited juice. Once it runs out of juice you can't resupply. So those supply trucks become worthless. There's a limit on each individual tank type. Mix your t-34s with T-55s which cost the same.
|
| # ¿ Feb 13, 2012 03:54 |
|
|
Zaodai posted:Is there a way to see changes in specific variants and their transport? I know I can toggle between different units to see variants of the main unit (like a helo or a tank) but with infantry specifically there are unlocks that change only what their transport is. I can't seem to find anywhere in game that shows the difference between those transports. Yes, you can see transports in the vehicles tab. It's kind of a pain.
|
| # ¿ Feb 13, 2012 23:15 |
|
|
sgnl05 posted:Aah so it is. Actually I quite like the T34. I watched my friend play a game where he moved about 20 of them up the middle and slaughtered a bunch of leopards just through sheer weight of numbers. But since it doesn't have any variants I think the T55 will be the better choice in the long term. The only advantage the T-34 has over the T-55 is that it has a machine gun. That's it.
|
| # ¿ Feb 14, 2012 00:22 |
|
|
Cthulhu Dreams posted:From the more experinced plays, is their a recommendation of really juicy NATO and PACT units to unlock? Like, what is the best PACT AA gun - I went for the Tunguska but I like the infantry options more. The best pact AA vehicle is the BUK-M1 with 4200m range. http://steamcommunity.com/profiles/76561197963594452 to invite me into the steam group.
|
| # ¿ Feb 14, 2012 02:28 |
|
|
Cerebulon posted:I've only unlocked the KUB (Or something similar to that, it's the base unit for the BUK) and the big problem with it is that each vehicle carries about 4 (Or 6?) rockets and the first volley against a group of helicopters seems to almost invariably miss by a mile, leaving you able to take down maybe two or three air units before you need to resupply. They come with an extra rocket and much better accuracy, though they still probably work best with a supply truck assigned to them.
|
| # ¿ Feb 14, 2012 02:37 |
|
|
ghetto wormhole posted:Is it possible to play an almost entirely infantry deck? That was pretty fun to do in WiC It's possible. You'll suffer against artillery and there's a lot of artillery, so you'll want to lean on IFV-borne infantry. You can't act unsupported, but there's some good infantry out there if you want to spend points on it.
|
| # ¿ Feb 14, 2012 02:56 |
|
|
Elendil004 posted:Would a viable tactic be turtling and letting the enemy throw poo poo at you until they run out? I kind of assume only arty could dislodge you but if you had stuff to counter battery with...would you be able to keep up? The problem with turtling is that you'll be more concentrated than him so his arty will be more effective than yours in being able to score with kills. You might be able to get his arty, but he'll be hitting your units because the terrain makes it pretty predictable where units will be, and on a small part of the map you can blanket anything.
|
| # ¿ Feb 15, 2012 02:06 |
|
|
I don't have too much of a problem with howitzers due to their relative expense, but mortars especially can kill heavy tanks if used in enough numbers in corrected fire, and even if they can't they can stun them so dirt cheap t-55s can kill them with no problem. Honestly, if they want to make a role for expensive IFVs and main battle tanks, they should be immune to artillery.
|
| # ¿ Feb 20, 2012 12:29 |
|
|
astropika posted:The bmp3 change really is just so out there, that's going to be horrible against tow jeeps. I think they want to make the high tech IFVs more viable, like they did with the first patch and heavy tanks, but with a little more care. Unfortunately, i'm not sure what the 60(?) point Bradley really offers over a cheap ATGM carrying IFV. The BMP-3 has to compete with the BMP-1P, and value-wise it's not that close.
|
| # ¿ Sep 14, 2012 12:05 |
|
|
Also, cheap tanks are basically stationary gun turrets because their accuracy is so bad. They are good at shooting infantry and light stuff, but against decent mediums, they die, and NATO good mediums have stabilizers so they can kite you too. The T-64A is what you should probably use when you want to shoot at tanks. That or the BMP-1P as a good ATGM carrier. The Shturm is good, too.
|
| # ¿ Sep 28, 2012 23:32 |
|
|
Elukka posted:In practice the T-80 is immensely better than the Chieftain, though. Even if NATO does have better gun tanks it doesn't matter, you can't get those as Pact. You only need so many ATGMs and wasting 30 points on every tank that doesn't need one just because NATO arguably has better guns doesn't make any sense. Yeah, you don't have any value in gun tanks on par with the RISE Patton so you pretty much should just get BMP-1Ps or ATGM tanks. Probably just BMP-1Ps and shturms really. You don't need tanks with pact except to shoot HE at infantry. The T-64A is a decent gun tank but its kinda expensive for what it does. The T-72s would be interesting if they weren't so expensive.
|
| # ¿ Oct 10, 2012 02:21 |
|
|
DatonKallandor posted:If you really just want a good tank gun, isn't there a retrofitted BMP-Tank Hunter with a great gun and BMP level armor? There's the BMP-685 which is a bit on the pricey side. Most people prefer Zhalos fort hat kind of thing since they will typically kill nato cheap tanks without much of a problem.
|
| # ¿ Oct 10, 2012 11:42 |
|
|
hook me up with a spare key at gtheblizz@gmail.com
|
| # ¿ Feb 16, 2013 17:58 |
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 20, 2013 17:51 |
|
|
Here's me: http://www.wargame-ee.com/forum/mem...ewprofile&u=522
|
| # ¿ Mar 15, 2013 11:11 |
|
