|
Dezztroy posted:Tried out the SMAW and yeah, they seem pretty great. Don't be afraid to use them in numbers, they absolutely destroy tanks and infantry alike with little chance of retaliation.
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2014 15:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 24, 2024 21:50 |
|
|
Dezztroy posted:While on the subject of decks, anyone see any glaring issues with this Red Dragon deck? Looked good until I got down to Air. You have some bad choices there and it adds up to an extremely weak air arm. J7IIs are extremely bad fighters. Don't take them. F-5s are okay, but they're your only strike plane. You have a SEAD plane in there for no reason; SEAD exists to allow a strong air arm to do its work. If you don't use planes much it's a complete waste of points. Decks with 3 cards of planes tend to spend them all on strike planes and bring no fighters, which as RD is actually an understandable choice since you have mediocre fighter choices at best. You'd probably want the F-5 for napalm, J-7Hs for iron bombs, and a cluster bomber or the MiG-21Bis with bad air-to-ground missiles since it's the only AGM plane you get. I'd probably drop the BRDM-2s (unnecessary) and HQ-7s (I've always been disappointed in their performance and the PGZ-95 is amazing anyway) to pick up 6 points, which will let you grab a 4th plane slot and another tank or vehicle slot. You'd then probably add a Su-27 or MiG-29 or maybe a J-8 or MiG-23 variant to the lineup as a fighter. Or a card of SEAD but it just doesn't seem that useful anymore unless you're fighting Euros who rely heavily on radar-based AA. Actually, play one game with the J7II and try to use them as much as possible. You will see what I mean. Most decent fighters are 100 points and good fighters are 160-180. J-7IIs are 55 points for a reason. Arglebargle III fucked around with this message at 16:05 on Apr 21, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2014 15:57
|
|
|
Xerxes17 posted:Don't be afraid to use them in numbers, they absolutely destroy tanks and infantry alike with little chance of retaliation. I approve of the Avatar change. Also, <=== US players, RE: Eurocorps decks.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2014 15:57
|
|
|
Dezztroy posted:Tried out the SMAW and yeah, they seem pretty great. 1. No MD5000 LGs. These things are kind of amazing and dirt cheap. Bring a couple along on an airborne assault and at worse they eat a missile instead of your transport or TY-90, at best they will loving murder landing infantry and light vehciles, and stunlock heavy stuff. 2. J-7 fighters are seriously loving worthless last time I checked. 3. Hardened does not give nearly enough benefit to Pon'gae-2's to be worth while. Bring them at 6. They're surprisingly supply efficient too for what they are. 4. Same deal for Tanke Shashou, more effective to have more. If you're not using them that much I guess. 5. I'd rather the Strela 10M (Pongae-3) over the Crotale (HQ7) but it's not a terrible choice. 6. No PHL 63. These are a loving huge ommission. They're burotinos that don't hit as hard but are pretty much better in every major way. Particularly they resupply for almost nothing and don't have the hilarious literal 5 minute reload time. Also they're 50 pts and you get 3 of them/card.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2014 16:05
|
|
|
Hubis posted:I approve of the Avatar change. Also, Pfft, the real doomsday device is the F-111C 
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2014 16:06
|
|
|
I would add that you should try to have an idea of what you want a deck to do in mind when you design it. Don't try to make a "good deck" because you will have different requirements pulling you in different directions. Try to make a deck that's good at something, and then go in to a game consciously trying to put yourself in a situation where you'll do the thing your deck is good at. You don't have to have a deck restriction to design a deck that does something well.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2014 16:12
|
|
|
You're right, the air part was garbage and I've certainly run into problems because of it. Replaced my planes with the F-5, J-7H, Su-27SK (when did they buff the Chinese Su-27? I remember it having awful ECM in the beta) and Q-5II. Got rid of the BRDM-2. I used it for cheap recon to throw everywhere, but I guess the Lie Ren are cheap enough. Shanakin posted:1. No MD5000 LGs. These things are kind of amazing and dirt cheap. Bring a couple along on an airborne assault and at worse they eat a missile instead of your transport or TY-90, at best they will loving murder landing infantry and light vehciles, and stunlock heavy stuff. 1. Got rid of the T-90S, got these. 2. Replaced with Su-27. 3. Changed to Trained 4. ^ 5. Got rid of the HQ-7, 6. Added the PHL-63 in its place Thanks for the advice, you two 
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2014 16:24
|
|
|
I've discovered a major difference in deck building between RD and ALB. In ALB, you usually want to upvet everything that shoots missiles. In RD, missiles are frequently accurate enough that upvetting doesn't significantly improve the hit rate. For example, don't bother upvetting Avengers. They will hit all the time regardless.Arglebargle III posted:I would add that you should try to have an idea of what you want a deck to do in mind when you design it. Don't try to make a "good deck" because you will have different requirements pulling you in different directions. Try to make a deck that's good at something, and then go in to a game consciously trying to put yourself in a situation where you'll do the thing your deck is good at. You don't have to have a deck restriction to design a deck that does something well. Deck specializations in fact will usually make your deck worse at everything. My favorite example is the US airborne deck which is supposed to be better at rushing towns and holding them. Unlike all of the other airborne decks, you get tanks! In fact, really good tanks. You get M8s! You also get Avengers, which are fantastic AA pieces now. But you lose both of your actually good infantry options, and they are the centerpiece of the deck, so you might as well not bother. Specializations are just broken across the board and with a few exceptions (some armored and motorized decks especially) you shouldn't bother. Mortabis fucked around with this message at 16:40 on Apr 21, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2014 16:34
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:Actually, play one game with the J7II and try to use them as much as possible. You will see what I mean. Most decent fighters are 100 points and good fighters are 160-180. J-7IIs are 55 points for a reason. J7IIs make great bait though. You get 5 a card, which means if you can bait and kill proper fighters (which are 2 per card usually) at a 1:1 ratio they run out of good fighters before you run out of J7s. And they're good enough to kill choppers reliably, while being both points cheap and slot efficient. They're not good fighters, but they do a bunch of other things really well, like all of the lovely 5-per-card fighters.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2014 16:42
|
|
|
In the open beta Arglebargle was losing his J-7IIs to my Swedish Drakens. Like, two of my Drakens up against five of his J-7IIs at once and he lost. They're lovely beyond belief. edit: let's take a closer look shall we?  They are not worth 45 points. See how those missiles are barely more accurate than the Draken's unguided rockets? Except it has two of them instead of twenty. And the cannon is worse too. They suck, do never use them. VVVV US Armored takes away your access to all of your good helicopters including Kiowas with exceptional optics, and even loving Bradleys  so no I wouldn't bother.(Seriously, what the gently caress? Why does the US armored deck not have Bradleys?) Mortabis fucked around with this message at 16:58 on Apr 21, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2014 16:45
|
|
|
Mortabis posted:Specializations are just broken across the board and with a few exceptions (some armored and motorized decks especially) you shouldn't bother. This is accurate. Marine decks are great for the player who is handling boats on a hybrid map and armored decks are great for certain nations with good tanks (WGermany, United States, etc.). Most of the other specializations, however, leave giant holes in your force composition (like severely gimped Anti-Air/Armor in an Airborne deck).
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2014 16:46
|
|
|
Dezztroy posted:You're right, the air part was garbage and I've certainly run into problems because of it. Replaced my planes with the F-5, J-7H, Su-27SK (when did they buff the Chinese Su-27? I remember it having awful ECM in the beta) and Q-5II. Got rid of the BRDM-2. I used it for cheap recon to throw everywhere, but I guess the Lie Ren are cheap enough. Firstly, by stripping yourself of the T90s you're eliminating the only dangerous armored card you currently have, and missing the chance to use one of the best armored units in the game. Keep the T90s and replace both cards of ChonMa with T72Ms. They were nerfed recently but their 4HE and high AP make them still one of the strongest medium tanks. I would never take the Nevas (or Pongae 2) at anything less than max vet, as their ability to one-shot almost any plane in the game is fantastic. If you're really dying for more than three of them, drop a card of PGZ-95 and take a second card of Pongae 2s at hardened. I'm currently at work and can't check the actual number of cards available, but I'm fairly sure it lets you take two. The Chinese vehicle ATGMs are fantastic. One card of 2 ZLF-92s does not sufficiently take advantage of that. I would either take either another card of vehicle ATGMs or replace the ZLF-92s with one of its weaker cousins, with greater availability. You can probably afford to drop the recon BROM-2, as it's a bit redundant. Finally, the Bongchosae's (sp?) strella-transport is a cheap way to provide a little extra anti-air in your opener, if you don't mind taking a slower tracked vehicle. Consider replacing one of the YuckJeondae. GenVec fucked around with this message at 17:12 on Apr 21, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2014 17:03
|
|
|
I agree on the T90s, it's a very good tank at a good price. You're much more likely to kill a plane with 2x rookie Nevas than 1 at even elite (90% vs 58%), although 2 cards at max vet would probably maximise use out of them. Also if you don't actually call in more than 3 very often then I would also recommend upvetting sure. Shanakin fucked around with this message at 17:12 on Apr 21, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2014 17:09
|
|
|
Correct me if I'm wrong, but two rookie Pongae'2 at 58% have a 17.6% chance to miss both their shots. One elite at 90% would have a 10% chance of missing its single shot. I usually take one card of Pongae'2 at hardened, usually open with two of them, and it's rare that I lose all three. I've noticed that most pubbie NATO players seem to be in love with expensive, low availability planes which the Pongae'2 excels against. Their 5 strength makes them particularly vulnerable to artillery, so getting in the habit of moving them around after firing is a good exercise in unit preservation. GenVec fucked around with this message at 17:30 on Apr 21, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2014 17:25
|
|
|
GenVec posted:Correct me if I'm wrong, but two rookie Pongae'2 at 58% have a 17.6% chance to miss both their shots. One at elite at 90% would have a 10% chance of missing its single shot. 2 rookies @45% = 90% chance to kill 1 Elite @ 58% = 58% chance to kill
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2014 17:30
|
|
|
Shanakin posted:2 rookies @45% = 90% chance to kill Uhm...probabilities aren't additive like that. The 2 rookie scenario is better modeled as "chance to not miss", which is 1 - (.55^2) = ~70% EDIT: Actually, hang on, how many hits does the Pon'gae 2 need to score to kill? Somebody said it only needs one hit to kill a plane. Davin Valkri fucked around with this message at 17:34 on Apr 21, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2014 17:32
|
|
|
I'm getting a 5% chance of a trained Pongae'2 missing 4 out of 4 shots, which comes out to a 95% chance of killing a plane. Meanwhile a hardened Pongae'2 has an 85% chance of hitting with one of two shots. So two trained Nevas are better than one hardened Neva...however, that also costs twice as much. With one Neva, the upvet increases your chance of killing a plane by 7 percentage points. I'm using 53% accuracy for trained and 61% accuracy for hardened; if that's wrong let me know. http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=probability+binomial e: Davin Valkri posted:EDIT: Actually, hang on, how many hits does the Pon'gae 2 need to score to kill? Somebody said it only needs one hit to kill a plane. HE10 so it only needs one hit. Model it as a binomial distribution with an endpoint of 1 and 2 trials. Mortabis fucked around with this message at 17:38 on Apr 21, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2014 17:33
|
|
|
Davin Valkri posted:Uhm...probabilities aren't additive like that. Mortabis posted:I'm using 53% accuracy for trained and 61% accuracy for hardened; if that's wrong let me know. This is wrong. 0.45* 1.08=49% 0.45*1.32=0.59% Shanakin fucked around with this message at 17:41 on Apr 21, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2014 17:36
|
|
|
edit; double
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2014 17:38
|
|
|
Shanakin posted:This is wrong. Okay then, a trained Neva has a 74% chance of killing a plane and a hardened one has an 84% chance of killing a plane. Two trained Nevas have a 93% chance of killing a plane.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2014 17:40
|
|
|
Few random questions:
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2014 17:41
|
|
|
Edit: Already, everyone beat me to it. However, Mortabis: the Pongae'2 will almost never get to fire four shots, because it is guided rather than F&F. Unless the plane is circling, all calculations should be made assuming it will only get to fire once. Ok, I was wrong on their hit percentages (at work and can't check), but your math is still fuzzy. The chance that two rookie Pongae 2's at 45% will miss both their single shots is: P(miss both shots) = P(miss first shot)*P(miss second shot). So P = .55 x .55. Their chance of missing both shots is 30.2%, giving them a 70.8% chance of hitting their target at least once. You're right to consider that a step up from the single shot at 58%, but it's not the 90% shot you're imagining it to be. GenVec fucked around with this message at 17:44 on Apr 21, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2014 17:41
|
|
|
Mortabis posted:Okay then, a trained Neva has a 74% chance of killing a plane and a hardened one has an 84% chance of killing a plane. Two trained Nevas have a 93% chance of killing a plane. You mean 2 trained vs 2 hardened yes? Which isn't the scenario. GenVec posted:Ok, I was wrong on their hit percentages (at work and can't check), but your math is still fuzzy. Yep, agreed, as already mentioned. I should know this since I spent ages tooling around with this the other day.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2014 17:42
|
|
|
Switched back to Hardened Nevas instead of trained, since I rarely even use all 3. Changed the two hardened PGZ-95 to one trained, and picked the T-90S back up. China's ATGMs are incredible, yeah, but I very rarely see enough tanks to warrant using more than one or two ZLF-92s, which is why I only have one card of them. The Strela transports seem close to useless after the nerf. They only have 4 missiles, and those missiles are only 30% accuracy and 3 HE. They don't even kill a Huey with one hit. I could be wrong since I've barely used them after the nerf.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2014 17:43
|
|
|
Shanakin posted:You mean 2 trained vs 2 hardened yes? Which isn't the scenario. No. 1 trained Neva, 1 hardened Neva, 2 trained Nevas. I'm calculating the chance that at least one missile will hit if all Nevas fire all of their missiles.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2014 17:44
|
|
|
As I tried to stealth-edit in above, due to the fact that they're guided rather than F&F they will almost never get a chance to fire more than one missile.
GenVec fucked around with this message at 17:52 on Apr 21, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2014 17:45
|
|
|
Mortabis posted:No. 1 trained Neva, 1 hardened Neva, 2 trained Nevas. I'm calculating the chance that at least one missile will hit if all Nevas fire all of their missiles. I'm probably just tired and I think we're talking past each other again. Either way here are the accuracy multipliers. Rookie: 1.0 Trained: 1.08 Hardened: 1.16 Veteran: 1.24 Elite: 1.32 1 trained Neva has a 49% chance to kill 1 hardened Neva has a ~56% chance to kill 2 trained Nevas have a ~77% chance to kill 2 hardened Nevas have a ~80% chance to kill 1 elite Neva has a 59% chance to kill 2 Elite Neva have a ~83% chance to kill Happy? edit: GenVec posted:As I tried to stealth-edit in above, due to the fact that they're guided rather than F&F they will almost never get a chance to fire more than one missile. In my experience they often get more than one shot off if they are kept supplied and fly far enough into the coverage zone.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2014 17:52
|
|
|
Ah okay, there are two places we were miscommunicating: first, I thought you were saying 1.32 was the Hardened multiplier but it's the Elite multiplier. Second, I was assuming the Neva fires two missiles and you were assuming it fires only one. The difference in PK over two missiles versus one at that level of accuracy is enormous. edit: If the Neva fires both missiles, here are the PKs for the various vet levels: code:Mortabis fucked around with this message at 18:04 on Apr 21, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2014 17:54
|
|
|
1337JiveTurkey posted:Few random questions: 1. The artillery guns on the monitor 105 are bad but i havn't really used the arty guns on them extensivly so someone might know better. If you get it get for those twin autocannons, they tear up light vehicles like nothing at all. 2. There are differences, but they really dont matter all that much. They'll still get chewed up by special forces the same. 3. Because eugen (note, you will hear this alot) 4. In a 4v4, just use whatever you want, most of the time pubbies are too bad to make try harding necessary.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2014 17:55
|
|
|
Shanakin posted:In my experience they often get more than one shot off if they are kept supplied and fly far enough into the coverage zone.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2014 18:01
|
|
|
The monitor 105s are pretty solid and if you take the 4@elite they have a very tight circle. They're not super killy but they're cheap, they have lots of range, and lots of ammo and are pretty solid in supporting coastal opperations with smoke and bombardment. As for national line troops. The machine gun is basically the biggest deciding factor. At range all rifles basically perform the same. In CQC (that is in the same building) entirely different modules come into effect changing rifle performance but line infantry is generally bad in CQC anyway. The machineguns make the biggest difference. Look out for machine guns with lower range and higher accuracy, and preferably the CQC tag. These will general perform significantly better. Basically avoid Bren, PKM and M60 variants as the worst offenders. Look out for MG3, and minimi variants if possible. RPK's are a decent machine guns for redfor. Specialisations depend a lot on the nation and type chosen, however people regularly bring bad decks to 4v4s without anyone caring too much. If it's an especially bad deck or otherwise special, you should probably warn people though. Also don't be afraid to ask for help if you're missing something that you need and someone else might have. GenVec posted:I guess it depends on your play style, I make an effort to keep them well supplied, but I also like to keep them far enough back that they're not threatened by out-of-sight Ravens and have more warning against artillery bombardments. If the plane is flying directly over them I could see getting two shots off, but I'm usually busy moving them out of the way of falling bombs in that scenario. They've got enough range that they don't need to fly directly over them. Although I will say they're especially effective on the flank, because bombers that have hit the middle will often fly right over them as they evac winchester. Especially the right flank I think, because planes have a bias to evacing to the left as I recall. Shanakin fucked around with this message at 18:06 on Apr 21, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2014 18:04
|
|
|
1337JiveTurkey posted:Few random questions: The disadvantage of Monitor 105 is that it's part of the NATO navy, so unless you rush them into a river that you can control, eventually they will have nowhere to hide because Redfor dominates the sea right now. Oh, and it's slow as hell, for example, on D-day Redfor navy will actually get in range to your side of the river entrance before you can get Monitor 105 into the river. Campaign stuff: Just park them somewhere where the enemy can't see. The AI isn't omnipotent anymore (despite some people's claim of otherwise). At most it will target your last known location with artillery or bombers if you have a large concentration of transports. Don't really understand the CV part of the question...You get more CV with more battalion and regiment size battle group. Note armored battle group has only 2 initiative, so can't participate in combat if you just moved it. You can refrain from initiating battle (All defender can participate in defense regardless of initiative), but risk enemy sending up reinforcements. Most line infantry are close to identical in performance. If you just want boots on the ground then they don't differ much to matter in the end. But there are three classes of weapons they can be equipped with: Battle Rifle(best at long range), assault rifle (middle of the road), and SMG (best at close range and CQC). Aircraft loadout: Because Eugen. Specialization doesn't really confer much actual advantage. Use what you like best. Some specialized deck is pretty well rounded though. For example, US Marines can do everything besides chopper rush fairly well. Unless your coordinate with your teammate before hand, your deck should be able to fend for itself reasonable well in most situation. A couple useful capabilities to have: Can chopper rush (AA helicopter and transports) Wheeled rush (AA, transport, fire support should all be wheeled, maybe even rocket artillery to quickly suppress target before you move in) Able to drive out infantry in town (napalm, artillery, lots of infantry) Able to win forest fights (napalm launcher, bombers) Able to sustain casualties (have reservists and enough backup units) Able to attack across river (transport, fire support, and AA have amphibious capability) Have good tanks Have good air force against air and/or ground Have good artillery and can supply yourself. You should be able to do at least a couple of the things above in your deck. pedro0930 fucked around with this message at 18:19 on Apr 21, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2014 18:06
|
|
|
Mortabis posted:In the open beta Arglebargle was losing his J-7IIs to my Swedish Drakens. Like, two of my Drakens up against five of his J-7IIs at once and he lost. They're lovely beyond belief. All you're saying there is they're bad fighters. Yes they are. That doesn't mean they don't have a use for other things. I don't know what the Draken comparison is supposed to show. They both fill the same role, and you can't get Drakens on REDFOR anyway so showing they're better is sort of pointless.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2014 18:18
|
|
|
pedro0930 posted:Redfor dominates the sea right now. I don't see this. Now that Blufor cannons are significantly better than Redfor ones, it's not that hard to pick Redfor ships off one by one with Intruders and then close to cannon range to finish them off.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2014 18:19
|
|
|
I'm almost certain transport destruction no longer leads to the destruction of the squad post-battle in the campaigns, so if you have BMP-type transports or useful helicopters (Lynx AH7s, for instance) you can use them happily knowing you won't wipe out the associated squad.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2014 18:22
|
|
|
Kind of doing well with my Chinese national deck, but i find their armor situation kind of lacking. Any helpful critiques to make my deck a little bit better? pvAZDhRaG9U1RSoycKLI4qmpvZkT6UBKAlkkSyJVGilfSrpdks6XIwGVaTMKCw5KcUt6HAMOiXVESgpQYV0RLJmEbCVU Left the last naval slot open because I'm not really sure what to put there. I generally have the most troubles with being stonewalled by high end NATO tanks like challengers and Leos that my helos can't ATGM. But my general strategy of burning the area with the PH-70 and storming with a bunch of cheap units is fairly effective.  Edit: Whoops broke the tables Bob Wins fucked around with this message at 18:34 on Apr 21, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2014 18:22
|
|
|
Bob Wins posted:Kind of doing well with my Chinese national deck, but i find their armor situation kind of lacking. Any helpful critiques to make my deck a little bit better? Also, are you remembering to make effective use of your ZLF-92s? Even Challengers and Leos should melt away in front of those, and they're not as easy to scare off as ATGM helos.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2014 19:26
|
|
|
Oh yeah, easily the unit that is the work horse of my army. While my tanks and empty auto cannon transports charge into the (more than likely still burning) fray the ATGM vehicles continue to mount pages of kills. The ATGM helos only have 4 missiles so they are kinda hard to use for a committed assault. The deck is really good for continued shock assaults. Once you win the initial confrontation is very easy to keep the ball rolling, I really like the HQ-7 for this, Its ability to accurately deliver missiles on the move means i can seriously take some ground and not be that worried about the inevitable panic plane call ins.
Bob Wins fucked around with this message at 19:34 on Apr 21, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2014 19:30
|
|
|
I'm not sure either faction is overpowered in naval combat. Most naval engagements are lost because of (with hindsight) obviously poor decisions such as engaging too early, not providing AA cover against ASM planes or over-extension after initial success; so it's hard to say if a battle was lost because of one side being OP. I've yet to see enough equally skilled and invested naval opponents to draw a conclusion.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2014 19:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 24, 2024 21:50 |
|
|
Does anyone have a good general Blu or Red starting deck besides the ones in game for a good ground force backed by decent air? Just beat the Busan Pocket and am ready to jump into MP but just like when I started ALB there are so many different units that I have 0 clue what units to pick. I mean this in terms of what units suck and which have a natural advantage compared to the others, cause I know this can be huge in Plane choice alone, not so much over all army composition tips. Is anything learned in ALB even applicable considering I havent played it in a while, 6 months? Also did they change tank combat at all? They seem to blow up quicker, or I could be imagining things. Been reading through the thread and have been gleaning some info so if I missed a post explaining this feel free to point me to it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2014 21:12
|
|
