How come Broken Arrow is the only war game that decided to use a modern day setting, instead of a cold war gone hot scenario

All the good games were made when the cold war was the modern day

>>1944320 (OP)
well the only real villain in the modern day is the usa as usa is far more leftist than the ccp or ussr and it's openly genociding Europeans (their vassals)

>>1944320 (OP)
I always wonder if the devs steer clear of modern settings because they have to cough up quite a bunch of money to license RL vehicles or weapons like Abrams or Apache to put them as units.

>>1948339
If you set in the past you don't have to worry about the future
This is why were have all these shitty WW2/Rome games forever instead of Superpower 3 But Good

>>1948339
I think this is the main reason. Royalty payments for small arms and vehicles etc.

>>1944320 (OP)
Broken Arrow is scifi
>bruh wut?
Compare slavshit performance irl vs what you find in games such as this, Wargame, Warno, etc. Russians managed to lose their most advanced weaponry and troops against a nation armed with its own and NATO leftovers and is now reduced to "winning" by sending thousands of social outcasts with AKs in ladas to some random field and declare it occupied before they got droned or artied.
Armata: cancelled
Terminator: can't even kill a treeline
SU-57: downed
Kinzhal: intercepted
All of this by 80s-90s western units
>>1944472
Update the script, Trump is cleaning house from trons and he has already warned you this is going to be your last chance to pull back, beg he doesn't find out that little video you did broadcast in your propaganda channel mocking his wife.

>>1948339
licensing is cheap as shit because its free advertisement for manufacturers

>>1948339
It's because they're mostly marketed to Euros and Euros don't care about the modern era because they all stopped being relevant after WW2.

>>1949157
ok sperg.

>>1949157
actually a competent russian government makes the game Fantasy, not Sci-Fi

>>1944320 (OP)
coz its hard while ol coldwar shit is easy bucks
all modern equipment is secretive copyrighted bullshit that you have to license or someshit and obviously its controversial to make a game where you make some nation le bad guys even if its aliased away
>>1949157
troomp is turning US into USSR my nigga

>>1944320 (OP)
It's unironically a licensing issue. The hardware used by modern militaries are real products that are actually bought and sold, and their names and branding are intellectual property. You can't just put Rheinmetal in your game.
This leaves devs in the awkward position of paying for a million license fees to avoid leaving themselves open to a lawsuit somewhere, or fictionalizing all the hardware, like how Armored Core 4 turned Rheinmetal into "Rosenthal" and made them jewish and evil.

BA gets around these issues basically just by being russian.

>>1949211
Not really, they also love to interfere and set all sorts of bullshit rules on how you can and cannot use their licenses which actively hinders development.

>>1944320 (OP)
Because if they tried doing cold war they would end up being a Wargame/WARNO clone that would fail just like all the other ones. Also, it's technically not modern anymore it's set in an alternative 2010s where Russia started going crazy with their military budget, many of the weapons in the game are no longer in use or obsolete. At this point, WARNO is the single cold war game of this kind that you should play, the others fall short.
I think another reason why is exactly why Broken Arrow failed before it even launched, modern stuff is just not fun to play with in a video game.

>>1949157
>All of this by 80s-90s western units
/k/, please.
Every other months zelinsky get a new wonderweapon delivered, that always make a wet fart as soon as it reach the frontline.

>>1952044
zigger, please
every other month vatniks keep devolving, their gear getting closer and closer to 19th century tech

>>1952386
The noble donkey is a timeless classic.

>>1951882
>modern stuff is just not fun to play with in a video game
Hideously wrong.

>>1952388
awww he so cute i hope he doesn't get bombed

>>1944320 (OP)
Cold War gone hot is a little easier, and more present in people's minds. Plus there's a lot of pre-existing media focused around it, which makes it easier to draw inspiration.
There's been a bunch of post cold war strategy games. WW2 and cold war are just more popular and easier time periods to set something in if you want a large scale peer vs peer conflict.
But I don't think anything majorly holds back games not doing that.

>>1951862
>BA gets around these issues basically just by being russian.
The studio is French.

>>1949157
Stop shitting up the threads with your autism, this is about video games. Go back to /uhg/ or /k/ope

>>1951882
>modern stuff is just not fun to play with in a video game
Eugigger cope, Broken Arrow's variety of modern munitions are so extremely fun to play with even when you lose you're still having a blast, from Javelins to Cruise missiles to loitering munitions, so much shit that goes boom and looks cool

So at this point we basically know all of the specializations that will be in on release except one as well as the vast majority of the unit roster (pending stuff still in development/subject to change)
3 of each faction are already revealed.
US Marines, Armored and Airborne
Russian VDV, Coastal and Guards Tanks.

The remaining 2 for the US are
Cavalry Brigade centered around Strykers and army regular hardware (revealed in a showcase in December). They're a kitchen sink list with their own apache variant, F-16s, A-10s, and their own patriot variant in addition to their infantry and transports
Special Operations centered around the 75th Ranger Regiment. Though things might've changed, as of the last leak they have 0 ground vehicles aside from some transport humvees and are purely a recon/infantry/air deck. This is where the F-22, B-2, AC-130 and so on are.

And for Russia we're getting
Motorstrelki with mobik infantry and all the old soviet shitware
And a mystery 5th spec we know absolutely nothing about.

Originally there were 4 specs planned and both of the 5th specs were essentially made by cannibalizing units from the other 4, which is why the US Airborne roster was so gutted last beta and why the faction generally lacks recon infantry (they're all moved to specops). For the russians all we know is that some AA, artillery and an IFV were quietly shifted to the new spec between betas so it may be something support-oriented.

>>1944320 (OP)
The premise of your question isn't really true, there are plenty of contemporary setting RTS games, even C&C generals has a relatively contemporary setting.
In all seriousness it's because if you are at least going to gesture towards "realism" like the Wargame series did, then the Cold War is the far more interesting setting because of the (relative) parity between NATO / PACT. It is not as fun to have two sides where one side, if realistically depicted, is both larger + more advanced than the other. I'm not saying the Russians have never built a good weapon system, but I am saying that if you realistically modeled at realistic quantities the US military versus the contemporary Russian one it would be extremely one-sided and not very interesting.
For that reason (and others) Broken Arrow has clearly gone for like a semi-fictional setting where Russian weapon systems that either don't exist or exist only on paper seem to be made real and much more plentiful than IRL.

The correct answer though is to throw all that shit out the window and just make a fun RTS game packed full of as much fun cool shit as possible. NATO vs. Russian Neo-Empire vs. Chinese Empire with '5 minutes into the future' technology mixed with Cold War leftovers would be great fun.

>>1958534
The spec gutting in the last beta was really shit.

I get giving specs an identity but some of the choices of stuff to remove hit units that should be core to all specs, and makes no sense to not have in that spec.

>>1959507
Basically true. But I don't think the 'paper vehicles' is a Russia specific problem. The US army has very little fancy new stuff in any amount that matters. And Broken Arrow has a bunch of this stuff in use.

>>1959644
The only 'fancy new' things the US has in game are the AMPV and ACV, and I don't think people even realized the former was available because it's competing with Bradleys for your IFV slots.
Like 90% of the units available to the US are things that have been army standard since the 80s (as well as several units older even than that)

Supposedly they will get some paper equipment in the full game but we can all judge that when we see it, because it's one thing to throw in a Comanche for 800pts and say "look it exists" and it's another to make it a core unit an entire deck roster is built around like the fucking T-15.

>>1944320 (OP)
Because there are tons of sources about Cold War beacuse of the thaw after collapse of Soviet Union. You can find solid knowledge on weaponry and vehicle specifications, TO&Es and strategies and tactics that would have been (in theory, at least) used.
Then 9/11 happened and Putin happened and Chinese bceame the Great Evil and EU became irrelevant. There's fuck all verifiable information on anything new and interesting and some of what's out there cannot be legally used and a lot of it might be pure propaganda (see Russian protoshits).
Also modern conflicts risk bad press - see Six Days in Fallujah getting originally killed over Americans cooking Haji kids in WP being too fresh of a wound. Representing Ukraine in truthful light would also absolutely result in a chimpout.

>>1959633
I'm gonna assume you're talking about the HIMARs. While it's silly to take a weapon designed for and used by the Marine Corps away from the Marine Corps, I get the problem. USMC was way, way too good in like every previous beta and needed something taken away from it, and it makes more sense to let it keep its identity of strong infantry and air support and instead take away its artillery to give it some kind of weakness.

>>1958534
>And a mystery 5th spec we know absolutely nothing about.
north korean division?

>>1959507

I wouldn't be surprised if these weapon systems become very real in 5 years due the need to replenish stockpiles. I doubt demilitarization will happen even after the last bullet is fired.

>>1960080
Kek

>>1959794
I meant that about setting games in the modern era in general not about Broken Arrow specifically.

>>1959908
HIMARs, Grad really annoyed me, RU armour lacking logi and recon.
I can't think of many specific examples without the unit roster at hand.

But the specs felt a lot more 1 note than the previous beta rather than having a bit of varience to what each spec could bring to the table.

>>1960572
>But the specs felt a lot more 1 note than the previous beta
I mean I get that but obviously specs need clearly defined weaknesses so that combining them with other specs actually matters. It feels worse this beta because we only have each faction's tank, paratrooper and marine specs so this beta had a general lack of ground-based indirect fire and other various things that other specs are supposed to bring to the table. The vision is of course that you're not going to be able to bring every tool in a single deck to every match, so teammates have reasons to build for roles and cover each other's weaknesses. And that feels really lopsided when we only have half of the roster available.

IIRC the first beta had a lot of units that were shoved in just to fit them into the beta, ie things like the Grad were never meant to be in RU armoured and were put there temporarily so they could get some playtesting.

I don't know whether that's a good or bad thing because honestly it's hard for me to picture what the full game will be like compared to the snapshot we've played already. In the first beta, grad spam was absolute cancer and made most ground combat feel like shit because you were just going to get hemmed in by 6 volleys of napalm the moment you broke cover. In the previous beta, KAB spam (and airspam in general) was cancer, cruise missile spam and the general missile vs AA interceptor arms race was cancer and the whole meta revolved around cringe point farming with indirect fire instead of fighting to take and hold territory on the ground. I can't even picture what the full game will be like when we have the full array of indirect fire and countermeasures, or what ground combat it going to look like when half the decks don't have access to tanks or proper IFVs.

>>1960599
>I mean I get that but obviously specs need clearly defined weaknesses
RU armor lacks aircraft, helicopters, it doesn't need to lack basic logistics trucks as well.

But besides that a spec can have variety while having weaknesses. A lot of specs and spec combos were ending up with 1 option for each task, meaning decks with those specs looked very similar a lot of the time. Internal balance of some units is a bit wack which isn't helping.

https://youtu.be/EyXMVkRLMbM?feature=shared
this makes me want to crush NATO everytime I hear it and I'm American
I wish I could find the march version

>>1960708
>RU armor lacks aircraft, helicopters, it doesn't need to lack basic logistics trucks as well.
Comparing the two, both the US and RU armoured specs have good tanks and IFVs, recon vehicles and artillery options and both lack helicopters and planes entirely. But the US armoured also lacks decent infantry, being stuck with 6-man shitter squads and worthless AT, which is a major weakness. Its good IFVs can't fit good squads from a partner spec, and its own squads that it CAN carry, suck. By comparison the RU armoured deck has some of the best infantry in the faction, with very credible infantry-held AT and IFVs that are big enough to transport more than just its own squads so you actually have options.

Absent the weakness in infantry, it needs some weakness on the ground. Neither armoured spec really cares about missing air assets because they would rather spend their points on ground assets. They are tank specs. But the US armoured deck very much has to care about its infantry problems and is forced to make tradeoffs to field better infantry from another spec. The RU deck doesn't have that problem, so giving it a weakness in logistics both feels sensible--since it gives something valuable that a partner spec can actually provide--and thematic.

>>1960793
I concede. A very well put explanation.

I'm still mad Ru armour + RU marine has no trucks.

>>1959908
Just make the USMC match the irl one. Good quality infantry with upgrade packages, decent logistical/trans helis and limited attack helis, good fixed wing naval aviation and drones, limited long range precision missile artillery but with no armor and just light amphibious vehicles. Your heaviest stuff would be AAVs and ACVs. It would be a deck focused around strong mobile infantry and recon spotting for powerful but limited precision aviation and indirect fire.

Different than the US airborne that would have strategic air mobility and heavier attack aviation options.

>>1960877
There are a few issues with that.
When BA development started, the USMC was still a mini-army with tanks and all that. Their new force composition hit mid-development, and completing redesigning a faction roster mid-development because of real world politics is a bit of an ask.
Another issue is that what people know the USMC for most is its combat in Iraq, which is still the most recent major combat operation they were active in. You can't exactly reenact the drive to Baghdad if you take away all their tanks, and the form of the USMC that actually fought and won a war with major combined arms combat operations is infinitely more familiar and recognizeable than the new-untested USMC that came into being last year.

And probably the most central issue. If you took away the USMC's tanks, then there would only be 1/5 US specs with tanks. You can't shove tanks into any of the other lists, so they just kind of have to exist here, otherwise the whole US faction would be forced to choose between having armour or having air power and that's a really silly compromise to have to make as the US Army.

>>1960903
They could just stick with a 2030s force design and pass the older MBTs back to the Stryker deck as a basic Armor Div. Change the current Armor deck to the old "Penetration Div" name and give it the top tier MBT/IFV combo focused on offense while the new Armor div is defense and mass focused. Also, change Airborne into Joint Forcible Entry.

I get BA has to balance being ultra modern/authentic with being balanced/fun, but that ultra modern is kinda one of the main selling points.

>>1960972
>pass the older MBTs back to the Stryker deck
That's a big thematic fail, though. The whole point of the Stryker is to be airmobile first response in a Suwalki Gap scenario. You can pack a whole Stryker-mounted cavalry division into cargo planes and have them roll off the airfield and into battle anywhere in the world within hours (which is the whole reason the Stryker was adopted in the first place), but heavy vehicles like the Abrams, Bradley or even the M113 shitbox can't do that and need to be partially disassembled for air transport. The two kinds of vehicle represent entirely different echelons of US global response--which is part of why even despite the new marine force design it still makes more sense for landing craft-transportable reserve Abrams to be attached to them than for non-airmobile tanks to be attached to airmobile formations.

This is the whole dilemma that spawned stopgap light fire support platforms like the Stryker AGS that they showed off ingame back in December--which is a unit that would have no reason to exist in game if it was sharing a deck slot with an M1A1 FEP.

I just think the argument from realism here is silly. The new Force Design is meant to face the chinese navy in pacific islands and not to address a contingency in the Baltic Sea, but their Amphibious Assault Ships and all their sea-to-shore equipment are still fully capable of ferrying tanks into battle and there's no reason tank units wouldn't be attached to them for amphibious operations there if the Baltics is where WW3 happens. It's just a weird hill to die on.

Apparently some review outlets got to play a test build and are putting up previews today.
Not much to say beyond basic boilerplate marketing shpiel, it looks like they only had hands on the tutorial and the first few sp missions (one of which we saw previewed in full back in december anyways) but it does show off a few new units, namely A-10s and Rangers.

>>1961003
The Stryker instantly stopped being airmobile once the army realized any add ons they'd want in a real war made it no longer able to be airlifted. So you had to fly the Strykers and all their crap separately anyways. Stryker hasn't been airmobile basically its whole life. Them pursuing APS, applique armor and MCWS is basically giving up on the whole airmobile concept. Which fits anyways with FD 2030 as a step away from the BCTs and towards Div formations though I think a traditional Stryker BCT is being kept in Europe though they're still fairly heavy and not airmobile.

This is not directly related to the other discussion but it reminded me of something that annoyed me in the last beta.
>few or no tanks for the other specs, eleventeen trillion redundant tanks for Armored and Marines!
Seriously. When I was making US Armored and Marine decks, I remember being baffled by the fact that there were like, 6 or 7 different Abrams in my deck list that had only minor differences between them.
>this Abrams has 1 more health and 100 more armor
>this Abrams has a slightly different ammunition loadout, therefore it's a separate vehicle entirely
Why? The Russian decks had a similar thing going on I think. Can't we just make a lot of these very small differences into optional loadout upgrades to cut down on the clutter? We have this great feature that the devs implemented to have one vehicle but with a variety of different loadouts that can change how it plays. We don't need to be like Eugen and have 7 different PoopenSchitten-Modelo Type 72B52s all in the same deck filling basically the same role.

>>1961687
>The Russian decks had a similar thing going on I think
It's lessened a bit by the T-14 being meaningfully different.

But like, watcha gonna do
It's hard to have same variety or volume to the tanks when really the two countries just have 1 tank and Russia has 4 tanks that are near indistinguishable.

>>1961687
>>1961720
I think a problem that you'll run into is how effective taking a dozen shit tier M60s and T-72s is going to be against SEP 3 and T-14. Sure you'll outnumber them, but I feel like the TTK is so severely not in your favor you're just feeding kill points. Fun in a scenario or SP maybe.

Russian vehicles also tend to have a ton of customization because 1: The Russians have incrementally upgraded stuff dozens of times 2: The devs have included every proposed turret swap and upgrade even if nobody ever bought the system.

>>1961687
Armoured has 4 tanks of varying price, quality and availability because you have enough points to carry more than a single card of tanks and get to choose between going all-in on small numbers of expensive tanks, large numbers of cheap tanks or somewhere in between.

The Marine deck has 2 abrams variants to choose from, basically just the cheap or the expensive one but it illustrates a good point. With the Marines, you always have enough points in your tank tab to bring max of both types, for 6 tanks total. There's no decisionmaking. You just bring all 6, every time.

Armoured gives you decisions to make by giving you more options than you can afford and letting you figure out the compromise between quality and quantity that you want. It's kind of important that the tank spec gives you at least that level of granularity when picking your tanks. Especially when you think in context of the full game, where only 2 out of 5 specs will actually have tanks and part of your decisionmaking when putting your deck together is whether you're going to include the tank list to have some tanks, and if so, how much? If you're mainly fielding infantry then you might just want 2 cheap shitter tanks, or a flexible intermediate tank. Maybe you're relying on a tank to be your anti-tank firepower and need that big beefy SEP3. Maybe you just want a tank to eat some frontal shots while your transports rush in behind it, or provide some HE fire support. You have 4 choices, it's not really the definition of clutter.

>>1961744
Most tanks can't even hurt a SEP 3 frontally, but the benefit to having many cheaper tanks is that you CAN hurt its side armour (a lot), and with a numbers advantage you can fan out and hit them from multiple angles to get those side shots.

>>1961744
>I think a problem that you'll run into is how effective taking a dozen shit tier M60s and T-72s is going to be against SEP 3 and T-14. Sure you'll outnumber them, but I feel like the TTK is so severely not in your favor you're just feeding kill points. Fun in a scenario or SP maybe.

I've seen cheap disposable tanks be effective in some very scant circumstances.
But as the game is now, I think it's impossible to push out the ubiquitous-ness of top/neartop tier APS tanks. It is a little boring but I don't know how they could really fix it.

>>1962607
It's a skill issue. Plant down a Sep v3 and you'll see idiots zerg it frontally with T-80s, deal no damage and lose a dozen tanks because they can't pen you. Plant down a T-14 and watch it kill a dozen pattons because some dude thought patton spam would be funny. But if you take those same battles and just spread out your shitters so the singular supertank can't point front armour to all of them, it just dies right away. 2 T-90s will kill (or force off) a SEP 3 as long as they have enough space to flank. Not to mention a single plane strike just deletes that 400pt tank with no recourse.

The game was a beta available only for a few weeks at a time, obviously nobody but the super sweats were playing optimally, and raw stats tends to matter more when players aren't actually controlling their units. Distributing your points among targets that are harder to delete with a KAB strike, and protecting/threatening flanks and firing angles was a big part of playing the game well, but basically nobody in multiplayer was playing well aside from the nolifers (like me) who took time off to grind a videogame.

I think a change that would shake things up is to make it so that only infantry can capture control points. You can everything on a point to death with armor and air power, but you still have to dismount your vulnerable infantry on to the point to actually capture it.

>>1963355
neat I like it but will never happen

>>1963178
>Not to mention a single plane strike just deletes that 400pt tank with no recourse.
Losing shit to planes is a skill issue.
>2 T-90s will kill (or force off) a SEP 3 as long as they have enough space to flank
Wide open space to flank and hoping the opponent isn't paying much attention is the scant circumstances I was referring to, I just didn't encounter it often, great when it did but not something I'd pull units in just to hope for. But also T-90s are well in the strong tank category not the spam tank category.

>>1963765
You're thinking of the T-90M. The base, unupgraded T-90 is 170pts with 6 availability. It's closer in price to a Bradley than an Abrams.

>>1944320 (OP)
Front Edge doesn't exist now?

>>1968940
Post again when they allow front to cum

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5T3aCKTWuW8

The historical gamer is doing a live preview of Broken arrow

>>1970556
There's a couple of these out including an official one by the devs. They gave a handful of reviewers and youtubers a little preview build with the tutorial and one story mission.

There's also a reveal coming tomorrow of one of the remaining specs: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nxp5yT7n1s

>>1970568
>There's also a reveal coming tomorrow of one of the remaining specs
Nice, I look forward to it

https://store.steampowered.com/news/app/1604270/view/537721107195626717
New US spec revealed
Highlights
>Stryker everything
>including Stryker variants that never left development, like a howitzer
>Strykers get optional ERA and Active Protection and can mount Javelins
>9-man infantry squads come in AT (with Javelins and AT4s) or AA (with stingers and MGs) or CQC (shotguns and bunker busters)
>no helicopters whatsoever
>M10 Booker
>loaded as fuck support tab with multiple patriot variants, a CWIS on a flatbed, HIMARS, etc.
>A-10s alongside F-16s in 3 variants (fighterbomber/SEAD/modernized bomb truck)
>B-52
>recon drones just like Airborne

No helis is a pretty big downside for a spec without MBTs but all of its other tabs are pretty loaded

>>1970823
>including Stryker variants that never left development, like a howitzer
REEEEEEEEEE PAPER ARMY PAPER ARMY

>>1970823
There's a 3 or 4 second segment of the video where they show all of the logos for the different specializations. We now know more or less what everything is going to be...except for the final Russian specialization in the bottom right. What does that icon look like it represents to you guys? My first thought was some kind of elite infantry. I know the national specs are not necessarily 1:1 equivalents of the other country but it would make sense.

>>1971032
Bottom right is based on a real russian motorized unit and the crossed rifles and oak leaves was the icon of the Motostrelki infantry squads in one of the recent singleplayer previews.

The one with the flag is the 'new' one to this list though my assumption is that they just split the Motostrelki in 2, with one being more of an army standard while the other is the shitbox brigade with all their missing rocket arty.

>>1971032

Regular Motostrelki vs Guard Motostrelki?

>>1971032

The little flag is often a giveway that it is a Guard Division.

>>1970823
>9-man infantry squads come in AT (with Javelins and AT4s) or AA (with stingers and MGs) or CQC (shotguns and bunker busters)

I know planes can have more than 4 weapon slots (I think) but can ground units? I hope the larger Stryker infantry squads still retain enough anti-infantry firepower. It would strike a nice balance with the Mech Rifles being weaker but supported by the more lethal Bradley. Or at least offer more up/side grades. Haven't seen any line infantry units get the MAAWS after Marine squads had it in the first SP playtest. Would be a nice upgrade option alongside stuff like a CSASS or even the PGS (A prototype system).

>>1971293
>I know planes can have more than 4 weapon slots (I think) but can ground units?
Yes. Most squads are some mix of ARs, LMGs, DMRs, grenade launchers and other assorted small arms, with some members of the squad also carrying some kind of launcher as a secondary weapon.

The CQC squad swaps the anti-tank launchers for anti-infantry ones, and the LMGs for shotguns since LMGs can't be fired on the move and an assault squad wants to be closing distance while fighting. But the post didn't specify the exact loadouts for all the new squads and I'm not going to comb through footage trying to count the number of ARs and LMGs in each.

>>1971311
I know squads can have multiple rifles, ARs, LMGs etc but I don't think I've ever seen one that had more than 4 weapon slots. Like a squad had M4s, M203s, M249s and AT4s but I've never seen any unit with a 5th weapon.

US infantry should be more flexible than RU infantry at the cost of comparatively higher prices if you choose to give them extra weapons. RU infantry should be a bit more diverse and specialized, with them having more focused kit options for their intended role.

>>1971323

Would make sense to be able to chose if you want to equip your infantry with extra disposable AT to reinforce your designated AT guy for both sides?

>>1971327
I mean like pay more per squad to swap AT4s for MAAWS or drop an M4 for a CSASS, swap the 320s for M32s for the Marines etc. US players can pay more to improve or specialize their infantry towards certain uses.

I think BA currently does and should keep focusing on is not having useless units. I enjoy Warno, but it has lots of useless units like single M240 teams that never get used. Using the customization options to make better use of a smaller amount of units while still preventing you from being prepared for every type of encounter (without paying out the ass for it).

>>1971032
>>1971037
It should just be Wagner.

>>1973122
Wagner is only good for PMC ops, all the units so far are geared for actual war
also, I would think the FSB would start knocking on the dev's door again if they included wagner

ROLLING FOR BASED US+RUS VS. EU DLC

>>1948445
>Royalty payments for small arms and vehicles etc.
I think this is all bullshit, I doubt Broken Arrow is paying royalties for using equipment names.

>>1977276
I want Goldeneye-tier fake equipment names

Should FPV drone teams and drone swarms be included in the game?

>>1976970
One of the lead devs on stream (one of the guys poached from Eugen) said they definitely plan on adding other factions in the future, but that would be at minimum months after launch with tons of polish and more units for the base groups. Some countries like France would get their own faction entirely, but one that doesn't have enough to "stand on its own" (direct quote) could be folded into an existing faction as a specialization, with the example being a Canada spec for the US or UK. They also said they would certainly fold the nordic countries into one if they ever added them.

>>1982684
>with the example being a Canada spec for the US
Not for sale, bucko

>>1952044
>>1952386
You retards are two sides of the same coin.

>>1944320 (OP)
somebody asked eugen whether they would add mines to warno. they replied: "never".
i have some hopes the last general.

>>1984366
>"I've never played a game where mines were fun to play against"
Shame that the BA team thinks this way considering putting down mines in the first place is extremely boring itself, and plenty of games like CoH and Arma have had interesting play around landmines. Not that I can complain as long as the game isn't delayed... is this what heroin withdrawl feels like?

>>1984420
>putting down mines in the first place is extremely boring itself
That's part of the problem. Mines are tedious and unfun to place but offer a huge advantage once placed. But what's the counter to mines? A tank/IFV with a mine plough drives through them and clears a path

In the real world there are operational concerns with mines. You don't make minefields too deep, too dense or too ubiquitous because you have a limited amount of them and near limitless ground to cover, and because you need to keep the option open for you to actually attack through that sector in the future and to be able to move supplies and logistics through it after you've advanced beyond.

In a tactical battle, operational concerns don't matter which means mining gameplay just boils down to tediously spamming mines to create as much of a no-go zone as possible, and opposing players countering mines by just ignoring them with ploughs or clearing them with bombing runs.

The only way I can see mines working or making sense in a game like this is if minefields are pre-placed, known to both players, hostile to everyone and serve primarily as a form of terrain on the map rather than a defensive weapon you place and control manually. But in practice that just wouldn't add enough to the game to make it worthwhile to design interactions with mine clearing and breaching vehicles.

Some news came earlier.
>yes we are on track for a June release
>there might not be another playtest before the release (this is the way I interpreted it)
>more performance improvements
>singleplayer campaign + skirmish with other players vs. AI bots will be available
>yes we plan to support the game in the future with DLC, etc.
I think if you've been following this game closely then you probably already knew about most of this, but here is the post anyway.

>>1984586
>june release on target
Good, they've delayed it enough times in the past that the lack of news was making me ansty
>no beta
Not a surprise, there's only like 3 months until their planned launch date and that's a narrow timeframe to set up another OBT, gather useful feedback and then work it into the game before launch.
>performance
Huge. Game ran like absolute ass even on a beefy rig.

Let's hope they get mp right the first time because while the previous open betas were fun they were definitely rough around the edges with lots of shit to work out. I don't want this to be another promising multiplayer game that dies in weeks because the meta is cancer and they don't know how to fix it.

>>1959507
>It is not as fun to have two sides where one side, if realistically depicted, is both larger + more advanced than the other.
I would love a game that had a grounded alt-history to avoid this exact thing

make it vaguely west vs. russia vs. east asia for the aesthetics

>>1984586
More like the F-69 Craptor

>>1984609
>Huge. Game ran like absolute ass even on a beefy rig.
I somehow got away pretty good on my toaster laptop with 1070GTX

>>1984681
In game it probably will be. "long and medium range aerial combat" is shorthand for "we made it shit at dogfighting and gave it all the bad missiles that always miss"

>>1984502
The game has equipment dedicated to mineclearing like the MICLIC so far. Those + standard artillery are used plenty in the real world for mine removal.
>>1984646
Rising Storm 2's assymetry works just fine. It's a shame that the rise of esports streamers and their followers have lead to any winrate besides 50.0000 percent "needing immediate changes!!". Forbid I ever play a game with an assymetric PvP scenario, everything HAS to be equal, even though that's impossible, a fruitless pursuit.
>>1984831
Speaking of F-22 dogfights, I will remain forever ticked off that it was chosen over the Black Widow II which was superior in every other metric besides agility... who needs a dogfighting plane in the year 2000 AD+??? Everything is in the missile

>>1984991
>who needs a dogfighting plane in the year 2000 AD+???
The Vietnam war called, they want their hubris back

>>1944472
Z-iggers are so fucking obvious.

>>1948339
Licensing is rarely an issue for military games, and literally just asking if they can use them is usually enough. The vast majority of actually named weaponry and vehicles depicted in video games is usually renamed, which skirts around the copyright of their intellectual property, so there's literally no reason they couldn't just do that. When they do use their actual names, most of the time they are not paying for a licensing fee, they're seeking approval, which is usually granted anyway, but the reason they don't always ask is because they could always say "no", and even if they rename the weapon, it would still be in violation since it would be seen as malicious circumvention, and then they have to go and pick an entirely different weapon to model and animate.

>>1985001
the vietnam war was 60 years ago

>>1984502
minefields are fundamental part of many military doctrines, obvious example would be russian defence in depth during 2023 counteroffensyyiv.
i was thinking that creating minefields would only be done duirng deployment phase, similar to placing a fob. it would be done by outlining an area, with a cost per square meter. it would create an area hostile to both sides, because that's how mines work in real life. you could choose between anti-personnel and anti-tank mines.
eugen could just as easily add drones, since they already have guided missiles. they could just up the accuracy and/or make it target top. then just add some fucking ewar vehicle that deletes drones in an area, plus maybe a long range drone that works like recon helo, but is vulnerable to ewar and you have modern warfare. lazy frog fags. if wrg was easier to mod we'd have russo-ukraine war mod by now.

>>1985139
And its lessons remain relevant. You can't rely on radar to always identify an enemy approaching via the cover of terrain
You can't rely on being able to out-speed or outmaneuever an enemy using military hardware designed by a competent and well-equipped adversary explicitly to counter yours
You can't rely on long range missiles to always find their target, especially in situations where radar is unreliable

And when radar, planning and technical superiority fail you will be forced into close combat where maneuverability and tactics will determine the outcome more than stealth, avionics or fire control. This becomes more relevant, not less, as technology advances. In the gap between capability and countermeasure is where dogfighting lives and that gap will never be 0.

>>1985543
I agree that once tech as advanced far enough, dog fighting might be viable again, but dog fighting nowadays has been relegated to lower intensity air combat like drug busting and drone-on-drone violence
I don't think we'll see dog fighting be relevant in massive wars outside drone engagements and second/third world countries conflicts

Warno is 40% off now. Should I just pull the trigger on it to tide me over until BA drops? I've been following its news for a while waiting for it to get good or go on a steep enough sale but I'm not completely sure yet.

Sell me on it. I used to play and enjoy Red Dragon but I heard Warno is pretty different.

>>1961744
>taking a dozen shit tier M60s and T-72s is going to be against SEP 3 and T-14.
Didn't play the recent beta, missed it, but in the earlier beta using massed meh tanks was actually pretty successful. Admittedly it also requires more skill/micro.

>>1986594
I find it hard to find any real selling points. It has some much needed QoL improvements (rangefinder/LoS tool), forward deployment of airborne and recce units, has a great soundtrack (although its just licenced retrowave stuff), the zone of control emitted by command units is neat. Counter Battery and Defensive Fires are great additions to arty 'gameplay'. You can also sell off transports. Tanks have smoke launchers.

Unfortunately the real meat and potatoes is lackluster. Deck building is much more restrictive because they're aiming at semi-historical formation. Overall it's a step down from RD. Additionally, the Airborne brigades are a lie, because 90% of your units deploy via truck. There's a small handful of units they actually transport via chopper.
Arguably, this was done in mind so they call sell DLC formations, many of which are reskins or units already in the base game.
The UI is still horrendous, truly unbelievably bad.
The unit pricing in general is more expensive than in RD, which means usually you are playing with less units on the field.
Anything that is towed (tube, mortars, AT, AA) is generally useless due to how long it takes to hitch. AA might at least get a few kills, but they're noob traps waiting to get either CB'd or die to tanks.
district destruction means arty can wipe a town and completely fuck a mech/moto player because inf have no buildings.
Inf combat is a boring slapfight.
They introduced traits for units which generally does not add anything to the game. Some of them are half baked ideas like IFV squads get better bonus when fighting next to their ride, but there is no way outside of micro to keep them tethered together.
I can't speak on the SP campaign side of things, as I've never played.

While there's some great technical improvements over RD, the game's core is a downgrade imo, and the DLC is far less bang for buck.

>>1986594
>>1987012
Warno has a fair number of QoL and mechanic upgrades over Wargame, but it still feels limited a lot of the time. A number of unit traits suck and the normalization of infantry and a lot of unit types makes stuff feel samey.

The early emphasis on accurate irl formations is kinda by the wayside now with stuff like King's Guard in dress uniforms etc. But conscripts in shit boxes doesn't seld DLC even if it's accurate.

The Airborne thing is more accurate in Warno than BA. Airborne drops are huge vulnerable strategic undertakings that require extensive prep of the area before attempting.

>>1987012
>While there's some great technical improvements over RD, the game's core is a downgrade imo, and the DLC is far less bang for buck.
That's what I've been thinking about, Warno. There is a lot of nice stuff, but there are a few major downsides regarding the gameplay, which outweigh the former. There are also not enough changes to make it look like an actually new game. When I first launched it, it felt like a more boring reskin of Wargame on Steel Division engine.
I really don't buy their larp about 'muh historical accuracy' or 'balance', their DLC is based purely on greed. Those french faggots are just too lazy to make new content, so they just shit out those DLCs where 90% of units are copy-pasted. Moreover, due to retarded obsession with "realism", any nation that isn't USA or USSR is simply gimped. At least in Red Dragon those countries could get cool prototypes, to make them more competitive and have actual original units, but in Warno it's always second tier equipment so they're pretty much cannon fodder.
This is what probably annoys me the most about this game, it's literally "NO FUN ALLOWED" mindset.
Then there's singleplayer. It's nice that they brought Army General from Steel Division, it's better than the campaign from Red Dragon but it's still extremely basic. Encircling enemy units literally doesn't matter, because every battle is a direct confrontation with a regular frontline, so the only thing you achieve are some artificial bonuses and the chance to destroy the whole unit after battle, which is no different from the rest.

Broken Arrow had its own problems, but at least the game felt fresh. Deckbuilding is one of my favourite parts there, where you can upgrade units and, more important, change their loadouts.
And the unit cards are just great.

>The Airborne thing is more accurate in Warno than BA. Airborne drops are huge vulnerable strategic undertakings that require extensive prep of the area before attempting.
Obviously, and it's very much a calculated risk in BA. It widens the spectrum of the game. WARNO's air decks being shittier versions of a moto deck adds little.

is opening with air still viable?

>>1992275
Second beta test it seemed a lot nore players opened with reasonable AA, but I didn't get to play it as much as the first

>>1992275
Last beta everyone basically seemed to realize they had to pay the air tax and pretty much every match I played started with a dozen fighters dogfighting over the skies and sniping heli transports. Nobody really bothered with paradrops anymore since the skies were always so contested.

>Russians
This aint Cold War 1 grandpa the Russians are has-beens. We're in Cold War 2. Where's the PLA?

>>1992436
The devs plan for more countries to be added post-launch and China is definitely high on the list but the issue with them is just secrecy. It's difficult to get hard and fast numbers about their hardware and clear photos to use as model reference because a lot of shit just isn't accessible to the public.

But then also 90% of their ground vehicles are just redesignated soviet exports, their planes are soviet (and now US) knockoffs using russian engines. Plus their land force hasn't been a modernization priority the way their sea and missile forces have been so a lot of the equipment is older than the people using it. Less than ideal, to say the least.

>>1992622
>It's difficult to get hard and fast numbers about their hardware and clear photos to use as model reference because a lot of shit just isn't accessible to the public.
just make it up lol

>>1992723
>just make it up lol
he'll be arrested for leaking chinese specs

>>1992622
Anon, Broken Arrow is not a simulator. There's no need for corporate espionage.

>>1944472
Kill yourself

>>1992622
Half the russian roster are fantasy units, what are you talking about? They clearly don't care about realism at all

>>1992436
>>1992622
On new nations, the devs have mentioned two things. That they generally want to keep the theme of the game to a European theater and that any new faction would either have to have enough variety to support 4-5 decks or be folded into a coalition deck like was mentioned regarding a question about Nordic nations. Obviously China would fulfill the variety part, but they'd have to be willing to expand the theme of the game.

The most likely post launch nation is going to be Germany. They've already showed renders of Leo 2s and people have seen some German units in the press demos. I'd say after the Germans to maybe add the French or Polish but I've got no idea for more RedFor factions besides the Chinese really. Maybe a minor Russia adjacent coalition? But that'd still be mostly just worse Russian stuff.

>>1992622
China isn't a unicorn living in some mythical land, there's plenty of information regarding regarding organizational structure, vehicles, equipment and a rough idea of their specs. It's all literally a google search away.

>>1993736
I'm not sure if germany alone would offer enough variety for multiple specializations so I suspect they'd get folded into a faction with france and other surrounding euro nations.

>>1993845
I don't think anyone besides the Chinese have the breadth of equipment options that the US or Russia does, but I think you could hammer out at least 4 specs for Germany: Panzer Div with Leos and Pumas. PanzerGren Div with 100 Boxer variants. Airborne Div with varied elite infantry options and Wiesels. And 4th could be like a SOF deck or maybe a TDF branch with reservists etc based on irl changes.

The real important question is, will we see the F-47 post launch? The devs pretty quickly added the AIM-174B once it went public. Sorry Su-57, you're even less real now.

>>1993736
The most obvious move is to add Eurocorps instead of small Euro nations like Poland or Germany.

>>1994098
The EU collectively has way too much equipment to make sense as a single nation. You have like 5 or 6 different kinds of modern MBT among other stuff. There would be way too much redundancy.

Here's how you do it:
Baltic Coalition
>Primarily German with Polish, Lithuanian, Latvian and Estonian mixed in
>Germany covers the Armoured spec with Leos and IFVs, Poland covers a mechanized spec, rest of the Baltics offer infantry and support specs
They mostly all use the same equipment anyways but there's enough variety here to make sense. Overall faction would be thin on air forces but strong on the ground owing to the variety of vehicles
Nordic Coalition
>Sweden, Denmark, Finland, Norway
>Emphasis on Artillery and light infantry with some unique ground vehicles
France + BeNeLux
>French vehicles provide a pretty unique backbone padded out by Belgian and Netherland gear.
>France obviously covers an Armoured spec with Leclercs, an Airborne/Marine spec and then something unique like a Recon spec that uses a bunch of their weird light vehicles and armoured cars
>rest of the Benelux provides a mechanized spec and a special forces spec with a hodgepodge of imported NATO equipment
Commonwealth
>UK + Canada + Australia + maybe India
>UK covers the armoured spec with Challengers, Canada provides a Stryker cavalry spec knockoff with LAV6s, etc.
Obviously there will be some inevitable crossover with things like planes and missiles because there are only so many designs on the market but I think split this way you'll have enough unique equipment for 4-5 specs to make sense without making countries feel redundant.

>>1994211
>Leclerc
honhonhon, that turd's tracks have a sub-100km life expectancy.
They are only sturdy enough to make a quick parade, and even then the city better not be too far from the depot.

>>1994085
I haven't noticed any sign of the S-70, so maybe not.

>>1995826
Russia has a whole spec built around vehicles that have never been used in combat, I don't think parade tanks are out of the question.

>>1951882
Broken arrow units are fun its just that the community will use them in a faggoty way and the entire game is bent towards encouraging team stacking.

>>1996655
The only thing that was completely ass in the previous beta was people hiding that overpowered Russian IFV in forests.
I hope to god they nerfed that thing

>>1996834
No, it was worse. There was barely any balance in the last beta, and most matches ended up one side completely destroying the other one. You were either steamrolling or getting steamrolled, rarely anything in between.

>>1997849
That was just an issue with matchmaking and netcode. Most matches were a 4v5 or a 3v5 before they even exited the loading screen and their MMR system was bugged so that after a couple games your MMR gain/loss basically stopped completely, which meant you had clueless people playing their first ever game paired alongside no lifers that had been grinding both betas 24/7.

But that's all extraneous to actual game balance. The only things that were actual problems balance-wise last beta were the T-15 (which was an extension of how they fucked up trees and LoS in the beta), KAB-1500s being way too cheap and spammable compared to every other ordinance and helicopters being bugged.

Near the end of the beta, the folks no-lifing it had a little tournament more or less just to demonstrate to the devs what the broken shit was and how it warped gameplay, and the prevailing strategy was to play RU, exclusively call in recon infantry for ground units and just spam KABs at anything your recon spotted for 40 minutes, ignore capture points entirely outside of capping the zones on your side of the map and win entirely via kill score from KAB spam.

>>1997849
This was mostly because at least one person on every team would ragequit when they lost the aerial furball.
They're punks, but efficient ones; they saw it as an inevitable loss and went to go start another match as fast as possible. With no leaver penalty, and no ELO impact difference between losing 5m in and 50m in, they were right. It would become a self-fulfilling prophecy because on top of those issues, there was also no imbalanced team compensation in income or availability, which even Wargame got right a decade ago.
All those problems need to be fixed for shit to make sense on release.

>>1977276
As far as I know, you can always use their military name designation for a piece of hardware. So things like M16A1 or whatever is fine.

Almost June vros ....

Surely there won't be a FIFTH delay ...

>>2001477
Devs recently confirmed on patreon that the june release is ironclad. Whether they'll actually be ready and have the game in a respectable state by then is another question.
Incidentally there is supposed to be another reveal blog for the last US spec at the end of this month. Most people assumed it was going to be revealed on friday but since that came and went without a word we're just waiting to see if they'll reveal it on monday, the literal last day of the month, or if they'll silently wait until April.

>>2001485
>last US spec
Supposed to be some sort of SOF/Advanced units specialization right? I've seen the few Ranger units from the demo: Good sized inf squads with rifles, GLs, LMGs and Carl-Gs, GMG squads and a Support Squad with I think 2x Javelins and 2x MG338s. We also saw Regimental Recon in the very first SP demo but they were unplayable. The most recent demo had Delta on the map but I never saw anyone click on them to try and see their loadout. I think the Commanche (Seen at a press release thing) and F-22 are slated for the spec as well.

>>2001715
In the recent press preview they showed the tutorial mission. One of the segments had you do controlling a few Ranger units. What was interesting to me is that the basic Ranger squad was 9-man and came with basic Stryker from the Cavalry spec.

Obviously the last spec isn't getting its own Strykers, but I actually can't think of any modern vehicle left in the US arsenal that is used to move around a 9-man squad. M113s and the new AMPVs are in Armored, Amtracs and the new landing vehicle are in Marines, Strykers are in Cavalry, and all the various trucks and wheeled transports are all accounted for.

Will this be the first spec to not have organic ground transport for its infantry? Would be a pretty unique weakness if so.

>>2002458
>Will this be the first spec to not have organic ground transport for its infantry?
Rangers come in the older RSOV (Basically a lightweight gun/transport truck) or the newer Flyer series (Fancy new version with mounts for M230LF, loitering munitions and more) and maybe the Pandur (Basically just a Stryker). RSOV and Flyer should be air/heli transportable as well. They'll have access to fancy heli transports of course and we've seen leaked screens of a "StealthHawk" as well.

Their weakness will probably be a lack of heavy vehicles with basically no direct or indirect capabilities outside of light vehicles.

It's up

>Ghosthawk
>Comanche
>F22
>B2
>AC130
>F117 (huh???)

>>2007124
No clue how I feel about it desu.
Lots of sniping, lots of weirdly mixed loadouts, the agm being able to target helos is whacky

>>2007124
https://store.steampowered.com/app/1604270/Broken_Arrow/
https://youtu.be/Qi_ZSGsnrSg?si=Qab9Jw1X5Eo6-b90

Interesting mix of units, with some pretty combat capable Recon units and a completely empty Vehicle tab. Your heavy fire support will come from your organic transports or aircraft.

Seems odd that the 2 organic ground transports can't carry the basic Ranger squad. You'll need to either poach Strykers or just use helis all the time. Lame that they took the Carl-G from the regular Ranger loadout and made it an alt. The Ranger GMG team being able to engage helis is cool though.

>>2007147
Remember that snipers ignore cover bonuses in BA. So those 4 man sniper teams are gonna delete smaller weapons teams and whittle down regular infantry quick at range.

>>2007178
Oh I wasn't knocking on the snipers, that was just an observation, the loadouts itself were what had me stumped.
See:
>A 3 man team with the best stealth and optics that can be equipped with suppressed rifles and laser designator:
>- Mk 12 Special Purpose Rifle, a designated marksman rifle in 5.56x45 caliber
>- M110 Semi Automatic Sniper System, chambered in 7.62x51
>- M2010 Enhanced Sniper Rifle, chambered in .300 WM reaching longer distances
Those are noticeably different but not to the point of having an anti infantry and anti material rifle. It feels weird.

>>2007199
Their wording is definitely a bit unclear and it's hard without being able to see unit cards. Like: I can't tell whether the Ranger Support squad is 2x MG338s with an option for either a Jav or a Stinger or if it's two seperate teams.

The M110 and 2010 are different enough that you could give the 10 a sub 1k range and the other a 1k or more. The Mk. 12 has the same issue as the M38 for the Marines in that it's still just a 5.56 gun. More capable for sure, but kinda lost at this scale. I think the options though are all 3 of those guns at once, or the M107 2x M4s and some AT4s.

>>2007305
>Their wording is definitely a bit unclear
>I can't tell whether the Ranger Support squad is 2x MG338s with an option for either a Jav or a Stinger or if it's two seperate teams.
pretty certain it is 2MG338s and either a jav or stinger but yes the wording is iffy

>think the options though are all 3 of those guns at once, or the M107 2x M4s and some AT4s.
That's how I read it too. it just feels a bit awkward compared to just having a M2010 and two Mk 12s or something like this

>making entire specializations dedicated to infantry in a game where infantry does nothing useful besides reconaissance
So essentially this is the stealth fighter and helicopter spam spec which will counter the Russian helicopter and bomber spam from their airborne spec.

>>2007662
RU infantry was very good, because all their AT launchers could murder vehicles in seconds. You could use cheap chaff to screen out enemy tanks and IFVs from dogpiling your ATGMs, forcing the other side to clear your chaff out with their own infantry.
The problem is that US infantry can't fight the same way, because the AT4 was super dogshit. Only the marine SMAW teams could actually hurt anything bigger than a BTR so for the most part US infantry was only good for recon or clearing out RU infantry.
The point of spec ops is that they have all the good US AT launchers, so they can do what the RU side does and screen out vehicles in forests and city blocks while longer range ATGMs do the killing. At least in theory

>>2007124
>F117
>F117, but it's a fucking cruise missile truck
This air tab is so fucking stacked
Literally all it's missing is a plane with Mavericks for tank killing but you can just grab that from another spec.

>>2007737
I wonder if it will make it viable to airstrike enemy S-300/Patriots like in the first beta.
Shit was funny.

>>2007737
>>2008946
They should allow you to mount Rapid Dragon onto the C-130/17 and Black Arrow onto the AC-130. Would completely remove the ability to paradrop, but turn your cargo plane into the most expensive stand off bomber in the game.

>>2010039
As funny as a Rapid Dragon would be, it would really just encroach on the purpose of dedicated Strat Bombers that are supposed to be the main cruise missile spammers.

>>2010063
I know the AC-130 is getting stuff like wing mounted SDBs and ramp mounted AGMs at least.

Rapid Dragon would basically be a non-nuke nuke. Your entire points bank and removing your airdrop capability from one of the only specs to get it. No stealth or defensive capabilities but it just needs to get its pallets out.

>>2010063
what if a dragon that could fly like a bird was given an engine that could only be described as a 'draconic propulsion system' or 'dragonic engine'?

Press release demo is out and no NDA. Watching a video going over the specs for both RU/USA and there's already units that have gotten shuffled around and had upgrades/downgrades added.

Airborne now get a cheaper version with M4/M249 and AT4 and a more expensive option with the NGSW guns and Carl-Gs.

>>2012237
Pretty sweet to see.
Truth be told I'm no longer able to make any assessment of the decks. Haven't played since the 1st beta and even most of that isn't really something I remember.

And yes russians now have:
VDV
Guard Tanks
Coastal
Motorized Infantry
Mechanized Infantry

>>2012293
Moto + Mech seems like a crazy amount of cheap infantry and cheap transports. Autocannons and RPGs galore.

T-15 nerfed with a slight price increase. RU support and heli lineup is still crazy.

>>2012305
Yeah might be, they get Pantsir, Tochka and S-300P among others so Air defenseis nothing to scoff at.
You won't be able to pick many air units but with the AD that might not matter.
And the arty picks seem nice too.
And massed IFV infantry with arty might be enough to cover your lack of tanks.

Stryker spec is hilarious and aside from lack of real tanks might be one of the best for US. Can put APS on basically every Stryker variant and Javelins on most of them. Their air defense options are great with Patriot, but also M-SHORAD and the MML that can stack like 20 Stingers, Hellfires or AIM-9s all with radar.

>>1949157
>russia only barely won cope spiel

Seethe and Dilate, NAFOtranny. You fell for the tried and true attrition warfare

>>2012237
Carl-G Airborne unironically fixes all of US's ground problems. It's a fucking panacea.

>>2012506
I don't know if it fixes everything but it's nice to see the US not be completely anemic in the AT category. Would still like to see Marines get their Carl-Gs back from the very first SP demo.

Speaking of SP, there's two missions available for the press demo. A defensive focused RU one where you air assault a power plant and then hold it against a mix of US/European units and a US one where you conduct an airfield seizure. The RU one comes with a fun little cinematic before mission. Both seem fun.

I have too many thoughts about the new specs to organize right now but Stryker definitely looks like the beloved child. Airborne getting so many buffs makes me feel like the devs actually listened to feedback from last beta, which is good.
Special forces has a lot of strong shit but also some bafflingly terrible units and weird design choices. It really feels like a lot of units were stripped from other specs, where they probably belonged, and transplanted here without much thought.

Biggest surprise here is the fucking nighthawk bringing a pair of 2000lb bombs for 250 pts. That thing will be so cancer.

>>1949157
>Compare slavshit performance irl vs what you find in games such as this, Wargame, Warno, etc. Russians managed to lose their most advanced weaponry and troops against a nation armed with its own and NATO leftovers
it wouldnt be fun if you were scripted to lose or win depending on which side you choose, using strategy to overcome technological gaps is a good challenge, also half of the shit you mentioned is really old and cranky

>>2012546
After seeing all the stats, the design of SOCOM really confuses me
You have 4 undersized recon squads. 3/4 have a CQC loadout but only one of them actually has shotguns to win CQC fights and none of them have the anti-infantry launchers that Mech. Engis and Force Recon have, which are the whole reason they're strong in close quarters. You have a sniper squad that doesn't have max optics like every other sniper squad
You have another sniper squad that has more snipers, but for some reason they all have different ranges so it's awkward to make the most out of them, and it's really, really expensive

Pararescue are a really overpriced stinger team. Like Mech. AA are 6 bodies with 1 stinger for 65 pts and this is same size for 35 pts more. Why? The small arms are a little better but not anything game-changing, and it loses a grenade launcher.

M-ATVs neither have recon optics nor the ability to transport recon squads. I'm not even sure why they're in the recon tab.

Then infantry.
Delta Force are the same price as Marine Raiders but 2 fewer bodies, and their loadouts are a direct downgrade. Why would I ever want that?
Mainline Rangers pick between being a generic squad with the worst AT in the game or being a bad SMAW team. What purpose was this unit supposed to fulfill? I genuinely don't understand.

Ranger Javelin is priced like a CAAT team but without all the added firepower (and 2 fewer men), and the stinger variant is 15pts more than a mech. AA team for a couple of MGs that it won't be able to use while fighting helis.

It feels like almost every unit here is a downgrade of something that already exists. The only units that really stand out are the MAWS team and the RRC (because it carries a MAWS).

I guess it's worth mentioning that the only good infantry in SOCOM fit in Bradleys, but I feel like Armored/SOCOM would be a cursed deck combo since you butcher your tank/heli/support/air points.

Is there a video out there where someone just goes over the new units in the armory and nothing else? I don't want to scrub through hours and hours of some guy elaborating his thoughts on every blade of grass

Does the US have any equivalent to Tochka?
If I remember correctly, it could be upgraded to Iskander, which gave you two cruise missiles instead of one. It was much more effective than, for example, ballistic missiles from HIMARS. Because almost everyone has AA, most of them get intercepted so you had to use two HIMARS trucks each time to oversaturated their defenses. Meanwhile Iskander flies low and almost always hit the target.

>>2012913
No, all their cruise missiles are air-launched.
The US actually had a treaty with Russia since late in the cold war that restricted the size, range and payload of ground launched missiles, which is why the US has a huge roster gap there for indirect fire. The gap is present in real life, because they were following a treaty, and russia just kinda wasn't.

>>2012574
The SOF spec also seems a bit underwhelming even just based on the initial dev diary. The helis and planes seem relatively straightforward though I think the F-22/35 need a serious bump in both stealth and ECM ideally. Especially the F-35 that's known for a capable enough radar and EW suite that it serves as an AWACS for older gen aircraft. RU planes can fit an ungodly amount and spread of AAMs, AGMs, HARMs, bombs, fuel and ECM so the US 5th gen stuff needs something to set itself apart. You won't have the magazine depth or variety, but you can perform better in the limited engagements you do get.

The ground game is weird for sure. Rangers should be the meat and potato of the deck. Guaranteed to chew up enemy infantry and armor if they get close or don't have dedicated anti-inf units around. I like them being large squads, but their transport options suck. They take up the majority of the seats in any transport they're in so you can't really stack them with the other Ranger support squads unless you go for the biggest options. The 338 support guns should have the profile of a 50 cal with better accuracy/fire rate. Chew up infantry at standoff and kill light armor.

M-ATV should become a transport option or sent to Vehicle category as a FSV and given even more options. Should stick loitering munitions in the back so it can even do heavy anti tank work.

>>2013331
Did some cursory research and there's two M-ATV variants that could fit. An "Assault" variant with extended wheelbase and an armored troop cabin. Holds 11 troops, so could fit most SF spec troops. And an "M-LIDS" air defense version. Basically the MADIS JLTV the Marine spec had, 30mm autocannon and radar, but the missiles are Coyote UAVs.

>>2013085
What blood yappin' about

It's a difference in doctrine. The US filled that role with airpower and the M270/HIMARs ATACMs

>>2014066
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intermediate-Range_Nuclear_Forces_Treaty
Here's some reading to get you started.
Long story short: it's not a difference in doctrine, both the US and Soviet Union had extensive arsenals of ground-launched missile systems pointed at each other in Europe. In '86 they agreed to limit these weapons and the US disarmed most of its arsenal. The US remained in this treaty until 2019 and has only now begun developing new ground-based missile systems. The benefit of ground-launched weapons is that they can be much larger, and thus have more range and payload because they don't need to fit onto a plane, and that they can be concealed from hostile observers and remain in a 24/7 state of readiness instead of being tied to an airfield visible to satellite intelligence. The motivation behind the treaty was de-escalation and rapproachment on the part of the US. The soviet union of the 80s represented a greater willingness to deal diplomatically and ground launched missile systems had advanced enough at this point that the US force posture in europe and aisa had the range and quantity to threaten russia's nuclear deterrence conventionally. Thus willingly ceding that advantage was a major olive branch.

ATACMs was developed after the signing of the treaty to plug the new gap in capability with something that was still treaty-compliant. Weapons like the ATACMs are a stopgap but lack both range and payload of the kinds of systems banned under the treaty. The Soviet Union complied with the treaty until its fall (most of its missiles represented in videogames are pre-treaty and were disarmed once the treaty came into effect). Its successor state loopholed the treaty by developing non-compliant weapons under the guise of being air-launched, only to reveal as soon as the US withdrew from the treaty that they already had larger, ground-launched 'variants' in service, which they have since used extensively in ongoing conflicts.

I'm excited for BA but how do I proverbially "git gud?" I played the first beta a bunch and a little of the second beta. I don't know what half of the units do anymore. I like the recon/infantry play despite hating micro in general (I have yet to this day successfully laser striked anything.) I am not a tank autist. I do know that APS and good AA deployment are king. I am on a hard boycott of Discord. How can I best support my team? What is the most effective use of Tu-160 cruise missile spam because that shit is hilarious to do and the Tu-160 is kino?

>>2014277
BA is a pretty simple game to pilot compared to most RTS games.
The main job of infantry is to either sneak through forests/mousehole buildings and remain hidden until they get close enough to jumpscare tanks with AT launchers, or sit in concealed positions covering a valuable line of approach with a heavy weapon (ATGM, HMG, etc.) Generally it will take more than 1 squad of anything to beat a proper tank, so it's good to keep infantry in groups and just have them move forward together, far enough apart that they don't get AoE'd but close enough that they can all hit a target (preferably from multiple angles). A tank can only show its front in 1 direction at a time, so a pair of squads with good AT launchers can reliably pincer and delete it as long as they have enough concealment to not get picked off from a safe distance or focus-fired by a whole blob. This is why they want to fight in forests or towns.

The best part about infantry and recon is that they're hard to spot and individually cheap, so you can provide a lot of vision and a lot of coverage without any given position being overly valuable if it's blown up. You want to just pick an area of the map that's got a lot of cover and saturate it, constantly moving recon squads forward to extend vision and locate targets. Any teammate with an air tab or some artillery will benefit from this, and infantry and distributed widely among cover are an absolute tarpit for anyone trying to push through you. The RU naval infantry was really good for this because they come with a tonne of really strong AT launchers. Just be sure to provide some fire support in infantry fights because pound for pound RU infantry lose to US infantry

Cruise Missiles want to snipe frontline targets like infantry in buildings or places where enemy vehicle blobs are staging. You're likely to just get intercepted sniping anything too far back, but at the front you can punish units for extended too far from their AA net at low risk.

>>2014261
TIL

>>2014285
I generally did well with infantry pulling off forest ambushes, but I never find myself in a position to laser anything and seldom get an opportunity to push for cap. I did get a chance to use the Russian amphibious recon last beta and they were fun but they didn't help me win. I can put together a decent AA net and make sure it stays mobile enough to not get immediately trashed.
I never had connection issues myself but most of my 2nd Beta games were 4v5s and the 5s were usually premade teams or wildly more experienced players. I hope at launch I'll be able to test different units and weapons in single player to see what they actually do (mostly jet bombs)

>>2014485
>never find myself in a position to laser anything
Nta but imo lasing with infantry was never a huge thing in the beta.
I always treated it as nice to have when an opportunity presents itself but never a major aspect I go out of my way to get my hands on.
>almost requires good stealth rating
>need to get close to the enemy line or behind without getting spotted
>they need good LoS
>you need to find a target which is worth lasing
As a consequence you rarely get opportunities for it, arguably the biggest use case is against entrenched infantry.

>seldom get an opportunity to push for cap
I consider infantry to be inherently better at holding ground than pushing, with its greater reliance on terrain.
But ultimately the same rules apply when it comes to pushing a cap as with all other compositions.

>>2014647
>Nta but imo lasing with infantry was never a huge thing in the beta.
It was really situational. What once worked really good for me was sending snipers through the forest and spotting enemy vehicles like tanks or SPAA.

>>2014782
Yeah that was the main thing I did with infantry too, still less than my other use cases.
>1. F-35 lasing it's own target, preferably SAMs
>2. lasing a building on the front where infantry was
>3. snipers in the backline which spot a high value target for arty and co.

>>2014485
Infantry lasing isn't very important. The range is short, and limited even more by LoS on maps cluttered with obstacles.
But also most things that you can las for have a delay. Airstrikes need to actually fly onto the map and reach their target, and artillery have ~15 second aim times before firing. So if a target is moving, odds are very high they're going to move out of LoS or las range of a ground target painter before whatever strike is coming in is actually ready.

Basically the only reason to use lasing on infantry or ground vehicles is to paint a building close to the front where you think a garrison is hiding, so you can chase them out in 3-4 laser guided artillery shells instead of a dozen unguided ones. For the most part lasing is only relevant for aircraft that can self-las or for recon helis that can las ground targets from outside of AA range.

And infantry can't really push towards a zone unless it's crawling through forests or dense urban environments. You just can't breach open ground on foot, no matter how good your infantry are. And generally since infantry move slow, once the enemy team becomes aware that you have a lot of them advancing in one area they'll just start carpet-bombing your forest because infantry can't escape it. If you want to be flexible, you need to build your deck to combine infantry and vehicles. Infantry alone can't push through the open or anywhere covered by sufficient indirect fire support, but IFVs can.

Not sure how the balance is going to look like, but Russia seems to have more interesting units
https://youtu.be/kG34ghlIp4M

>>2016597
Does tube artillery even do damage
the paladin seemed like it didn't do shit, even with iron thunder to be good for much other than blowing up supply depots

>>2015824
Can you queue lasing/bomb orders on jets?

>>2016767
You still can't queue lasing, unfortunately. I don't know why, I think it's just a backend issue the devs haven't figured out but I wouldn't count on it.
>>2016732
Most tube artillery does like 9 damage per hit, with a small AoE that radiates outward and gets weaker as it does. Infantry have 5hp per body (which amounts to 30-60 total per squad) and take 50% reduced damage from most sources when in a building, and 25% reduced damage in forests (some weapons partially ignore this mitigation). Vehicles typically have around 10-20hp. Heavier ones are basically immune to HE artillery fire because of their armour, unless a precision shell lands dead on and strikes top armour. Thin-skinned vehicles die to most tube artillery in 2 hits, and are consequently the thing most vulnerable to artillery fire. That includes stuff like logi trucks, SAM batteries and other artillery platforms.

The new RU superheavy artillery and mortar do more like 18 damage a hit, which means they'll oneshot any thin-skinned vehicle and drop multiple infantry squad members per hit even in buildings.

The RU side relies pretty heavily on artillery, having huge quantities available in every spec alongside shit like Napalm Grads and superheavy mortars. This is in exchange for not having proper stealth planes to perform backline strikes with. The US has less artillery overall but what they have is generally longer-ranged and more accurate, thus very suitable for counterbattery fire.

In the previous beta stealth planes were basically unkillable while in the recent press build stealth was almost worthless, so the devs are still clearly working to find a balance for air spam and air defense.

>>2016781
>can't queue lasing, unfortunately
Thanks for all the answers, my lasing on jets never really seemed to do it either.
Any reason to do Frogfoot strafing runs?

>>2016789
In game the Frogfoot and Warthog are basically carbon copies. Their main use is as a carrier for air-to-ground missiles, which do colossal damage to vehicles with very aggressive tracking. The Frogfoot also has some very powerful AT rockets that can gib tanks on a strafing run.

The downside is that these planes and are likely on a one-way trip if there's any air defense at all. But they are relatively cheap so even if they lose the plane they will likely trade up if they manage to kill an expensive tank or multiple vehicles. It was previously eclipsed by KAB-1500s in terms of payload value but those were nerfed for this recent test which made other options for RU CAS more appealing. However in general air defense was way too strong this beta and basically un-SEADable so every plane was on a one-way trip.

>>2016732
Now that I think about it, during the last beta I resorted to using cluster missiles for counter battery because tube artillery took too long to kill units.
Tube arty was decent if you managed to lase the enemy unit, otherwise I just used it to suppress enemy infantry in buildings or forests.

There was another playtest, this time for youtubers and journos and they changed a few things.
Motorstrielki is now gone, so Russia has motorized and mechanized decks instead.
Support US deck is gone, HIMARS goes to Stryker deck, for example.

https://store.steampowered.com/news/app/1604270/view/537726178354528310?l=english

>>1985105
He's right seethe shabbos goy

>>2021003
>commies are the good guys!
good goyim

>>2020984
Yeah, we've seen all the specs now. RU mech get BMP-1/2/3 and motor get the BTR-80 and K-16. Only the BMP-3, K-16 and one of the T-72s from mech get APS. Shit tons of good support and AA units though, plus some really good infantry in the motor spec. GRU recon teams with decent self defense, good AT and good MANPADs.

Surely ... there won't be another delay.......
I crave bombing russians

>>2021436
So that's how decks look like now?
US:
>armor
>marine
>stryker
>stealth
>airborne
RU:
>marine
>moto
>mech
>armor
>airborne

>Broken Arrow will be released on June 19 on Steam
The advanced access is a tad irritating. Not like the pricey version has much to offer aside from that.

>>2021757
waited 2 years
can wait 3 days
that price is ridiculous

>>2021768
>that price is ridiculous
absolutely

>>2021685
>So that's how decks look like now?
US:
Armor: gets best tanks/IFVs, decent arty/AA
Marine: Amphib vehicles, large inf squads, light smattering of helis/planes
Stryker: Fast modular APCs and lots of ATGMs, really good support options
Airborne: Really strong infantry with light fast transport options, lots of helis and planes
Special Forces: Strong infantry with lots of customization options. Lots of stealth heli/plane options.

RU:
Guard Armor: Best most modern tanks and IFVs with well equipped infantry
Airborne: Light IFVs and AFVs. Strong Heli and plane options.
Coastal Defence: Medium quality tank and IFV with chunky infantry squads and strong support options. Specialized heli/planes.
Moto: APCs with strong infantry options and tons of support assets.
Mech: Cheap tanks and IFVs with varied but basic infantry and some support options.

Basically RU gets a decent support and air tab no matter what spec you choose. The 5th gen fighters (One of the US's only advantages in the air) need a higher stealth rating.

I just hope the cruise missile spam won't be so ridiculous.

>>2021849
The press review build recently had AA overbuffed to hell and all missiles and air basically rendered worthless. An F-35 flying at high altitude with afterburners on would get hosed out of the sky in a fraction of a second by a 60s-era soviet SPAAG from a half dozen kilometers away.

I don't think that kind of balance will make it to launch but now that the pendulum has swung this direction I don't think it'll swing back to airspam any time soon.
>>2021829
RU also has tanks in almost every spec while US only gets them in Armoured and Marines. But the US has a lot of advantages, the absolute plethora of top-attack ATGMs, the generally longer-ranged and more accurate indirect fire, the strictly stronger infantry widely available across all of its specs, no weird limitations on ground logistics and wide access to drones

>>2021768
>>2021777
Both prices are silly. Sanctions must be hitting hard.

>>2021902
I think the major part of the issue is that it's pretty easy for even a team of randoms to hit a critical density of AD with RU that it's basically impossible to break from the air. The US just doesn't have enough SEAD capability to punch through all the SPAAGs and missile systems. The only way they can is with recon and constant long range arty disrupting them.

RU planes also get to carry a shit ton of missiles and ECM on nearly everything. The 5th Gens shouldn't be "I win" buttons but with proper standoff they should perform much better.

The Javelin is basically one of the US's super weapons. Stryker is great because you can slap one on basically every Styler and a rifle squad comes with 3 shots. Very easy to build a wall of F&F ATGMs.

>>2022004
Do you still need more ammo than an atgm squad carries to kill a t72?
Does fire and forget work yet?
When I last played due to aps it would take 4 or 5 javelin to kill a t72 while the only javelin squad carried 3 and blocking los would make it miss.

>>2022004
>The US just doesn't have enough SEAD capability
Well part of the issue in th playtest was that:
>you can just disable radar
>sead missiles can be shot down by aa
>anti overkill mechanic ensures that planes don't fire enough missiles to overcome the AD bubble

>>2022193
Why is it in every russian game there's always little things that make russians objectively better even though IRL those same aspects basically don't matter?
You mentioning overkill just reminded me of russian ripple fire ATGMs.

>previous beta airplanes were giga rape machines that were so insanely strong that buying ground units was actually a complete waste of money
>new beta, AA is much stronger which makes planes much weaker, even the stealth planes are shot down almost instantly after spawning
Well, at least they figured out how to make infantry fun, at long last.

>>2022202
Outdated SPAAG with 0 kills in irl conflict being able to laser down a stealth jet is definitely head-turning but I seriously doubt that's making it to release. I think they wanted to make sure it could hit A-10s because it would look pretty for the press and just hacked it in a way that worked too well.

>>2022193
>you can just disable radar
So just like in real life?
That's not a bad thing, but in Eugen games it actually has a real effect, because you can't use AA without radar. Meanwhile, in BA disabling radar only reduces your range.
However, SEAD/DEAD is not supposed to be easy. What worked for me in previous beta were cluster missiles. They can't be intercepted, so if your enemy does not move his AA, you can just send a volley of missiles to destroy it. It almost always works.
The other option are air-launched cruise missiles.

>>2022173
>Do you still need more ammo than an atgm squad carries to kill a t72?
Don't recall it actually being that bad in the last beta but even with top attack ATGMs you need at least 2 shots against tanks without aps.
>Does fire and forget work yet?
According to some videos yes, with some missiles now even being able to reacquire new targets too.
>When I last played due to aps it would take 4 or 5 javelin to kill a t72 while the only javelin squad carried 3 and blocking los would make it miss.
Afaik Javelins only get 4 missiles so if the enemy has aps and you don't have another squad to ripple fire with you're fucked.
>>2022298
>So just like in real life
Not entirely. The AGM-88 has an internal guidance system in case it loses the target's signal. Those can be iffy depending on when they last had the target acquired but afaik the more modern versions use GPS assistance to get the accuracy <10m.

>Meanwhile, in BA disabling radar only reduces your range.
That is part of the issue, combined with the instant enabling/disabling of radar there is simply no opportunity cost to disabling the radar.

>>2022384
Modern inertial guidance is accurate enough to land within a few meters of the target on its own, it's a big reason why you see so many glidebombs and cruise missiles hurled back and forth by both sides while most other precision munitions have been rendered useless by evolving ECMs.

Radar in BA toggles off instantly but takes ~10 seconds to toggle back on. The intention is that the sead plane shuts the radar off so that your followup plane can drop payload, either just bombing the SAM site directly or bombing whatever frontline target was worth the effort.

The issue with the press build was just that SAMs were too accurate and too responsive. A stealth jet would eat a missile the instant it flew within range, that missile would basically always land and oneshot what it hit. If you managed to get lucky and dodge the missile via ECM, it would always fire a second one before you managed to get out of range and that second one would pretty much always land.

>>2022173
Against APS, don't bother firing if you only have one launcher. Not all javelins have f&f (for some reason)

>>2022173
T72s weren't even in the game when you played, buddy.

All APS has 4 charges and most singular ATGMs fire at the same rate as APS recharges, meaning the APS will block 4 shots in a row before any missiles get through.
If you have a pair of ATGMs, one will be intercepted and the second will get through. If you have 3 ATGMs, 1 will get intercepted and two will get through. Top attack ATGMs all kill any tank or vehicle in 2 hit.

Some ATGMs come naturally in pairs to saturate APS but these are usually older systems (ie Dragon III) or extremely limited in ammo (Javelin, Ataka) to balance them.

Speaking of APS, there was that one port city map where I loved stacking ATGM teams in the clustered highrises. Set four ATGM teams on hold fire, wait for a push, one-tap two tanks and relocate then then chuckle sensibly as the city block gets atomized 30 seconds later by 20 cruise missiles. The ATGM team was now in a different building on hold fire.

Shouldn't USA trample over Russia in modern day era warfare?

>>2022467
Yeah kinda but would be the same in a 2000s, 90s, 80s, late 70s scenarios etc.
Would be pretty lame if one team instantly gets fucked by the team selection and no one would want to play russia.
So for a non-simulation game that in of itself is fine.
But there are some questionable parts of the balance.
>ripple firing atgms for russia
>RPG-30 that ignores APS
>russian AD superiority,
>point efficiency and availability of russian ground artillery
>especially compared to CAS which is arguably the US equivalent
>russian nuke is an air launched cruise missile
>US has the B61 dumb bomb nuke

Technically it isn't that bad as I make it sound, the B2 carrying the B61 is a better plane than the TU-160 and afaik the B61 is stronger than the Kh-102.
Nonetheless there questionable if not downright retarded decisions, which hopefully are a pre-release issue but who can know?

>>2022501
>>point efficiency and availability of russian ground artillery
Never heard of Krasnopol?

>>2022384
And you can keep the radar disabled all the time and only turn it on for brief periods, like when you notice a lone transport plane or a bomber.
However, there is another thing that gives SEAD planes an advantage, which does not exist in Warno/Wargame. You have that kind of "fog of war' where you can see what kind of plane is flying but you don't know its loadout. In that case, you never know if the enemy is carrying ARMs or not. Therefore, when you disable the radar, you're in some way crippling yourself, allowing enemies to fly closer to you.

>>2022467
It's 2050 russia vs 1990 US

Let's be honest, late cold war is so similar to modern day as for the difference to be minimal
we're all still running the same gear, just a little bit more upgraded

>>2022716
I wish that was true.

>>2022395
>takes ~10 seconds to toggle back on
Huh didn't notice it in the last beta, that is at least something.

>>2022525
Which matters how? Everyone gets laser- and even some gps guided shells. Those are of no relevance for the balance.

>>2022724
were true*
hypothetical, subjunctive mood

ugh, how long until modern war reaches the level where the only effective means is to return to melee combat

>>2022726
>Everyone gets laser- and even some gps guided shells.
Russia gets shells made by North Korea in the 70s

>>2022729
You just want the government enforced homosexuality and cascading jobs.

>>2022467
Sir this is a video game.

And the answer is, depends on the context of the conflict. Unlikely to ever happen outside of proxy wars due to nuclear armaments.

>>2022716
Combat in Broken Arrow is already outdated
>Nine times out of ten, the wounded owe their injuries to a drone attack — whether an FPV kamikaze drone, an aerial “drop” (a grenade, mine, or incendiary device), or a drone used to guide mortar fire, among others. Drones are everywhere now, far outnumbering men at the front. It’s no longer safe to step out into the open — not in daylight, not even after dark. Soldiers have to stay hidden at all times in dugouts or camouflaged foxholes covered with branches.
>There’s always a fuckin’ drone hanging up there — the air’s buzzing non-stop. One comes, and the next one replaces it, just hovering for hours. And every hour or so, like clockwork, an FPV drops in, just in case. They dive right into the gunports. And if they don’t nail you — they just crash into the junk outside, it doesn’t matter. They watched us all day, waiting for any wounded to crawl out. We pick off their guys; they pick off ours. One of our flanking units had a house — the FPVs shredded it. There’s nothing left, not even ruins. I kept yelling to the guys, but nobody answered on comms…
>Put simply, FPVs sweep areas of the front, rotating in and out like a carousel, remaining airborne until dying batteries force them back to base. Kamikaze drones dive at soldiers who peek out from their dugouts, sometimes weaving in through the portholes. Each day, there are only 20-minute periods of “gray time” at dusk and dawn when the drones’ cameras are briefly confused. This is when wounded men are evacuated and the infantry tries to move.
>“A trench definitely won’t save you,” says my friend, Taras the combat medic. “A dugout might — unless they start targeting it directly. You can’t really move through the trenches anymore — people just live underground. They’ve gotten used to it, basically turning into mice. The mice are actually biting you all the time, and you’re like the mouse king, living down there with them.”

Should I buy this if I was obsessed with MP in Steel Division, but was kinda meh and couldn't really get into Warno or Red Dragon.

Also are there MIRRORS in Multiplayer? I'm mostly interested in playing 1vs1 and I hate mirrors

>>2023436
>I hate mirrors
Mirrors are pretty uncommon, MM usually tries to do US vs. RU teams
>I'm mostly interested in playing 1vs1
I'm so sorry

>>2023436
>and I hate mirrors
yeah because you ugly ahaaa

>>2023490
Why sorry, does 1vs1 suck? What is the issue?

>>2023511
>Why sorry, does 1vs1 suck?
It's good, ignore him.
>What is the issue?
His skill

>>2023511
BA is centered around 5v5.
Doesn't mean 1v1 won't be impossible after release but thus far they haven't been a thing.

>>2023436
BA will have no 1v1 matchmaking. The game is designed around 5v5, so you'll only be able to do 1v1 in custom lobbies and they don't plan to have any official 1v1-sized maps. If the game produces any 1v1 scene at all it'll rely on custom maps and organizing matchups on discord. There's a built-in scenario editor so somebody will probably just recut all the official maps down to 1v1 size for tourneyfags.

Matchmaking attempts to match US vs RU when possible but in my experience you get a lot of mirror matches depending on what time you play. If you're on during eurasian horde hours then you'll fight RU stacks every match, so play US if you don't want mirrors. During burger hours it's the opposite, endless US stacks so play RU unless you want to reenact that shitty civil war movie.

>>2023513
>>2023511
I have no problem with 1v1. My point is that Broken Arrow's default multiplayer mode is 5v5, so if you want a 1v1 RTS game, this ain't it. Unless you organize custom 1v1 matches or something.

I want to play with RU mech infantry so bad but I feel like they're actually gonna be dogshit. I can't even think of a good spec to pair them up with, even Armored would be a bit redundant.

>>2024870
RU spec pairings in general are going to be weird
>guards has the only tanks that can fight US tanks head-on
>VDV has the only air tab worth a damn
>helicopters all over the place
>redundant and clone IFVs everywhere
>weird logistical gaps
I think RU is going to be in a weird place where every deck has to include one of: VDV, Guards or Moto to even justify existing. VDV for the only good air and heli tabs in the faction, Guards for the best ground forces by far with no real downside, and Moto just for the MLRS spam.
Mech has a bit of an identity crisis because its ground forces are just strictly worse than Guards but it doesn't really have anything unique to make it better than Guards in other ways. Like it technically has an air tab but with nothing worth bringing and not enough points to matter and otherwise all its tabs are just "like guards, but" except they don't really get all that much of a discount for bringing outdated equipment sans APS

The 'meta' RU decks on launch will probably be:
Guards + Moto to abuse Napalm Grads
VDV + Coastal for airspam/helis
and maybe Guards + Coastal as a generic grindy frontliner.

I really want to like this game, but I think I’m getting filtered just for the deck building aspect of it.

>>2025336
Like most strategy games with a deckbuilder aspect, the meta will be 'solved' in a few weeks and you'll just be able to copy an optimized deck off a youtube video and never need to engage with the mechanic yourself.

>>2025336
>>2025342
Unless you take part in tournaments, you don't have to care about meta.

>>2025799
"Meta" just helps take some of the complexity and decision paralysis out of systems that aren't intuitive or easy to figure out on your own.
When I first started with the beta the main barrier to me just jumping in and having fun was that I needed to build a deck and didn't really know what a deck needed or what units were supposed to do what. Even if you can kind of guess what ground forces you'll need, how the fuck to build the loadout of planes and shape your air tab is a huge wall and you can't really play until you tackle it.

But now we have the benefit of some sweaty no lifes figuring out exactly how to set up planes and what to use each loadout for, so you can just copy that shit and get right into playing instead of sitting trying to cobble together a workable deck.

>>2025854
>how the fuck to build the loadout of planes and shape your air tab is a huge wall
I think the RU air tab is particularly guilty of this because: 1. They have a large amount and diversity of planes, someone not intimately familiar with RU aviation is going to have a hard time intuiting what each one is used for 2. Each plane has such a wide array of loadouts that you can't even tell what it's geared towards.

I think having some sort of symbol for both a unit and a weapon to give you a general idea of what it is used for would be helpful. Medium range A2A vs short range, ground attack vs multirole etc.

>>2024874

I'm don't know about the last decks, but it would make sense for Mech to synergize with Guard. Russian/Soviet tank formations often combine tanks and mech battalions.

>>2022875

There are cost-effective anti-drone systems in development, something that has been missing in all major armies and throughout this war. I suspect drones won't be as devastating once those are deployed.

>>2025888
Flavour-wise, yes.
In practice, Guards already has RU's best regular infantry and best IFVs with enough points in the infantry tab to make good use of them. The BMP-3 is only marginally cheaper than the generally superior Kurganets, which comes with APS, so having access to both becomes redundant. It's like how a US player is never going to pick the M113 when they have literally any other transport available.

So in practice Mechanized and Guards are redundant, there's too much crossover in the things their specs are tailored towards, so they don't really need what the other offers.

This is why Mechanized is kind of weird. It's very similar to Guards but instead of futuristic modernized IFVs with APS and next gen missiles it has BMP-3s for almost the same price, and instead of the whole fleet of modern tanks covering every price point, it just has shitter T-72s. If it finds a niche it's either going to be with shitter-spamming BMP-1s or with adding some heavy howitzers to a support deck.

RU Guards has a similar problem as US Marines, where it's basically the best at almost everything and competes a lot of specs out of consideration just by existing and being so good. There's no real clear weakness to make you consider another option over it, which chokes out a lot of other potential combinations. The only RU deck that won't want to be paired with Guards would be airspam with VDV, but Mech has the same drawback there since it has no heli tab and its air tab might as well not exist.

>>1984609
As long as they take reasonable action within the matter of days - a week at most - then the meta will be fine. Better to overnerf and correct later.

>>2025880
Yeah, RU planes have broader loadouts and are extremely multirole. It might not be possible to build fully specialised loadout and you might miss some unique capability of the frame buried in the stats. And even then, it might end up you have 5 different airframes and the only one with IR missiles is also your best AGM plane. You have to do a lot of cross referencing to figure out what to use your good planes for.
I feel like for the US decks you could build some of the planes off the intended use but the correct answer was pretty obvious.

>>2025891
Effective anti-drone systems are going to provide a counter to drones not remove them from battlefields.
Like how tank and aircraft even after the development of counter systems still dramatically altered warfare as usually the best counter is adopting new tactics to exploit the technology yourself and diminish it's effectiveness from enemies.

>>2025891
>>2032301

This is a very casualty intensive process. They are trying to work around drones and FPVs. They are using thes distributed attacks of a few armoured vehicles, scoters, motorcycles ATVs they try to overwhelm drone operators and sometimes they get lucky and they do it.

The Russian military has concluded and said this verbatim: "The type of war we are fighting has now outpace our tactics and our doctrine. We are trying our best to adapt, but we really need some time to digest and think a way to overcome this situation. We have ideas, we are implementing them, but we really need a revision. "

>>2032933
Last time I read about it, Russia used a tactic that could be described as meat waves attacks. First, they send in the clowns (conscripts riding ladas or bikes) and if some of them manage to reach enemy lines, they send better, more armoured troops.
If you combine this with glide bomb spam, you can expect somewhat positive results, and we can see that on maps. The progress is extremely slow, but it's still progress and troops move forward.
Now, it makes me wonder how that kind of conflict would work between NATO and Russia, because the current war is sometimes described as small Soviet Union fighting big Soviet Union. Western countries are still unprepared for that kind of war, and even Zaluzhny has been talking about it. They don't utilize drones at the level as Ukraine or Russia do.

>>2032978
>Western countries are still unprepared for that kind of war
Maybe for most western countries, excluding france, the US, and maybe poland

>>2032978
The reason it takes ground is principally because the other side just withdraws a few meters to the next line once the firepower against them becomes accurate. Russia's approach has been very ineffective at causing enemy casualties or seizing ground on their own terms, but since they evidently just want to take ground and move the line incrementally, they consider each incremental a victory regardless of the cost. That's not an approach most militaries will want to learn from.

Glide bombs threw off this dynamic of trading ground for casualties for a while because they were accurate and sudden, not giving the target any time to respond and withdraw. But that threat has more or less passed now and we're back to fighting something that looks eerily like the Iran-Iraq war

>>2033983

Yeah, right. From what I have heard, upon hearing advice from western instructors the Ukrainians were like: "this will get you killed by an artillery strike."

>>2034194
And then they finally bit the bullet and tried it out, and they took half of Kursk.
Ukraine's problem has been that it can't afford to expend vehicles to take ground, because those vehicles are supplied by foreign benefactors in limited quantities. But those vehicles are designed to be expendable. Their purpose is to move fast and keep the crew alive when they take a hit. When a Stryker or YPR becomes this golden goose then you just can't use them the way they were intended, and so you're just kind of stuck on your back heels, sitting in a trench while your mechanized assets hold in the rear to hide from drones

>>2032978
>Last time I read about it, Russia used a tactic that could be described as meat waves attacks. First, they send in the clowns (conscripts riding ladas or bikes) and if some of them manage to reach enemy lines, they send better, more armoured troops.
That's not really a thing. They had one commander that did that with prisoners which caused an internal row until he was eventually relieved and then killed.
What actually happens is that they have like a week or more of artillery harassment and demining. When it's time to attack they get on motorcycles and rush in. Or if they are going heavy they mount a giant drone jammer on a tank and charge forward. Since the front lines are like 500 meters or less apart, the bike guys cross the gap in a few minutes so it's hard to respond even with drones.
Drones are a major element, but what's actually the most influential weapon in the war are mines and you'll only see actual professionals talk about that. I've noticed very little mine related discussion in public and never in any amount of depth. People want to talk about planes and drones, not the circles buried in the dirt, but make no mistake, it's the mines that do much of the work. It's especially nasty when it comes to remote mining, which is when they have rockets that deploy mines.
>go attack
>demine
>meet heavy resistance, but that's okay you've prepared a retreat path and retreat plan
>the minefield you just cleared is back up
Manouvering is not much of a thing in these conditions.

>>2034281
On the same world, suppressing enemy artillery is a necessary precondition for successful assault operations, which removes the element of remote mining.
For the record, deploying mines via artillery has been a thing since the 60s. It's not a new invention, there has really been no advancement there. Same with the mines themselves. Russia is still using the same anti-materiel mines that the Iraqis used during Desert Storm.

And that's worth pointing out. Mines dominated the Iran-Iraq war, alongside newly minted ATGMs, to the point where that conflict devolved into brutal trench warfare and a positional battle of attrition for years and years.
Then the UN swept into what was at that point the most heavily mined region of the planet and destroyed their military in 72 hours. Both Russia and Ukraine have doctrinal gaps here, and insufficient quantities of the necessary equipment to effectively overcome defensive barriers of all kinds, in addition to modern anti-armour weapons, including drones. They are refighting the Iran-Iraq war, using almost all of the same equipment (except for drones) and suffering similar battlefield conditions, but we should be mindful not to over-learn from those conditions. An army isn't merely its equipment, technology or terrain, and another army struggling with what we do routinely isn't an indictment of our way of war.

>>2034278
>And then they finally bit the bullet and tried it out, and they took half of Kursk
Lol, lmao even. You not only have no idea what you're talking about but also can't tell the distance. Open up a map and see the size of Kursk and then compare it to the extent of Ukrainan advance.

It would be very funny if the RU decks got lada technical teams with Mobikniks, armed with AKMs, have like 300 rounds between a squad of five and nothing else for like 5 points

>>2033983
> excluding france
Macron "retired" all Generals&co with some actual experience because they mostly sided with the Yellow Vest, AND he pushed hard to fill the ranks with as many shitskins as possible because he was expecting to use the army only to fight a local revolt.
Our army is now dysfunctional on a level that make all his posturing about fighting russia utterly hilarious.

>>2034376
Most European armies are a joke. Poland buys shiny toys, but on the ground level it's an absolute shitshow where soldiers often get equipment that their grandparents used when they served during the communist era.
Our (((based))) and (((conservative))) government cancelled a deal with frogs to buy 40 or so helos with full offset because they are yank lapdogs and instead of a whole fleet, we got poorhawks and a few AW101.

>>2034278
>And then they finally bit the bullet and tried it out, and they took half of Kursk.
Kursk was one of the least sane operations Ukraine has performed.
You're high if you look at that and think it was in any way a good idea.

>>2034281
Russian op success was singlehandedly saved by General Armeggedon outta here's strategy of just mining the fuck out of everything. Minefields are a bastard to breach let alone when they are several times larger than doctrinal size.

>>2034792
Having actually paid attention at the time, no. Russian success and failure is and has been about artillery for the last 150 years.
They had exactly two major problems, the first one when like a hundred thousand contracts ran out on the same week so they had an unscheduled troop rotation. They had to abandon a major position on the northern section and then they had to compensate with their one and only mobilization. The second problem was when the US spent like 80% of their himars missile stockpiles to target one bridge at Kherson so the Russians had to give up on holding the area beyond that bridge.
Since then it's been the most ordinary by the book artillery grind but with drones on top. They eventually added glide bombs because the US ran out of air defense missiles to hand over.

>>2034314
Nigger we can't stop (half of) Yemen armed with smuggled Iranian missiles. Every week they shoot a drone down and the carrier had to swerve around to dodge incoming missiles so hard it had planes falling off the deck.
And you think you'll get away with running into the most fortified air defense zone on the planet. There's optimism, there's wishful thinking and then there is this.
Iraq didn't collapse after "72 hours", it collapsed after two decades of military, political and economic failures after being abandoned by their air defense system supplier. Anyone going muh Iraq is a fucking retard and said retards have infested all of NATO to the point where we're getting our asses handed to us by sandniggers blocking the Red Sea for shits and giggles.

>>2034339
There was originally supposed to be a Motostrelki downgrade option like the reserve Marines for USMC that would give them significantly less ammo. Didn't show up in the latest play test as far as I can tell and it's probably for the best. Nobody is picking Reserve Marines either because you give up your line AT option and there's no point reduction worth that.

>>2035299
The problem with reserve marines is more that the "specialist anti-infantry squad" role is saturated and incredibly competitive. Most of those squads are hyper cost-effective because they lack AT, and you don't need that many of them. So what's the appeal of reserve marines, being relatively expensive without any of the specialist weapons that make their competition good? For cost they'll lose a fight to Ingenery, who have better transports and are easier to move around.

Reservisty were a leaked unit type ages ago but they were probably cut to roll into future dlc specs, same with RU border patrol, F-35Cs, SEALs and so on.

>>2035299
>>2035322
Form what I remember reservists got 3 MGs between them giving them a lot more firepower at medium range but at the cost of being completely helpless against even an armoured car. Something even most other anti-inf squad can defend themselves against with the HE launchers.
You are also forgoing the option to have normal marines entirely because it's a variant and it's not like you need it anyway when the same deck has raiders and that's probably enough for a specialist unit.

>>2025897
I was looking at the rosters again after reading your post and yeah I think I agree that mechanized looks like a hard sell. I mean, I don't know. The only angles I can think of to play with that spec:
>BMP-3 spam, 57mm cannon but without the armor upgrade puts them at like, 105 points each or something + some kind of cheap T-72 configuration whose entire purpose is essentially soaking damage so that the BMP-3s don't get destroyed
>ultra-low cost dogshit bmp-1 and bmp-2, basically whatever is the cheapest thing that can be realistically massed, something else will be needed to do the real killing
What's left besides that? Well, you can spend the whole game buying heavy tube artillery I guess.

And what are you supposed to pair it up with that makes sense? Fuck, I don't even know. Coastal Defense would give you some helicopters and air, plus the berety squad, and BTRs for faster deployment. VDV would solve the helicopter and air tab problem, and also give you good weapons teams.

Any other combinations feel kind of redundant or weird honestly.

will this game have mod or steam workshop support? It would be neat to see other nations or settings.

>>2035160
this is a cope post

Russians like to cope that they aren't using meat waves, how cute.

>>2035840

I haven't looked at the new spec, but maybe it would be a good idea to combine VDV and Mechanized. In real life, VDV may borrow heavier IFVs and other heavy assets when not performing as paratroopers.

>>2036025
Yes it will, that much has been confirmed, although I'm not sure if it will be available on release or a bit later.

>>1944320 (OP)
It's round the corner lads. What a coincidence that I have capula days off just when it releases..

>>2036239
I expect the servers to be unusable at launch so I think I'll wait a bit before jumping in.

>>2036265
I expect them to run smoothly and also expect a great time to chill at home. Fire upp that thang. Let the hours pass as we all enjoy a long expected game. Sharing our moment in the screenshots. Just everyone having a gay time if you know what I mean ?

>>2036295
Wonder if I end up playing against other anons again like in the beta.

>>2036395
You will

>>2036139
alright, if the devs do add that (even later on), that will make them better than eugen kek

>>2036514
On that note, as much as I seethed about baltisk the last time I fought one of you, amusingly enough I really dislike how it looks now.

>>2036732
There was talk about it during the press beta where the devs supposedly said that changing stuff like giving a point income reduction for destroyed units will be easy. Ir disabling the victory points for kills, or increasing it.

>>1949157
>Armata: cancelled
Didn't happen
>Terminator: can't even kill a treeline
???
>SU-57: downed
Didn't happen
>Kinzhal: intercepted
Didn't happen
Go get your oinking back to r*ddit where it belongs

>>2036739
Yeah taking baltiisk and turning it 90 degrees to make it a 5v5 map was very questionable, but I think that one island side point only accessible via sea/air is a cool concept.

>>2036025
Yes mod support. And they already have plans for nation DLC, China is one of the first nations they will add.

>>2036025
The game will for sure have the scenario editor, which is supposed to be the tool the devs use to make SP stuff themselves. Should be plain language enough that you don't need to know scripting etc.

Creating maps is unknown. Devs have said so far that scenario editing will just be using the vanilla maps and laying stuff over them.

Adding new content is a yes, but unconfirmed to what extent. Devs want it, but also don't want to have to compete with people's free content when making DLC nations/specs etc.

I'd like to see the CCA added to the US. Maybe through the SF spec. Worse spotting, speed and payload capacity as the manned aircraft, but the highest maneuverability and a lower cost/faster respawn time. Make them missile/bomb trucks for the 5th Gen aircraft like they will be irl.

>>2038609
What would wingman drones meaningfully add to the game beyond just being another bomb truck hurling the same payload as all the bomb trucks that are already available?

I don't get the obsession with untested, unproven technology. These things probably won't ever see the light of day before their procurement gets cancelled for political reasons masquerading as cost-cutting like what happened to everything else the Pentagon has tried to modernize in the last 20 years.

>>2038609

I wonder if they make a Drone DLC, will they add drone specializations or just will update old specializations? Maybe they could include infantry squads that remote-controls quadcopter drones (may be used for low-level recon/strike), and a truck for bigger ones.

>>2039268
The devs have said that small infantry level drones like FPVs and small UAV/UGV aren't going to happen. The scale and speed of the game would just make it too clunky to represent. You might be able to include some larger stuff, like CCA or RCV-M/H as they're roughly the size of other vehicles and carry similar firepower. Representing stuff like loitering munitions/air launched effects as NLOS capable weapons that also provide recon would be cool.

>>2039139
Air drones are arguably far more mature than UGVs by a considerable amount. Given that modern aircraft are already fly by wire, it's pretty easy for a computer to understand flight in the air.

The AF is banking on CCA pretty hard as it's really supposed to bolster the 5th Gen fleet at a fraction of the cost. They'll make up the weight of strike packages and pull guard duty for enablers like tankers and AWACS.

In game you can just make them less capable multirole aircraft to round out a spec with cheaper cost/respawn and limited loadouts. Something to balance the RU airgame and AD. Less of a burden to blow away a pair of CCA trying to SEAD than an F-22/35.

>>2039139
It's just a game, anon, don't overthink it. We have tons of Abrahams and T-series variants that perform more or less the same, so why not something that's actually new?
>being another bomb truck
That reason is good enough. It's just a game, and we already have a shit ton of vehicle variants.
However, those Loyal Wingman drones are actually quite different. Your average drone is slow and has limited armament, often limited to just air to ground weapons. Meanwhile, those new drones, like YFQ-42A (General Atomics) and the YFQ-44A (Anduril), are faster, stealthier and can a wider range of weaponry, including AA missiles.
They should add those drones and other new, high-tech stuff to the special forces deck, instead of stuff like F-22 and B-2.

>>2039309
>The scale and speed of the game would just make it too clunky to represent.
It's not about that. Those drones would be overpowered. Imagine that every squad of a certain type carries a few FPV drones armed with RPG warheads. They could easily one hit or crit tanks. Other, less armored units, would be easily destroyed. To counter that, you would have to include EW and completely change the balance.
It's better to ignore them.

>>2039549
In practice, FPV drones are basically just ATGMs. In the real world they have the advantage of range and being able to loiter and reacquire targets post-launch but in game these are all meaningless. They would either just be clone ATGMs, or ATGMs that ignore line of sight in a game whose entire gameplay revolves around line of sight.

Similarly, personal recon drones aren't happening because they trivialize line of sight, which is supposed to matter. A drone isn't killing anything a TOW or Konkurs couldn't already kill, it's just doing it from further away at lower cost.

You could probably design a game from the ground up where drones make sense but it would look very different from these Wargame-likes. And as an abstraction all drones are doing is increasing the effective spotting and strike range of a squad, which you can abstract by increasing their spotting and strike range.

>>2022467
We just did everything short of actually sending US infantry divisions to Ukraine, with EU support, to the war over there only to get stalemated in a disadvantaged position and you're asking this?
The advantages the US has are strategic-level. In an individual (vaguely) brigade-level engagement like the game represents, it's pretty much a wash. But don't take it from me, US doctrine considers Russia one of the only 'peer' adversaries.

>>2022467
It makes national news in USA and is a tragedy when 5 us soldiers die at once. Now imagine the media frenzy when a position gets shelled into the mud and nobody is left alive.
US would be begging to end the war within a year

>>2040319
The Japanese planned their whole war around this assumption and look where it got them.

>>2039628
>In practice, FPV drones are basically just ATGMs
Some sort of NLOS or LOAL capability using the ATGM framework would be cool. We already have the capability for missiles to reaquire the same or different target if it breaks LoS (And nearby ATGM units are supposed to deconflict what they target naturally), but a high priced ability to lob a salvo over a terrain feature or snipe based on recon spotting would be cool.

>>2040587
What kind of infantry weapon can do that, Javelin?

>>2040296
>We just did everything short of actually sending US infantry divisions to Ukraine
USA: Stop and Go aid delivery
Handfuls of older vehicles
Sorry, you can't use any of the weapons we gave you to strike inside Russia :)

Europe: Lol
Sorry, these weapons are for defensive purpose only
Only our approved technicians can service these

The Russians aren't pushovers, but a lot of the pre-war fear in the Army about divisions of Armatas and T-90s has kind of waned and the Army is looking to poach jobs from the USMC in the Pacific now.

>>2040319
>US would be begging to end the war within a year
the value of deaths in COIN operations vs total war are very different, equating them is stupid

>>2039268
>dlc to make the micro worse
Yeah no thanks

>>2040658
More than a whole year to get 31 Abrams tanks and 2 years of waiting for their first F-16.
What a tremendous amount of support.

>>2041638
Blows my mind that world leaders watched Russia lose thousands of tanks within the first few months of the war to drones and ATGMs for nothing and said "you know what will win this war? More tanks!"

>>2042636
Maybe their intelligence reports weren't based purely on twitter speculation.

>>2042636
And yet one of the most requested things from both sides is more AFVs. Despite their vulnerability, they're still one of the best ways to conduct an attack when your other options are meat assaults and insane artillery expenditure followed by meat assaults. We're 3-4 years into the war and both sides are pretty exhausted and don't really have the capability to set the stage for or exploit large mechanized assaults.

That being said, in BA mechanized assaults are still the best/easiest way to push. Aside from super dense terrain like forests where infantry dominate, AFVs are the best bet for moving quick and overpowering whatever. I do also like that they account for the different ammo loads unlike in Warno where every shell is either AP or HE depending on what you shoot it at. Helps balance vehicles a little bit because you can't just beat up on every target type perfectly. Bully infantry and you'll run out of HE quickly.

>>1944320 (OP)
Politics, no game studio would be able to do it justice, CoD was made into Americas bitch

>>1949157
How is that 2 days for Trump to end the war in Ukraine going?

>>1949157
Shut the fuck up /k/, how does it feel to be one of the leftist holdouts on the same level as /his/, /news/ or /lit/?

>>2043822
How does it feel to seethe at a 3 and 1/2 month old post like a fag?

>>2043852
You're not even trying.

>>2043771
don't forget motomeat assaults on bikes and quads (that's... something that'd be interesting to model desu)

>>1977289
AH-64 Warchief Helicopters
M-1 Bonesteel Tanks

>>2043904
I don't know why people laugh at that idea. Motorcycle is a good way to quickly get infantry from point A to B in a short amount of time. One advantage is that if one drone hits a vehicle, you lose one guy, not eight.

>>1944472
Love how israel is so anxious that they even have shills here watching /vst/ to jump on comments like yours lmao. US economy is collapsing in rral time lol it just got downgraded to hell and will get debt nuked

>>1948339
The reason is actually that glowniggers and governments are TERRIFIED of a new napoleon or hitler being trained on warsima that are too realistic, snd then taking over. That’s their nunebr 1 fear, another hitler. So thats why RTS and startegy games are so unrealistic and kneecapped now despite being in heavy demand.

Jews again as usual

>>2043822
All leftist holdouts on this site are literally just cops being posted there en masse to shill, lel lmao even

>>2045004
Yeah, it's a valid tactic. You want to close the gap between you and the enemy ASAP to limit his fires capability and use his own entrenchments for cover - WWI German stormtroopers followed their rolling barrages because the risk of getting wounded from their own shells was less than the risk of enemy no longer being disoriented and suppressed by artillery and hitting the stormtroopers in no man's land.
They *are* vulnerable but in this war everything is. Morons use them to make fun of le russians/le other russians running out of metal boxes but that's what civilian cars are for, anyway.

>>2045004
Because an unprotected dismount on a loud-unarmoured, high-profile vehicle is just a sitting duck for machinegun fire. A motorcycle can't breach obstacles the way that an armoured vehicle can.

It would be one thing for runners to use bikes for mobility in the rear, but these are whole platoons making WW1-style trench assaults over open ground but on motorcycles. It's comical. Like genuinely comical. Not because they're using motorbikes in place of BMPs and BTRs, but because they're using motorbikes in place of coherent or effective dismounted fighting doctrine.

The dismissive attitude toward Russia (and to lesser extend Ukraine) —particularly its experimentation with drone warfare—mirrors a dangerous historical pattern: the willful ignorance of transformative lessons from past conflicts. Consider the American Civil War (1861–1865), which introduced industrialized killing through rifled muskets, trench warfare, and total mobilization. Despite its staggering death toll (750,000 lives, proportionally equivalent to 6 million today), European powers largely ignored its warnings. When World War I erupted, commanders repeated the same mistakes, sending masses of infantry into machine-gun fire, as if the carnage at Antietam or Petersburg had never happened.

Even earlier, the Crimean War (1853–1856) offered grim foreshadowing: early trenches, railway logistics, and the lethal impact of industrialized artillery. Yet these innovations were dismissed as anomalies rather than harbingers of a new era.

Today’s skepticism about drones echoes this shortsightedness. Like tanks and biplanes in WWI, drones remain in their developmental infancy—clunky, unrefined, and tactically limited. But recall: the tank, first deployed haphazardly at the Somme in 1916, became the backbone of blitzkrieg by 1939. Similarly, biplanes evolved into air forces that dominated 20th-century battlefields.

Russia’s current “drone spam” tactics—crude but relentless—are likely a prototype, not an endpoint. Once a military power (state or non-state) cracks the code of integrated drone swarms—paired with AI targeting, electronic warfare, and mass production—the result will be less "spam" and more blitzkrieg: overwhelming, and capable of rendering traditional defenses obsolete. To dismiss this potential is to repeat the folly of 1914, when generals marched into machine guns, blind to the future they had already witnessed.

>>2046906
Or, y'know, the opposite.
Militaries are weary to overlearn from regional conflicts as their dynamics are often unique and not universally applicable.
In the Iran-Iraq war, Iran was fielding some of the best tanks in the world and their tank fleet was absolutely slaughtered in battle against Iraq's outdated soviet tanks. Instead the fighting devolved into a sort of positional trench warfare that went back and forth for years inconclusively.

The lesson from that war was clearly that NATO tanks were cooked and the future was WW1 all over again, which is why months after the end of the Iran-Iraq war, the UN fought Iraq in Desert Storm using pretty much all of the same equipment that Iran had been using and inflicted total defeat on the Iraqi army within days. For some bizarre reason nobody can figure out, a tank performs differently depending on the tactics, training and doctrine of its crew. Shocking, I know.

WW1 is one of the few examples in history where all sides failed to adequately recognize the changing nature of warfare ahead of time, but it wasn't fueled by ignorance but rather by overconfidence as a direct result of dozens of easy colonial wars against technologically inferior opponents directly preceding WW1, which led most of its participants to overestimate the effectiveness of their doctrine. The british genuinely believed a peer-war in Europe would be as easy as the Boer War or the Crimean War. But even the Americans, who had fought the blood civil war which disingenuous historians claim was the writing on the wall, were wholly unprepared for the battlefields of europe. Fighting and winning the American Civil War had not prepared their doctrine for what was happening in Europe, because they were materially different.

Drones are not some fantastic cutting edge new technology. They are the latest development of a family of guided weapon systems that have been ubiquitous in the battlefield since the 1960s.

>>2047020
Those FPV drones are just cheap loitering munitions and because of that, you can saturate the frontline with them. That's the big difference, and there's so many of them, which led to creation of 20 km death zones, where you will die within minutes if you leave your dugout or house and there's no jammer protecting you.
It also means that the fog of war doesn't exist anymore in that zone. An armored assault will be detected before it even starts. That is one reason why Russians are using motorcycles. If you're going to get swarmed with drones anyway, then the armor doesn't matter. Motorcycles are faster and can quickly reach enemy frontlines. What plays in your favor in this situation are friendly drones, because the enemy won't mow you down with an MG, because they'll get droned within a minute.
Modern warfare is scary.

>>2047047
Cheap is a relative term.
The reason FPV drones are a thing now and weren't a thing 10 years ago is the lithium battery that's small enough to not weigh the drone down, and strong enough to power it for more than a few minutes.

The problem is that 99% of all lithium batteries in the world are made in the same place, which is also the place that supplies the rare earth metals necessary to make them. The ongoing war in Ukraine is a limited regional conflict where both sides can source their drones and parts almost entirely from the civilian market, and even then Ukraine has affected a significant change in the presence of Russian drones by striking battery factories behind the line. In a larger peer conflict, how long do you think the world battery supply would last before we experience critical shortages and those rare earth metals become more valuable that gold?
Drones are """cheap""" for Ukraine because it isn't using its own factories, its own money and its own resources to procure them. Drones are significantly less cheap for Russia despite them being an ally and key trading partner with the world's main supplier of all drone components. Especially considering most of the resources and parts that go into a drone also go into significantly faster, significantly higher payload, significantly longer range and significantly harder to intercept guided weapon systems. And the only reason those systems aren't ubiquitous in place of drones is that Ukraine can't make them itself and relies entirely on foreign suppliers that are reticent to put that capability within range of Russian nuclear silos, and Russia couldn't make precision weapon systems effective enough to be worth their cost when it had full access to the western technology necessary to build them, and especially can't make them to scale now that it has to smuggle the necessary parts.

There are politics to drone warfare that armchair observers just don't really understand.

>>2047063
And I'll add to this a few things:
The Houthis in Yemen have access to the same long range strike drones that Russia is using and were never actually able to land a hit on a military ship, neither with the drones directly nor with anti-ship missiles which were meant to slip through while drone swarms saturated air defenses. Drones have a very poor ability to penetrate air defense, and despite what visions of science fiction scenarios make us want to think: saturating modern air defenses isn't a numbers game. Just like WW1 soldiers couldn't saturate a machinegun by running at it in groups, modern air defense systems excel at intercepting large groups of incoming targets. What allows an air defense system to be overwhelmed are fewer targets that are individually more difficult to intercept.

And also, Hamas in Gaza is likewise using weaponized commercial drones, both quadcopter 'drop' drones and FPVs and yet you don't get anywhere near the same degree of coverage of it there as in Ukraine. The reason is simple: The IDF has been combatting the steady development of weaponized civilian drones for 20 years now and their countermeasures are extremely effective. These countermeasures include ways of detecting loitering drones; optic fire control to help soldiers shoot down fast-moving aerial drones, active protection to intercept incoming anti-tank drones, efficient and ubiquitous ECM etc. The same weapons are present across multiple modern battlefields yet have radically different results in each because of the surrounding tactics, technology and doctrine at play.

And the same kind of technological innovations that could make drone swarms more effective in the near future will also benefit countermeasures moreso. Increasingly robust AI will greatly aid both optical and radar fire control in identifying and tracking small targets, at which point guided rockets or even good old fashioned CWIS can do the work.

>>2045449
Brother in christ.
Vehicles are drone bait.

There's a reason light vehicles like ATVs and motorcycles are being used so much by both sides. There are areas where infantry need to maneuvre quickly and the risk of drones is infinitely higher than the risk of machinegun fire. That is what these are for. Plus effectiveness in poor terrain.
The
>assaults
That are occuring here are not motorcycle charges into ready trench positions like you envision in your head. This is 2 guys on bikes riding somewhere and dismounting at a safe distance and moving up to sweep a trench with like 4 guys in it that are all hiding because there's a swarm of explosive bees circling them.

Non-light AFVs need screening troops to keep them safe. They provide a good anchor but when either side spearheads with them it just eats a dozen drones and you lose a valuable vehicle and probably most of the guys in it for not much. In a lot of situations motorcycle troops are just better at acting as those screening troops.

Motorcycles are also not new, they saw lots of success in previous wars, the reasonings are definitely a little different now but the basic idea has merit even without drones.


On one hand, a lot of this is like just my opinion man, from being an armchair observer. But don't sit there and think you understand the war better than the people fighting it, that's retarded and is always the wrong lesson to take from a conflict. There's a reason behind these tactics other than 'lol piggers and ziggers r stoopid'. If they're all still happily hoping on motorbikes instead of APCs, there's probably a reason.
>but they ran out of APCs
is a brainlet way to handle it.

>>2047020
>rather by overconfidence as a direct result of dozens of easy colonial wars against technologically inferior opponents directly preceding WW1
So like Desert Storm?
Tactics and warfare aren't set to 1 thing for all the world per era. Not all of WW1 was a trench slog. It's dependent on circumstances. When looking at Iran v Iraq you need to consider why did it turn into a slog, how likely is that to apply to X other potential war. Not just say it did, so every war must now be a brutal slog.

>>2045449
>loud
>high-profile
Retard

>>2047318
I know tech evangelists really, really want to believe we're on the cusp of Terminator but, no. I've seen enough war footage to know that these motorcycles are being sent into assault directly towards occupied trenches, over minefields, through defensive obstacles like barbed wire and anti-tank ditches. And they're not succeeding.

Where Russian leaders intend to focus their efforts to produce success, they still use tanks and AFVs in concerted offensives. They'll pack a few high gain jammers into some of the assault vehicles and collectively this will ground all non-fibre drones for the duration of the assault. These sometimes succeed, despite the presence of fibre drones and all other reasonable countermeasures. And you can find footage of that, too. But where these motorcycle suicide charges are happening isn't where the main effort is focused, it's in peripheral regions where the front has been static for over a year, where 2nd echelon troops are just occasionally hurled at the enemy in attacks whose only purpose is to fix the opposing force and ensure that section of the front can't be de-manned.

And just for the sake of some common sense: if it was really a good idea to use motorcycles for tactical mobility, then there would have been no need for thick-skinned APCs and IFVs in the first place. These developments have taken place progressively since the WW2 halftrack and Kangaroo not because there's an absence of countermeasure, but because it turns out that infantry take a lot of casualties from mortar fire, artillery shrapnel, small arms and sorts of other modern weapons just getting to where they need to go and armoured vehicles offer some protection from that. A motorcycle is loud and highly visible, and despite what impression you might have in your head, it won't outrun mortar fire. Riding one into battle is not an enviable position, it's borderline suicide.

>>2047347
Not to mention let's be honest, even a dirt bike can't go very fast over rough terrrain, but an IFV or APC that's tracked can hit a good 40-50mph consistently over some pretty rough spots.

>>2047347
>And they're not succeeding.
These are the 1% of retarded attacks that get posted everywhere. 99% of engagements involving motorcycles aren't happening like this.
Yes suicide charging a trench that's defended with a motorcycle is stupid.
No motorcycles are not useless, they have a lot of applications.
Stop arguing against some false pretense that they're a complete replacement for IFVs and APCs, they don't fill the same role.

The soviets deployed motorcyclers in WW2 and continued to develop them during the cold war. If motorcycles were so useless and prone to casualties surely someone would have learnt that in the second world war and stopped development.
Are you going to tell me cavalry was useless in WW1 next cause muh horses charging machineguns and dying?

>>2036851
go back to your shit shack in mumbai you zigger shill

>>1951862
How did game devs get away with it in the past then?

>>2051152
renaming, slight model changes, mix matching monstrosities

>>2051152
>>2051332
A good example of this is to look at the firearms in Fallout 1 and 2.

Infantry sucks in Broken Arrow
You can throw an IFV into dense forest against AT infantry and the IFV will win every time

>>2053488
You're exaggerating. The IFV will win if it has APS.

>>2053660
He's talking about the T-15 purple people eater, the bandersnatch, the Jabberwocky. That fictional Russian vehicle built on the chassis of a parade float. It's so overpowered that it singlehandedly warped the player perception of infantry combat.

>>2053703
You can rush infantry with lighter stuff too because the game is designed for vehicles to take 2-3 hits penetrating hits to be destroyed so an infantry has barely enough AT ammo to kill one thing without APS or smoke(for guided missiles) involved.
And that's assuming we are talking ATGM teams or a squad with something like RPG-28 not AT4 or one of the crappier RPG-7 warheads that can't scratch mid-high level vehicles.
T-15 is sort of the wort because it's just too cheap and available for it's protection so it warps the whole game around "can I counter a t-15 or not"

>>2053488
>IFV will win every time
The infantry will likely see the IFV before it sees them.
To do well vs IFVs with APS you need lots of rockets being fired at once.

I can't remember them off the top of my head but there are a couple squads that offer a decent number of RPGs. Hitting with multiple squads is good, get hits into sides / rear.
If you're paying attention you can eat plenty of vehicles in the woods without the other guy knowing wtf is happening.

>>2053488
The problem is that infantry-held short-ranged AT is split into basically 3 tiers.
The lowest tier can't really fight any armoured vehicle and squads equipped to it will lose even to the shitters. All it's good for it killing trucks and thin-skinned vehicles. This is the AT-4 that 90% of US infantry have, and about have of RU infantry are similar.
The mid-tier is good enough to face most non-tank vehicles frontally and kill them in a few hits, and enough to threaten tank side armour but still can't fight tanks or anything with tank-level armour frontally. This is the SMAW and Carl Gustaf for the US and a bunch of mid-tier launchers available to various RU units (notably naval infantry).

And the final tier is basically equivalent to the best ATGMs and will threaten even tanks frontally, but these are exclusive to 2 RU units (black berets and guard infantry).

The real problem is that since the tier that scares tanks is so rare, for the most part you can just roll tanks into forests where they're completely blind and they'll win knife-fighting competitions against their cost's-worth of AT infantry. Forests block line of sight for ATGMs, so while in the deep forest a heavy vehicle is immune to all its main counters and everything that SHOULD be specialized for forest-fighting just can't fucking hurt them. A individual tank could hypothetically be surrounded by multiple SMAW teams and hit from all sides but if there are multiple tanks they provide mutual support and no amount of SMAW-tier infantry can win.

For the US at least, the Javelin is supposed to switch to a direct-fire trajectory in short range fights and operate as a close-range RPG with 750 pen and 10.5 damage, which would make it a threat to tanks in those knife-fighting forest battles, but this didn't actually work in either of the previous beta and I'm not sure if the devs are going to bother to get it working before launch.

>>1951882
Warno is going to die out to other games or B.A due to idiotic team game balance issues that are never going to be even looked at

>>2055072
If the claims about moddability are true game balance might actually not end up being an issue. Might, modders and "tournament" players have their own issues.

>>2055085
hopefully modding becomes a big thing, wouldn't mind major overhaul mods for different settings

>>2055707
I just want to mod in new nations/units. Everyone knows this game isn't going to be big enough (ie reach a wider market) for them to release a bunch of expansions. If we are lucky we will get a China and an EU with 3 specs each that will be horribly over priced that will take years to come out. I hope I'm wrong but I know I'm not likely to be.

>>2056079
All of the open betas ended up with Starcraft 2 numbers of players. This game has enormous interest, as long as they stick the landing and don't fumble the ball I think you're probably going to see Wargame levels of staying power and post-release content.
There are already a tonne of singleplayer-only Baltic and German hardware in the game for the story campaigns so odds are we'll have those countries in multiplayer within the first year of launch.

My guess is that they'll probably bundle smaller countries together to make a 'faction' out of a coalition, like putting the 3 Baltic states together, or combining Germany with Poland, Czechs etc. It will probably be quite a while before the game branches out from Eastern Europe and the Suwalki Gap scenario, though.

>>2056131
>probably going to see Wargame levels of staying power
https://steamcharts.com/app/251060
You're joking, right?
Listen, I'm just salty because I want Ethiopia and I know I'm never getting it.

>>2056131
>>2056217
Damn I didn't think the interest was actually that high, even if the playtest had an advantage due to being free.

>>2056227
I swear the ingame numbers were way high than that. But I don't know how accurate those were of real player count.

>>2056386
>ingame numbers were way high than that
that is perfectly possible. The charts aren't perfect, I think its even worse with something like playtests

>>2056386
>>2056425
I don't know why you'd assume the in-game numbers would be more accurate.

>>2054985
The issue is that APS is a very hard counter for infantry, as stealth and the element of surprise don't matter, because the missile will often get intercepted.

>>2056748
And the answer you'll get is
>just triple stack your AT teams bro
When you don't really have the availability to do that and it will get fucking bombed

>>2056760
Did anything change during that test for youtubers?

>just triple stack your AT teams bro
In that case they should simply make infantry cheaper and increase its availability.

>>2056788
Not that I could tell. I haven't looked super closely to dissect any changes, but whatever they did nor the introduction of the last 2 specs seemed to significantly change the meta. The overall dynamic seems to be mostly the same.

>>2056788
More squads had stronger AT launchers and the T-15 was nerfed, but that was mostly it.
The main things in the press event were that they rolled back the stupid forest changes from the second public test and nerfed planes/buffed aa to the point where bombers were mostly useless.

>>2056868
You mean those big bombers, like B-52, right? Aside from being missile trucks, a thing that we can see in the current war in Ukraine, they seemed quite useless since the very beginning and even then they were very expensive.
AA buff isn't surprising, because in the 2nd beta good air players could totally steam roll the opponent team.

>>2056944
Yeah heavy bombers were mostly cruise missile boats And even than you had to be careful to not overshoot before you got all missiles off. Carpet bombing was a suicide mission and they weren't manoeuvrable enough to line up precision strikes.

>>2056944
No I mean all air-to-ground attack planes in general.
Basically air defense on both sides had so much accuracy that on average it would take 2 missiles to hit a plane, and 1 hit to kill. So within the first few minutes of the game both sides would have an overlapping AD network covering the entire battlespace and any plane you called in would die on its way in before even dropping its payload.

Didn't matter if it was a low-flying cold war plane ducking beneath radar coverage, a supersonic jet dropping glide bombs or a stealth plane. Everything just died instantly and stealth was completely worthless. Even SEAD missiles would just get intercepted and the launcher killed instantly if it wandered too far forward. But worse because planes are expensive, so actually trying to use them would just feed the enemy team a huge advantage in kill points and potentially lose your team the game.

It probably won't be this bad for launch but it was a huge kneejerk 180 overreaction from the previous beta. Shit was so bad that a 1960s soviet autocannon on the back of a flatbed could laser down an F-35 with perfect accuracy from 8km away. It was a complete no-fly-zone.

>>2022467
that's what the commercials say goyim :>

>>2041205
>ever thinking the retards on the street even know the difference
Yes,Mustaffa, Paco, Tyrone,and lil'gay Timmy will make fine burger.

>>2057030
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Khasham

>>2054985
>oh there's three high tier tanks in these woods
>run infantry away
>bomb them
>move infantry back in

>>2057093
I too live in a fantasy world where common and readily available long range countermeasures to my power fantasy simply don't exist. Sadly in the real world hurling a 350pt bomber into AA any time a 250pt IFV rolls into the forest is not a viable way to play the game.

>>2057093
Your bomb killed one, and the plane got shot down. Now what do you do about the other two?

>>2057500
Send a helo and/or use laser-guide arty

>>2057104
I cope and improvise
>>2057500
I cope and seethe, and then I improvise

>>2057500
>start crying
>quit the game
>complain on discord that tanks are OP

>>2057039
>SAA
>Russia

>>2056848
There IS no meta. There are only good tactics and bad ones. Everything else is situational which is highly dependent upon your quick reactions and timing(eg good micro,if you are even paying attention to your sector)

>>2059687
Actual retard

>>2059687
>There IS no meta
>There are only good tactics and bad ones
That's what the meta is retard. What tactics are good or bad depends on game balance and what is situational depends on what other people are playing.

>>2057663
>fagner
>not russia

>>2059724
>>2059719
There IS no meta, there is only SPECIFIC SITUATIONAL reaction to your current dilemma.
Noiceguy, whom I guarantee is 1000% more knowledgeable and quicker on the decisiveness given his pointstacking during any game shown on youtube than you, already proved it in his many months long attempt to actually find a meta.
>b-b-but whaddabout muh chopperrush
>b-b-but whaddabout my 2 barbaris/1 TOR/1 armata blitz!
Crushing you fools will be quite enjoyable
and always has been. Reading you seethe about X on the discords and ragequit in agony will at least pay for the beer with content.

>>2060484
>already proved it in his many months long attempt to actually find a meta

>>2060484
>muh youtuber means I win
Holy shit, get ass cancer and die.

Warno vs Broken Arrow
Guess which is which

Why is Vanguard Edition so underwhelming?
It seems like the main reason behind buying it is the ability to play three days earlier.
It's doubtful that anyone really cares about the soundtrack or wallpapers. There are also skins and while they may look nice, most of the time you'll be zoomed out so nobody will notice them.

>>2061052
Those things don't exist to be good value, they exist for paypigs to feel like good "fans" or "supporters" and get them invested,

>>2061049
Blue is BA

>>1944320 (OP)
Cause no matter what you do people get pissy, look at CnC generals and how the CCP got mad...they were portrayed in a good light.

>>2061174
>how the CCP got mad...they were portrayed in a good light.
Well, being butthurt is their national tradition.
It's funny how russkies never cared about being bad guys in almost every game.

>>2061052
Because paying for early access is basically what it is. For the most part the idea behind these sorts of 'special editions' is to cash out on good will. People get mad if you paywall anything of particular value but lots of people will pay a little extra just to vote with their wallet, so these sorts of things do best when they offer basically worthless shit no poorfag will miss while giving whales the option to throw money at the company. They need to offer something otherwise it's a donation and there's a whole lot of weird legal stuff, but the understanding is that nothing you're getting for that extra 10 dollars is worth the price, nor is it intended to be, and you're choosing to pay extra because you want the company to get more money and use that money to make more things like this.

It has the added benefit of shaking down all the content creators for protection money because of course being 3 days late to the party is algorithm suicide. But if it's bad for youtubers it's good for the world, so I don't see a problem.

What's the release price going to be?

>>2062593
The current listed price minus 10USD.

>>1944472
stfu tranny

Right, this thing is actually coming out now. I've waited for it so long and I played a bunch in the betas already I'm not sure I care anymore.

With the release around the corner I've been theorycrafting to pass the time.

Barring any kind of extreme balance issues on launch, which I can't rule out, I think there will be a couple deck setups that will be the obvious best-in-class for multiplayer.
>US
Specops + Armoured is an obvious one. Strongest infantry + strongest vehicles, and most of the good squads are 6-man so they fit in Bradleys. You get enough air points to bring some fighters for CAP, enough heli points for a few gunships and enough support for your mandatory AA and supply. I think it's basically the platonic ideal of the brawling frontline deck that wants to slug it out and just trade until it wins.

>Stryker + X
Stryker is probably the overall best spec and I imagine it'll be a component of most US decks that aren't the above. Stryker + Marines gives you tanks to pair with your IFVs, the ACV for cheap autocannons and just a lot of good stuff in every tab. Stryker + Airborne gives you double Javelin weapon teams that can ride in Strykers and snap-unload for a triple missile volley to oneshot a tank. And Stryker + Armoured will probably be the premier support deck since it gives you all the best artillery and anti-air in one place while still having strong ground stuff.

Airspam is a little more wishy washy but assuming air is still decent on launch, the best setup will depend a lot on which loadouts are good. Stryker + SOF, Stryker + Marines and SOF + Airborne are the three main contenders and it'll just depend on how good loadouts are and what the plane vs AA balance looks like.

>RU
I think the playing field is a little narrower here. There's no reason to make a ground combat deck without Guards and Guards + Mot is probably the best synergy and best collection of strong units in one deck.
For support it's either Coastal + Mech or Mech + Mot. Mech has the best barrel artillery, mot has the best rocket artillery, coastal has useful gimmicks like the helicopter cruise missiles.

How is single player?

>>2063048
Based on the missions they've shown so far, storymode looks pretty primitive but I guess that's part for the course with RTS. There's no persistent overworld map mode like GoH's conquest or SD2's army general so it's basically as linear story campaign with a set number of missions, some challenge scenarios and then offline skirmish with bots.
The game is launching with a scenario editor so hopefully there'll be some neat mod missions eventually but modding scenes in RTS games are always a bit of a crapshoot.

>>2063052
>part for the course with RTS
SC2 WOL had a fantastic campaign.

>>2062593
$60 USD

The campaign is not going to be very interesting. Which sucks, because in my mind there are no technical reasons why they can't make a kino in the vein of World in Conflict or something like that. It's a lack of imagination really.

>>2063048
We have only played and seen a handful of missions. Seems simple enough, like the Original Wargame EE campaign or World in Conflict. Linear, objective based campaign.
There was a wave defense mode they showed off in the last beta as more of an example of what people can make in the scenario editor, which they say is the same scenario editor used for the campaign missions.
So singleplayer chads will be eating good with this since the workshop will be populated with missions

>>2063021
I forgot to mention RU air. VDV is really the only spec with an air tab worth a damn, but since none of the other specs really have much to offer it, the second spec for the pairing is a bit of a tossup. Coastal is most likely since it lets you take full advantage of the heli tab but there's probably a case to be made for just going VDV + Guards.

Guards is just so fucking good.
Like Stryker is also really good but it's good because it provides key units that every other spec wants, and every other spec has something to cover its weaknesses. It's synergistic.
Guards is just good because it's self-sufficient. It has basically everything it needs and the best of most things so there's just no reason to pick another spec unless you're doing something niche. It even has great artillery, so like Guards + Mot is both the premier frontline and excellent support. Expect to see a lot of Guard/mot on the RU side for the first few weeks as people pick up on how good it is.

>brand new S-35 shot down by old F-16 block 40's, not even the new,better block 70's
>airfields, factories getting droned repeatedly in Russia
>bridges and trains bombed
Impossible to maintain the suspension of disbelief with this game.

>>2063021
I plan to play unusual combinations in an effort to just make my playstyle more unorthdox and thus harder to counter. I have no idea if this will work but it at least sounds fun so hopefully I at least get a kick out of it.

Example: Coastal + VDV that just amphibs and airdrops on water heavy maps

>>2061298
>It has the added benefit of shaking down all the content creators for protection money because of course being 3 days late to the party is algorithm suicide.
I'm pretty sure that many of them will get the game for free.
But yeah, this edition kind of sucks and if it wasn't for key resellers, I wouldn't even be considering buying it.

>>2063066
Starcraft 2 also has a triple-A budget. RTS games are usually made by 3 guys in a shed and don't become korean national sports.

>>2063518
Just add the armoury + skill tree elements to the single player campaign.
Ultimate general civil war did it well and it had a low budget.

>>2063137
Certainly, the benefit of the system is that you can make any of like 15 combinations with each faction and while all of them are technically unique, I think that the problem is that multiplayer doesn't actually offer all that many situations where some of those niches matter.

Like, you could pair Airborne and SOF but the resulting mix would have almost no ground combat vehicles, and as it turns out ground combat vehicles are kind of very important. It's hard to really conceive of a map where the terrain devalues vehicles so much that a deck with none isn't at an inherent disadvantage. Especially since last beta, tanks were counterintuitively the kings of forest combat (hopefully that's no longer the case on release).

But the other issue is just of redundancy. It's easy to find a pairing that has lots and lots of powerful infantry to fight in places where vehicles don't excel, AND have lots of powerful vehicles to fight elsewhere. And you're not making particularly harsh tradeoffs to have both. So where would it make sense to have this kind of hole in your roster and what would the possible benefits need to be to justify that tradeoff? For another example: SOF + Marines would have no long range AA. Why would you ever make a deck pairing with no long range AA? The answer is probably that you wouldn't. The only time that wouldn't be a huge personal liability is when you are queueing with a friend who can buy extra AA for you, but then you're still just being a burden your team has to make up for--and what's the benefit? You're not really getting anything from that pairing you couldn't also get from another pairing with fewer downsides.

On the RU side I think that Guards generally just eclipses Mechanized and Coastal on the ground. Their units are too similar, which leads to a zero-sum game where you just pick the best one to fulfill that role. Of course that's barring some new unit turning out to be super broken on release and warping the game around it.

>>2063609
Part of the issue why RU decks are all the same is soviet brainrot where they were so proud of inventing the BMP that they turned every branch of the military into mech with amphibious capability.

In terms of gameplay you are right. Taking 2 INF focused decks mostly means you just have redundant units and one is probably better but you are sacrificing a lot of independence for it. It can only make sense in a premade team, but even than, it's probably more efficient for people to just cover part of the front rather than split by role, except maybe at some narrower maps where you can afford one player to not frontline as much because it's cramped anyway.
The one benefit of doubling down in that you will get more activation points in category which means you can take more of it even if you will draw mostly from one of the specs.
In pubs you will certainly need to play a more generalist deck though.

>>2063701
Something to consider as well is that having more of something in your deck doesn't necessarily mean you'll deploy more. The actual quantity of units you can put on the map is pretty limited because of how your income scales so the odds of you actually putting out like 8 squads of one kind of infantry and 6 of another is pretty slim. And since lost units recover over time, having depth to backfill losses doesn't matter the way it does in Wargame. Infantry is cheap, which means that lost infantry is recovered quickly. A tank-focused deck can easily afford like 2 50pt engineer squads along with their IFVs to sweep a forest or town block and even facing larger numbers of superior infantry they're likely to survive long enough to provide vision for your armour blob to blast the offending infantry out.

This is why I think for the most part even in coordinated stacks you're going to see people build generalist decks and just cover their 'lane' of the map, with maybe 1 player doing support or air stuff where specializing actually can matter a little more.

>>2064142
There is some advantage to having more of the same even if you aren't going to use all at once, but yeah, the cheapest units that you are likely to use up are also the ones that come back quickest so it's not that much of a problem. Things like AA it's worth to keep spare so you can call a new one immediately after you fell asleep and ate an ARM.
Points are also work most in tabs when you might want the optionality, so air, where frames individually are expansive but you might want to have planes with different loadouts to cover different roles just in case and where cooldown is sort of built in by default.

Why are devs so focused on 5v5?

>>2064729
Devs don't want to split the playerbase and have only one "main" way of playing the game so they are focusing on that and teamgames are the more casual friendly mode that will appeal to more people. Also easier to balance the specialisation system if you have a standard team size, 1v1 would be a completely different game.
Why 5v5 I dunno, traditionally RTS games go up to 4v4 but this style of games also up to 10v10, maybe it seems like an okay number. You can get your dota team to play BA instead and nobody gets left out.

>>2064756
It's just a bit disappointing that can't have more than 10 players, even in a custom lobby. I remember that maps from the previous beta were already quite big and they looked like they could easily fit 10 more players.

>>2021023
>good goyim
>implying the us isn't a goyscape ruled by jewish overlords

>>2063609
You are making the mistake of thinking that the strongest most expensive units are always the best. Obviously it depends entirely on balance, but right now in Warno for example all the overpowered decks and units are mid-cost ultra efficient shit like t-72 or amx-30 spam. There is a deck called 3rd Armoured that has m1a1 HA, mega bradleys, apaches, f-15 eagles and all that shit, it currently sucks ass because all the units are just so expensive that you can't keep up with a soviet nigga spamming bmp-1s and t-72s. Even Polish retards with smokeless BMP-1s and T-55's are considered a better deck for 1v1.

>>2064924
Most maps were okay, the one standout that was way too large was refinery, it had too many objectives so people just stopped contesting half of it entirely, by the end it became a bit of a gentemans agreement that if you have to play it don't touch the top part and in the press only videos it seems they officially cut that down. In turn Baltisk was pretty cramped because of how long and narrow it was and it was flipped so the frontline goes across more diagonally rather than across the narrowest point.
So they are trying to match the maps to team sizes more.

>>2064954
This game isn't Warno but the important thing is that the good decks here cover every price point. The cheapest Russian tank is the base T-90 available to the Guards, which is also pretty much the perfect compromise between armour and firepower to spam out and make cost effective trades. Then the same tab also provides the T-90M, with a gun strong enough to duel US tanks and optional APS, shitter T-80s that suck but have APS for soaking up missiles, and the Armata to match the SEPv3. The Armata is actually the worst option of the 3, but it covers a niche while your cheap spammable tanks make cost effective trades.

This is part of why the RU faction design is weird. The elite list also has cheap shitter units and mid tier bruisers to balance out it's roster, while other specs tend to be one trick ponies. Why bring along a BMP3 for 100pts when you can get a Kurganets for 120pts that has a better weapon and APS? Maybe they'll make the BMP3 cheaper at some point, but how cheap does it need to be before it makes sense?

lel, vulcan made a whole video begging wargame chuds to behave when BA releases

>>2065275
>make RTS great again

I will go Mech-Guards and nobody will stop me, fuck air niggers, luv BMPs simple as.

>>2065634
Air niggers are going to fuck you

>>2065634
>BMP
Ukraine exposed those tin cans so badly.

>>2066268
Yes but BA is fantasy setting where everyone has useable and good equipment to make it more fun, so there is no need to bring it up.

>>2066405
BMPs, and possibly IFVs in general, are still kinda meh. Cheap ones lack firepower and die really easily. If you bling it out with the modern RWS turrets, ERA and APS it helps them a bit but they start getting pretty expensive and will still die to anything with a tank cannon because of it's shitty armour before it gets to use the ATGMs.

>>2066425
CV90's are dominant in Ukraine.
So many videos of them wrecking ruzzians.

>>2066425
For the most part just being a vehicle with an ATGM launcher makes you automatically dangerous. Enough cheap ATGMs and you just overwhelm tank APS, and since most IFVs can survive a hit from a tank they just smoke and retreat once they get targeted. The important part is that IFVs are a fraction of the cost of a tank and bring a lot of firepower for their cost. You can always put a tank or 2 ahead of your lighter vehicles and let it be targeted first, and like 1 tank + 3 Bradleys will always out-fight 2 tanks for the same price, and have the advantage that you can split them up to potentially cover more ground.

Russia actually really didn't bother with this last beta because instead of a 100-130pt IFV they could just field a 170pt tank. But with BMP1s being like sub-50pts they'll be able to spam out an ungodly number of shitter ATGMs to just saturate a section of the front and that could be strong. Also the BMP3 gets an optional upgrade to replace its turret with the T-15's ripple fire ATGMs and that'll be pretty strong since they're less than half the price of a T-15.

They better have their server issues resolved. It's one thing to have a networking disaster during a free beta test but if they have another shitstorm unfold on day one it will kill a lot of their momentum and goodwill immediately. Also, China should be completely ip banned from the game.

>>2066838
The problem is travel time of ATGMs, you have to pick between standing to guide missiles and avoiding getting hit. I agree on the point they work better when you mix them in with tanks though.
What I disagree on is the cheap ones, some units are just so flimsy it's hard to justify them at any price. We've already had BMDs and nobody used them because they were just too shitty (and same applies to VDV infantry that came in them, 5 man squads for frontline infantry just feels bad at any price because it's too squishy).

>>2066697
is this ironic? I can't tell nowadays

so is infantry any good in this game? all i ever like using in these types of games is infantry while trying to use the minimum amount of support vehicles as possible.

>>2067112
Infantry is considerably weaker than in wargame but still has its place. Most maps had some kind of large forest or urban area to serve as an infantry playground

>>2067112
Infantry is arguably underpowered in BA

>>2067112
Just watch this video
https://youtu.be/_9J3cKS75PE

>>2067224
This faggot is so annoying and full of himself. I cannot conceive why you would post his shit here.

>>2067294
>This faggot is so annoying and full of himself.
He's british.

>>2067300
Administratively perhaps.

>>2067119
>>2067188
>>2067224
sad. maybe infantry will be good in the future?

>>2067569
Don't hold your breath. The devs have been needled about this and are adamant.
The abridged argument is that infantry are mostly static while vehicles are mobile and thus proactive. An infantry meta would just mean a bunch of invisible guys sitting around everywhere and nobody ever attacking, while a vehicle meta lets people attack and infantry can still do things like screen or scout with their faces.

>>2067670
Its not a bad argument, in a vacuum. Frankly, people stressing over the balance at this point need to just cool their jets, people haven't even played the game, much less any of the recent versions.

>>2067112
Infantry fucking sucks

>>2067750
Only when you're fighting heavy armored unit with APS

>>2067929
Even without apps the average infantry unit is a bit meh, partially because the damage from most AT launchers is lacking and they need to expend most of their ammo to kill a tank.

>>2068040
It's really just the US, because most of their infantry get-near worthless AT4s and the rest are barely better. The RU side get launchers with 900 pen that can 2-tap tanks and a whole gamut of different options. US infantry AT being shit is intentional, while RU infantry get good launchers but suck vs other infantry. It's supposed to be a faction diversity thing.

I like infantry. They're great for probing forests, pushing cities and acting as tripwires.

I'd rather leave an 80 bubba team in a treeline watching over my reinforcement route than park a 150 APS AFV, and I'd rather probe a push route with a 70 point infantry squad than my 300 point APS tank.

It's a tool in the box, not a "meta".

>>2068117
In a game where a top tier missileproof fighting vehicle is 120 pts, 80pts is a fucking lot to spend on a tripwire unit.

>>2061171
Yeah
But how the hell is it gaining so much popularity? I used to think that it was just Warno's competitor.

>>2068088
The problem is that they don't have anything better IRL. Javeling is the strongest option but in Warno they often come with very little ammo, like only 2 rounds.

>>2068269
People are actually talking about it. I know I hadn't heard of it up until all the ytfags released their footage from the april press beta.
In comparison, I only know of Warno in relation to people talking about Broken Arrow.

>>2068269
>warno, different Wargame Airland battle
>BA, the sequel to World in Conflict I and many others have been waiting for

>>2068269
Modern Eugen is repelling both because of their miserly DLC model but also because they're run by stinky, bitter autistic french egotists that hate fun and just want to make historically revisionist TO&E simulators until they retire. Steel Division 2 was fucking awful and they utterly failed to convince anybody that Warno was going to be anything but Steel Division 2 in a cold war skin. Instead it was worse, it was historical fantasy that panders to tankies and french nationalists (lmao) by making every real member of NATO a clown.

People WANT more Wargame, or better Wargame or whatever. But they don't want the weird baggage that's been beaten into the french psyche after a century of humiliation. Eugen being a player-repellent for the past 10 years hasn't diminished interest in the genre, it's just pushed that interest away from everything they touch.

In that sense all Broken Arrow needs to be is a wargame-like without Eugen. Even being good is secondary. But we're all of course very hopefully that it will be good.

>>2068269
> >>2068402
Eugen fatigue. It looks good, plays well and it has a lot of promise. It seems the delays will let them stick the landing, but I do see boredom setting in with just two factions, even with the expansive deck building unless they regularly inject more content.

>>2068470
>unless they regularly inject more content.
That's definitely the plan. They already have a few German units in the game, like Leo 2s and Pzh 2000, but they appear only in the campaign. That makes Germany the most likely candidate for the first DLC and if they want to simultaneously add a country for RED

>>2068504
>if they want to simultaneously add a country for RED
Then it's definitely China.

What are the odds that servers shit the bed today?

As Russian I hate nothing more than vatniks so fuck these devs.

>>2068527
Not my problem, bug tester. I waited two years for it, I can wait three more days.

>>2068532
>as a Russian
Ok, Mykola

>>2068536
lol, bug fixing is going to take the next few weeks. Not much is going to change during those three days.

>>2068540
I wish. At least Mykolas can buy games like white people. I can't anymore, I'm forced to jump through hoops and pay more.

>>2068564
What do you mean? I thought that Steam didn't cease operations in Russia.

>>2068566
Technically it sells games in Russia but at the same time doesn't accept money from Russia. So you either have to get a foreign bank's visa/mc or use third-party services that send cash to your wallet and charge like 10%.

When is it coming out? I got this on a keysite and it seems the game itself hasn't yet, for people who bought Vanguard I mean.

>>2068674
it's supposed to open up in 20 minutes for vanguard edition.

it's happening paypig bros

I got it because I have had it wishlisted for a year and I got 9 bucks off from greenman gaming :)

>>2068674
Keysites should still give you the key in a few hours. At least the decent ones.

>>2068674
>>2068715
What even is a good "keysite"

If I could get it cheaper I'd probably go for it, it's comically overpriced

>>2068675
>>2068715
>>2068720
I got mine off of Instant Gaming

>>2068723
Did it work? Haven't fucked with these east-euro sites before, got zero clue how legit they are

>>2068723
Where's the fucking code

>>2068735
The code arrives by mail after a minute or so. It gave me the standard edition, despite confirming it as vanguard edition. Comical.

>>2068741
Same here, sent a support ticket. What's interesting is that Steam registered it like this.

poorfags got fucked over, lmao

Checking Steam Forums, it's the Dev's fault 100%

>>2068756
Nvm, Edmon is saying that anything with ROW tagged keys are fucked atm.
"According to the game Dev:
Edmon -
10:22 AM
We're looking at issues around 3rd party keys for Vanguard not allowing downloads... it should just work if the key activates. We're talking to Steam right now.

Edmon -
10:26 AM
I am worried that it might be that people bought ROW keys when they are not in a ROW region - and this might be the issue.

Edmon -
10:27 AM
ROW = Rest of the World = Not a region covered by Steams Regional Pricing. I.E. not
USA, not EU, etc."

Damn 16000 people online immediately

>>2068768
Eugen in SHAMBLES

I see XA-180s and CV-90s in the training mission, I don't think those were there last time.

>>2068720
>What even is a good "keysite"
One you can trust/have had good experience with? It super subjective imo.
Personally for example I'm fond of cdkeys because one time I accidentally bought a game twice and I got a no hassle refund despite already having gotten both keys, didn't activate both but still.

I think they fixed the line of sight tool, it looks like it's updating almost instantly

Oh thank fuck I can finally install it now, gotta wait 2 hours though.

>Big Wave campaign mission
>take the city center objectives and the fort
>mission freezes and refuses to proceed
Thanks I love wasting an hour of my life

dude wtf with some of these missions
I kept trying to supply my marines but the off map enemy arty always hit it
then the second part is stupid bc that stupid bitch keeps using all the tanks so i have to assault city with only inf
like why give me the option if that bitch is gonna use it all

so hows the game?

>>2069051
lot of references to C&C Generals

played 6 campaign missions and i think flares don't work
haven't seen them stop a single missile

>>2069074
ECM and Flares work as damage reduction

>>2069092
geh

ok, so the fucking AI can see where you drop supplies on the naval invasion mission
literally every single one, no matter how hidden, or how many different places I put them, the off map arty hits it every time
wtf

RU I am using coastal+motorized

US I am torn between SOF + Stryker or SOF + Airborne, but then how the fuck do I deal with tanks?

>every single match I play has teammates leaving and or disconnecting
For fuck's sake.

>>2069092
No they don't. Missiles have a hidden hit chance. ECM is a straight "X% chance for missile to miss" and flares work by adding a flat ECM bonus while active. Planes can also "dodge" missiles organically by turning at high speeds and odd angles, as missiles have limited turning circles and a narrow tracking cone in front.

But generally speaking you just don't want to be in range of AA longer than needed. Go in at an angle rather than head on, burn afterburners on approach and immediately dive to low altitude and turn to evac once your payload is out.

>>2069109
Coastal got nerfed pretty hard for some reason I don't know why you'd even pick it now except for the cruise missile helicopter.

even though it was just a skirmish, i think im going to prefer this game's logistic system over Wargame

>>2069167
Did it? Are there patch notes somewhere or a video some youtuber made going over the changes?

>>2069172
I'm not sure what else they did but the black berets got their squad size cut in half and they lost their heavy AT launchers.

dude these missions are way too fucking long to not have a save function

>>2069235

The Papers Please mission is fucking ridiculous on hard

>shitostrelkis and two T72s against a swarm of suicidal AT infantry and CV90s
>if you fail, you get to listen to the vatniks yapping away for another 10 minutes

>>2069246
fr
it's like half the missions were designed with World in Confilct's damage system in mind but they forgot it's a semi real damagae system

>no way to save the singleplayer game
What the fuck is wrong with game devs these days? This is basic stuff present in every game with singleplayer mission, but it's yet another case when a new game doesn't have it.

>>2069246
They clearly only played and balanced it on easy.

>>2069245
>>2069235
Suspiciously large number of assets just for campaign NPC enemies. I wouldn't be surprised if some balkan pact is the first DLC country they add

>>2069245
They also have M113s

>>2069235
>Greenlight Team
That would be hilarious in MP.

>>2069114
singleplayer piratechads, we keep on winning

>>2068768
That's the peak from the beta, I think.

>>2069394
You can't play Broken Arrow offline thoughever. Skirimsh literally requires you to host a lobby.

>>2069401
I only play to roleplay kalinigrad rape. Also gonna wait for patches before buying

>>2068564
As another Russkie who's also dissatisfied with the whole situation I want to say that you're a fucking retard.
Using steam from Russian region and paying there with your own money is cringe.
The only issue is getting fucking cash in proper amounts when you need to travel somewhere imo, every "online" sanction is a nothingburger.

>>2069399

I CAN'T SAVE

>>2069512
Yeah, devs were too lazy to implement a save system for SP even though the missions can be long slogs and if you want to side mission/achievement hunt you gotta replay the whole mission.
Yes it's retarded, but the campaign part is clearly an afterthought

>>2069512
>>2069557
Yeah seriously, I really fucking needed it for the Refinery mission before the final part opens up and I get raped of all the enemy units coming in,

>>2069358
even on easy some of the missions can feel really unfair

so the people that say Russia is unbalanced, i've won every match so far as US, I'm still on low elo tho

>>2069623
>Russia is unbalanced
Afaik that impression was from the press event.
Iirc when players asked the existing play testers those said they'll have to pick RU if they are to go all out without holding back.
In other words it might have been a result of unfinished balance and/or high level elo sweats that hve been playing for months.

Chinamen in charge of not charging across open terrain when they know there's an apache in the area hiding behind some trees

>No singleplayer
The fuck were they thinking? No reason to even pirate this trash.

>>2069649
Are you retarded?

>>2069623
In the previous open betas russia was imbalanced because of a couple extremely overtuned units.
Launch balance is very different from what the betas were like. It's too soon to say which side is stronger currently and the sweatlords are still playing both and feeling them out.

>>2069623
Russia got a fresh wave of nerfs with release, anyone crying that RU is overpowered is just parroting old shit.

What do you all think the best US/RU decks will be?

anyone have a spare copy of broken arrow? ill be your support gf and play with u whenever you ask

>>2069858
I have been enjoying SOF + Armor for US.
Lots of SOF teams can fit into bradleys

>>2069858
For soloqueue it's Marines + Stryker and Guard + Motorized.
If you're in a 5 stack it's a little more nebulous since there are clear roles in a full team and you want to tailor your deck to that. In soloqueue you need to kind of need a little of everything since you can't trust your team to fill a gap, but you also need to tailor your deck to pushing, making plays and taking ground because your teammates won't.

Some strong combinations to mess around with for each faction
>US
Armoured + SOF. Maximum grug frontline with tanks, bradleys and AMPVs and then special infantry to clear forests. Basically all-in combat frontline grind.

Stryker + Airborne. Huge air tab with SEAD and every kind of CAS for airspam, and a huge support tab with all the arty, and all the frontline tools to lock down a section of the map

Marine + Airborne. Big air tab, big heli tab, tanks. Ideal for dedicated air spam while still covering your front
>RU
VDV + Coastal. Dedicated air/heli spam. You're weak on the ground but it's still hard to push you because the LMUR heli is so strong.

Mechanized + Coastal. Artillery spam with a strong frontline. You have just enough heli points for double Katran with cruise missiles, plus cheap cruise missile spam strat bombers, plus a tonne of heavy barrel artillery + lots of tanks, ifvs and cheap inf to hold the line. Basically purpose-built to make the whole enemy team ragequit Kaliningrad.

Troopers seem pretty good for 90 points. Basic infantry able to hold a position, but you get a javelin with every squad.

Microing Abrams to mess with people is fun, especially if it has active protection
>>2069858
for US USMC/Armored + Airborne Prowler is the goat
for RU will probably involve Motorized+VDV since your troop transports can also be your short range AA

the humvee arty is underwhelming for airborne

If I have a plane with cluster and HE bombs, how do I get them to drop everything in one bombing run? It only drops the clusters when I order a bombing run and I need to order a second for the HE to drop

What do you do when the RU team just turtles with helicopters and artillery, and half your team is busy making their capture point look absolutely
~A E S T H E T H I C~
instead of helping you out

But seriously, when two RU players go hard on helicopters, it is INCREDIBLY difficult to push them. Like, they don't even attack with them, they just hover menacingly with overwatch on any cover you'd use to push them. Very little SHORAD can hit them remarkably hard, and the odds are the helicopter's buddies are gonna spot it and wipe it instantly. STT and stinger teams can take potshots, but they're just harassers, not killers.

>inb4 aircraft
Just PRETEND that you can't really use your jets

>>2069967
It sounds like you have a bombload with two different types of drag. Low drag bombs can only be dropped at high altitude, high drag bombs can only be dropped at low altitude. If you mix two different types then you can only drop one set in a bombing run, just make sure your bombload is all of the same type of drag.

It shows you drag type in the detailed statcard in the hangar when you examine the bombs

>>2069858
Stryker + SOF is PEAK infantry gameplay.

>>2069858
Been having a good enough time with Guards + Moto, feels strong but not too wild, I have to keep returning all my arty and I got no space for tube arty. I wish I had the Malka in Guards lol even though it's kinda shit.

picked a small cargo plane to airdrop supplies to my infantry in forests, shit saves me tons of micro of keeping trucks nearby. And it drops off the supplies immediately, so lower risk than helicopters which need to slowly land and usually get shot down before unloading

is it just me, or do all these "Urban" maps in the campaign don't favor infantry
it's like every building is just far away enough to not be able to engage unless you have a heavy weapon, and you don't have access to many

>>2069970
If devs weren't "no fun allowed" faggots then you would still be able to lase and bomb helos.

anyone else feel garrisoned infantry are too squishy?

>>2070025
>you can't lase and bomb helps anymore
You're lying, tell me you're lying, it can't be true.
That was the best part of the beta combined with F-35s bombing SAMs.

AI RU is pure cancer
they spam grenade launchers and ATGMs
they get to set up really fast and dont care getting shot by 2 bushmasters in an open field
and it feel like my infantry get curb stomped even in a 2v1 scenario
am i crazy?

>>2070031
I think it's fine. They're invulnerable to cluster munitions, take very little damage from mortars and even close large-caliber artillery save direct hits, and they take 50% less damage from small arms. If you're getting whacked by cruise missiles, you don't relocate enough. Once you know your infantry is spotted in buildings, change buildings as soon as you can and enjoy watching your opponent's expensive munitions demolish an empty highrise.

>>2070055
was playing campaign with the ranger insertion mission and my rangers were half health in 15 sec to the machinegun btr, not the auto cannon

>>2070056
The campaign is just busted.

>>2070057
lovely
i guess the ai in skirmish used that bustedness
legit just did one and they had 3-4 times our number of units

>>2070053
AI is almost basically nonexistent, it's just zerg rush along the designated path.

BROTHERS!
I NEED SOME DECKS BROTHERS!
BROTHERS PLEASE!
I AM BEING RAILED BY RUSSIAN ARTI AND AMERICAN HELIS!
>seriously, how does one share decks

>>2069970
The Stryker Shorad literally exists for this. It has APS so they can trade blows with heli ATGMs and come out on top. Stingers from any source should 2 shot most helis.
The MML also fires off missiles super fast do it can down multiple helis quickly.

But yeah really against massed helis you just need massed SHORAD. Dismounted pads are good because they can't be targeted by ATGMs and outrange rockets, but SHORAD vehicles can just roll up and make sure everything hovering dies.

>>2070113
>Stingers from any source
>2-shot elis

A direct shot from a stinger hits an mi24 for a third of its health. And even if you nail it with three stingers, it limps away with a fraction of a sliver of HP

>>2070031
This is the main reason I'm not buying the game until I can get a good bearing on the balance.

In the beta tanks could drive up pointblank to an infantry squad garrisoned in a concrete commieblock and win. ATGM teams often would run out of ammo before they could destroy a single tank with APS (especially if that tank was micro'd).

The devs plainly states that this was intentional to "keep the frontline moving". This is an idiotic design decision. It is much better for a match to have 1-3 game-deciding pushes instead of constant, meaningless back and forth pushes that mean little. Moving away from continuous and towards discrete is one of the few things everyone in game design can agree on.

>workshop is nothing but scenarios

>>2070090
My Stryker/SOF deck, made for dominating urban areas and forests with the heavy-hitting SOF infantry. Strykers provide AT and mobility, with Bookers for fighting armor in forests.

HIMARS is loaded with clusters to fire short salvoes at enemy MLRS launches. Might remove the SPH, tube artillery is so shit unless it's the russian superheavies.

Patriots for intercepting cruise missiles/provide AD, with at least one C-ram parked with it next to a supply dump (not on top of it). SHORAD hangs with the strykers to provide helo defense.

Guardian uses low-level flying behind forests and pops up to delete massed tank pushes. Comanche has four hellfires for opportunities to do a wide flank and snipe enemy support units way in the rear; It can pop a single S300 and be points-positive.

F22 provides opening fighter cover/bomber interception, Fighting Falcon has drag-chute bombs for one-way trip low-flying bombing runs, CJ carries HARMs. Nighthawk has cruise missiles if enemy AD is light/sniping forward units, F-35 has JSOWs for targets of opportunity (wish it had JDAMs, but points constraint)

>>2070297
If you remove the SPH you might have enough points to upgrade your Patriots to the MSE.

>>2070123
This game mode just sucks.
If they made a simple domination where you win if you get a certain amount of points then it would have been fine. It would also be ok if they made a mode similar to destruction. Instead, they did probably the worst possible thing, they combined both of those modes. On top of that, each match lasts 45 minutes and there's no way to end it earlier, even if you completely dominate the enemy, or vice versa. Therefore, no matter how bad the match goes for you, or the opponent team, you have to play for those 45 minutes.
Why even do that? It's a poor solution that in theory is supposed to help noobs, but it really achieves nothing and annoys many players. Even those noobs get annoyed and leave, because they don't want to continue playing the lost match for almost an hour.

>>2070297
STTs are bait. You pay 35 pts more over a standard 6-man stinger team just for the stealth value, which doesn't matter because the stinger is noisy enough to reveal it after the first shot. Pararescue at least are gimmicky with their 4 smokes, shotguns and flashbangs, but STT are just a pt sink.

>>2070334
I use them with the initial ghosthawk landing (opening is two Killer Eggs for escort, two little birds with snipers in it each on the best nearby vantage points, ghost hawk with double STTs to secure my opening point).

By the time their helos arrive, I'm in position to shoot them down. If they bring vehicles, they're slow enough to get enough income for two little birds with MAAWS teams to back the STTs up.

But it's situational. I like them, and they work for what I do.

>>2070377
A note on the opening; That leaves me exactly 400 points to bring in the Raptor. If skies are clear, instantly bring the chinook SOAR with RAWS, Delta and supplies.

Is not being able to save the campaign missions a cringe complaint?

>>2070465

nah, most of demographic for this game are older lates 20s to early 40s. people with jobs and families and shit that might need to pause and do errands/go grocery shoppung/attend events etc.

>>2070465
Yes and no. What >>2070482 mentioned isn't wrong, real life can get in the way and demand breaks/pauses, it's why I never played tarkov.
On the other hand multiplayer atches aren't short either and it might be how they tried to avoid savescumming in the campaign.

i've been in the discord watching STREAMS and a surprising amount of players don't seem to grasp 21st century warfare, they're using traditional infantry/tanks/artillery and using aircraft in a mostly reactive capacity. they also don't understand overlapping layers of SHORAD and HIMAD, it's either all SHORAD or all HIMAD parked on the frontline. it's like their ability to process the battle in more than 2 dimensions is affected by microplastics.

>>2070527
Most people are fucking retarded and can't into AD bubbles, this was clear back in Wargame too.

However, aircraft are pretty expensive bricks if the opponent has good AD management. Really hard to get anything through in large enough quantities to make a difference if the opponent knows what he's doing.

>>2070123
>This is an idiotic design decision. It is much better for a match to have 1-3 game-deciding pushes instead of constant, meaningless back and forth pushes that mean little.
Which is weird because I'm assuming that's what the 3-phase structure is for. Eventually when people figure out the macro at a high level, they will probably tend to do 3 massive all-ins per match, since points are only counted towards the end of each phase.

But it's strange that the micro aspects of the game work against that.

>>2070527
>>2070547
trying to macro/micro AD/missile defense bubbles, supplies, ground forces, and air forces is hard for most people to be fair, there is a reason for division of command in real life

sometimes it feels like the income doesn't match what is needed to have sufficient ground forces and proper AA unless you're one of the guys that devotes themselves to that role

>>1944320 (OP)
No blobbing in the modern day

>>2070635
>Platoon of T-72s roll down a highway
>"Omg tank blob tank blob somebody bomb it tank blob"

>>2070647
I meant more blobbing as in territorial expansion.

>>2070590
>It is much better for a match to have 1-3 game-deciding pushes instead of constant, meaningless back and forth pushes that mean little.
>Which is weird because I'm assuming that's what the 3-phase structure is for.

the phase system was developed after the first open beta, teams were strongpointing one capture area while stacking manpower points and then launching a last 5-minute death ball push. the phase system punishes that kind of turtling strat by (in theory) allowing an aggressive team to stack up match points to the point that a last minute death ball push won't ensure match victory. it also allows for a potential comeback so that players aren't quitting in the first 5 minutes after their yolo air-drop into the middle of the map gets ripped up by SHORAD and helis.

holy fuck skirmish is completely broken
it's like each AI got to spawn in their entire cap of T-14 Armatas from the start

What is the point of Green Berets when you get Ranger Snipers in the same specialization but snipers have better optics

>>2070732
Green Berets have 3 different loadouts so they don't need to be snipers. But as a sniper team they have 4 different sniper rifles (two of which have the massive fuck-you range) so their firepower is generally higher than any other sniper team. They're similar to VMF spetsnaz who also get 4x snipers. You don't use them to scout with, they're a 'kill shit' squad that's super annoying because it outranges infantry normal massively while also being stealthy enough to shoot and kill entirely from concealment. The anti-material rifles can also kill helicopters in a few shots

The other 2 Green Beret loadouts are also pretty good but they fulfill different niches.

>literal years of hyping this up as the WARNO Killer
>comes out
>is worse than WARNO
hahahahaahahaahahahaahahaahaha

>>2070756
I enjoy it more than Warno

>tfw you encircle their armored assault with 3 abrams in their ass while they are going up hill into entrenched infantry

>>2070883
>tfw you successfully worm your specops dudes into their backlines and they don't know how to respond

>>2070898
>ur vdv scout sees 2 little birds so you move 3 igla teams and 2 shorads bc you know thats not all
>3 mins later 6 little birds and 4 blackhawks make a break for your back point running into the 2 lines of shorad and ur main abm/lorad battery
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=tnV5K6rULm0&pp=0gcJCfwAo7VqN5tD

>>2070913
>Helorushing

Nah senpai. Gotta scout out the landing zones with forward snipers that helo-inserted at round start at the far flank and has been making their way to the russian backline ever since. Then waypoint in the ghosthawks with RRC and STTs with Comanche backup.

Fuck that video is good tho

>>2070916
wasn't saying you did that, i thought we were just going back and forth with game stories
it's crazy how easy it can be for one scout squad to sneak through the main line early on (maybe my elo so far)
had a vdv walk through forests all the way to their arty and scouting main road out of deployment before first round completed

>>2070939
>going back and forth with game stories
In that case, hearty kek. The feeling of reading your opponent and getting the hard counter in place is so satisfying.

Had a game yesterday fighting a Guards Tanks player who fucking loved his T15s with the big autocannon, and he went mysteriously quiet right after phase 1 ended.
>this nigga is gonna save up all his income and rush me before phase 2 ends I just know it
>set up all my Ranger MAAWS teams on hold-fire in buildings around my point
>move cluster HIMARs into position
>Standard rangers as tripwire units on the outskirts
>phase 2 is about to end
>oh boy look a train of T15s and T14s
>2 minutes later:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pyh11i89bF8

I am too scared to join a multiplayer game

>>2071015
What's there to be scared about, my brother in christ?
You can find literal troglodytes in matchmaking, worst case scenario you're among equals. Which is unlikely considering your on a website to talk about the game.
Do you really fear judgement from random strangers on the interwebs?

It's a game, just have fun and stop caring so much.

>>2071015
Yeah that >>2071067 the game is new and there are some absolute morons who never touched a strategy game playing it. This is really the best moment to play before they git gud or get bored and leave. If you get it late it's going to be tryhards.

>>2071081
>This is really the best moment to play before they git gud or get bored and leave
Yes. Especially with the full release in a few hours.
And it's not like us beta players don't have to relearn a lot of stuff simply because so much changed.

>>2071015
Multiplayer is very fun but it's very unga bunga me smash army men together. At the beginner ELOs there's no meta, no sweat and no real strategy. You pick a lane and smash and you'll figure shit out as you go.

The big barrier to multiplayer right now is the connection issues. Actually getting in and having fun is a surprisingly low bar. The game looks complex in the stat screens but it's all very simple in practice.

how retarded am I

>>2071130
I can only speak for US
Drop MGS for more M10s
Drop Guardian Recons
Add Apache

Is the AC-130 still shit?

>>2071130
Only talking about US but I dont think you're going to need that many supply trucks/helos.
F-35 is meh as a sead platform, stealth should still allow it to at least do yolo runs in contested air space so you dont get much from the harms.
Feels like you're pretty heavy on frontline infantry/door breachers, probably worth adding some atgm guys.
The Stryker scouts with bushmaster + javelin might be worth going for solely for their transport.

Is there really no 1v1?

>>2071161
You can make a custom lobby with 1v1. The only mode you do matchmaking for is 5v5 since that is what the gameplay and maps are designed around

>>2071161
Game is designed to be played 5v5, this is the only mode supported in quickmatch, such hath the dev spoken.

>>2071162
That sucks.
I don't mind team games in theory but there's always leavers in these kind of games. Especially bad lobbies that big, genuinely surprised that there's nothing smaller.

>>2071168
>take 5v5 map
>make it a fifth of the size
>1v1 map achieved
not so hard

>>2071172
Also splits playerbase and resources as you have to balance everything around both, half the specs would not be viable 1v1

>>2071130
Guardians seem redundant when you already have 4 basic strykers that pretty do the same thing.
7 little birds is a fucking lot.
You don't need Green Beret Snipers AND 4 Ranger snipers. Pick one or the other. If you prefer rangers, consider taking Green Berets in a different loadout.
Stryker Scouts are extremely worth taking because their transport has both max optics and can bring the Autocannon and Javelin together. Bring at least 1 to send along with the rest of your vehicles so they can see things

You don't need both Bookers and MGS using the 105 cannon. It's literally the same cannon on both. You're just picking between cost and protection, and the Booker's protection is generally worth the price tag.
You always want at least 2 long range AA in your support tab, so that if one gets SEADed you have a backup to call in instead of waiting the full respawn timer with no AA cover.
You don't need that many C-RAMs. Its only purpose is to decoy a SEAD missile from your patriot. Multiple C-RAMs will all waste their firing cycle killing the same missile and still get overwhelmed, so you basically just want 1 C-RAM up to protect your patriot
HEMTT is 30 more pts for less supply capacity just because it can carry troops, but you have plenty of transport already. Just bring two PLS and maybe 1 HEMTT if you really need the extra vehicle. You don't need to completely fill the PLS.

Cluster dumb bombs on a plane are generally a noon trap. They individually don't deal enough damage to kill anything and the plane will space out the bombs for minimal overlap, meaning you cover a huge area with tickle damage instead of killing anything valuable, then your plane dies and you trade 290pts for 0.
For SEAD you're better off bringing the F-16J with 4 ARM missiles than the F-35 with only 2 for the same price. The missiles outrange AA so the plane doesn't need to be stealthy

>>2071178
Not everything needs to be equally viable, what's the issue if some decks end up being underpowered in 1v1 specifically?
I doubt that everything is balanced in 5v5 anyway.

>>2071130
>RU side
Diversanty aren't good. They just aren't. 100pts for a 4-man squad because they have special snowflake tickle launchers is just silly. If you need more recon bodies to send out through forests just bring their cheaper loadout and treat them as expendable face-checkers
Bumerangs are really, really really good. Their ATGM ripple-fires to overwhelm APS and does very good damage. They're basically the best russian combat-transport outside of the T-15. A few stripped down cheapo BTRs just to move guys around is fine but you really do want to be taking more than 2 Bumerangs. They are one of the main reasons to play Moto.

8 motop is silly. They have the shit AT launcher so they aren't particularly good at screening vehicles and are just sort of a mediocre squad in general. You're never going to want that many on the field, even as meatshields. The morskap are like 10pts more but much better in every way. You still wouldn't want 8 of them, though.

PT-76 is a big meme. I'd just bring another tank or 2 imo. Let your infantry tab bring the autocannon fire support.

4 Biryusa is a lot. Not sure why you'd need that many.
Just like with US, you'd want at least 2 long range SAMs
The best configuration for the Grad is the napalm variant. It's really, really strong, and for HE or cluster the Smerch is just better. You probably only need 1 of each though. Your rocket arty is probably never dying unless you forget to move them.

>>2071216
>4 Biryusa is a lot. Not sure why you'd need that many.
>Just like with US, you'd want at least 2 long range SAMs
>You probably only need 1 of each though.
Yeah definitely worth noting that in BA the unit amount in a deck is the maximum that can be on the field/ in a respawn queue.
Which is why 2 big SAMs is worthwhile, so you can immediately replace the destroyed one, but multiple arty isn't as much because you should still have the other artillery pieces unless you heavily misplay.
Which is further affected by the limited amount of pieces you can afford to field at once.

>>2071216
>>2071221
>>2071192
>>2071145
>>2071138
Thank you for looking at my decks giving feedback

so did it turn out to be yet another wargame clone that caters only to multiplayer shit?

>>2071130
I'm starting to build decks with minimal or no "plain" inf (troopers, riflemen, etc. the big marine squads are the exception) because I don't think they bring much to the table besides allowing you to get good AFVs. And I think these specs are good for urban maps so I like to bring a good amount of anti-infantry

Off the top of my head I would get rid of some little birds blackhawk or two
Lose the 3 HEMTT and just have 2 M1075A1, also cut maybe a centurion and stryker MC or two for another HIMARs (make them cluster) and another Patriot
The Apache Guardian w/ the JAGM is a push stopper. 16 fire and forget 2000m ATGMs is nutty and totally worth the 380 points
I would replace the chinook with an Osprey
I do think running ranger and GB snipers is valid but I'd do 2 rangers and 1 or 2 GBs. The ranger snipers you use for stealthy recon, GB snipers are well armed and use them to actually kill stuff with their 1200 and 1000m stniper rifles
I would also consider a reaper or predator w/ stingers and hellfires instead of the shadow/sentinel

For Russians same thing, I would run a couple Spets VMF with snipers like the GBs, use them for long range combat. These guys get 2x 1200m .50 cals
I'd drop the PT-76s and just do 4x BVM obr. 2018s
Again I don't think you need 4 supply trucks, I'd just do 2 of the 8 wheel ones. And a second S-300
I'd drop the Motopekhota. Grab some Morskaya Pekhota so you can get some BMP-3s in the deck. And also I'd bring 2-3 Kornet-Ms instead of SPG-9s

I could be totally wrong tho too

>>2071229
There is 19 mission singleplayer campaign. With actual missions like European Escalation, not the retarded army general shit of the newer wargame franchise games

>>2071140
it was really only good against peasants

>>2071140
Yes and no.
Basically its intended role is to be a backline sweeper to find and kill infantry that gets behind your line. It has recon-tier ground optics so it can spot its own targets and find stealthy recon hidden in forests and buildings. It's similar in concept to bringing along a recon heli with rockets, except you bring it in the plane tab instead of the heli tab. Obviously the Specops heli tab is stacked, which is why it can be handy to put your goalie unit in the air tab instead.

If you bring it within 50km of the frontline it will instantly die to AA and it can't fight heavy vehicles because all of its weapons are specifically anti-inf, but as long as you treat it like a ~150pt rocket heli running cleanup in your rear it makes sense.

>>2071231
thx good to know

>>2070944
hell yeah

>>2071015
it was unironically easier than the campaign
and i usually don't go hard into multiplayer
just be patient have some ABM and dont bunch up inf (one asshole that fucking loved napalm arty taught me that) the ELO is the to protect you and for the most part it works

>>2071230
ive also been disappointed in plain inf squads
the ranges in these commie blocks dont allow for alot of effective placment
it is nice to have some on point though as a delaying force

>>2071298
They vary greatly in quality and value.
For example, Motostrelki have an AT launcher that's near-worthless, but aren't anything special vs infantry. For the most part any credible unit, infantry or vehicle, will just run them over. Mech. Rifles are similar.
But something like Morskaya Pekhota have AT launchers that are very dangerous to most vehicles and still somewhat dangerous to tanks on the side. Having a couple of those around as tripwire units can be really useful because they make it annoying for your opponent to move vehicles around and you can creep forward and take space with them to hem your opponent in or gain information without really risking a lot of points in the process.
Gvardii carry 900AP launchers that are basically an immediate kill threat even to heavy tanks and that makes them super scary anywhere with limited vision. You can hide them behind buildings and then enter the building to jumpscare a tank as it passes. But they can start getting pricey and they are kind of poor at infantry combat for their price, so you need to be careful with them.

Having something that can make tanks think twice about diving into a forest with you is the necessary prerequisite to make infantry work. Only some decks actually have that, and those decks can dominate forests and towns when used well. The rest rely on their own tanks, ATGMs or air support to counter enemy vehicles, and so infantry are marginalized to being sacrificial pawns or cheap, expendable vision-providers so you can check if there's a Gvardii hiding behind that building before sending your tank in.

>>2071298
We've been reeeeing at the developers that the line infantry squads are shit in every beta. They've made them a bit cheaper over time, btu they are still just tripwire units easily overran because they get shit for AT.

stinky, lazy and useless

im tired of constantly having to turn my radar back on everytime i move my aa/abm units

>turn on the option to show individual colors for each enemy player
>realize I'm being attacked by three players at the same time
>look at my team
>see a bunch of tanks sitting literally at the back of the map next to spawn doing nothing
>the only teammates that are maybe playing the game are the people who spent all their points on artillery and have no actual units fighting
So this game is basically unplayable in multiplayer without a full team stack huh.

>>2071337
unplayable is maybe a bit excessive but yea as with as all team games you end up fucked if everyone else is a glue huffer.
Even back in the first beta I've had matches where I defended against 2 guys into a standstill while my 4 teammates crumbled on the other side of the map.

Is rapid troop deployment worth the point cost of having my transport plane shot down every time? Assuming I can get the troops dropped off each time, and it is just the plane not having enough room to turn around without entering deep into enemy AA net.

Also can helis drop off supplies in forests or do they need open ground to land? I keep running out of ammo on my forward infantry and forgetting to bring up new trucks with supply

The only use case I found for the AC130 where it doesnt instantly get shot down is using a drone to spot enemy that is hiding in my rear lines, and using the AC130 to deal with them rather than send infantry or a helicopter. But at that point some killer eggs will do the job cheaper

>Russian Last Mission
I think the Colonel was based personally.

>>2071379
The campaign is too hard for me even on easy

>>2071381
once you pass a few hard missions it gets a little easier
the fucking american ballistic missile mission is insane though

honestly most infantry in the infantry tab that aren't dedicated weapons teams need to be cheaper and have more ammo
troopers having a Javelin with enough ammo to maybe kill one ifv or tank doesn't justify the cost

>>2071360
Helis need open ground to land, both for supplies and troops.
You generally don't want to suicide a transport plane unless doing so is putting your troops in a very good position, like cutting off the reinforcement road to a point or something nutty like that.
Those planes are like 200pts apiece. That could have been a T-90 or a Booker on your line. If you need rapid troop deployment use transport helis and just make sure they drop at low alt out of range of enemy SHORAD. The Osprey is perfect for this because it's as fast as a plane, but transport helis are still fast enough.

Consider
>US Stryker + Airborne
>Call in an Airborne Weapons team inside a Stryker Javelin
>drive towards an enemy vehicle, any vehicle
>double-tap U to drop the Weapons Team as soon as you're in range
>Stryker aims, weapon team aims
>3 javelins fire
>1 intercepted by APS
>2 get through, deal 10 damage each and kill the target
Basically an assassin party van. Instantly kill 300+pt tanks. And since the missiles are all fire and forget you can pop smoke and fuck off as soon as your volley is away

>win a 3v5 by a point by doing a last minute push with our avg elo being 375 and theirs around 500
holy shit this game is kino. also cluster rocket arty feels like the most valuable form of arty

im getting sick and tired of us campaign dead set on rushing you in modern warfare while also never letting you use drones for recon

Getting real fucking tired of leavers

>>2071445
Most of the time it’s people getting disconnected or crashing

>>2071441
The mission difficulty level is all over the place. Some are trivial because enemy is passive and you get to call in new units. Others you are massively outnumbered, get limited resources, you don't get any planes, helicopters or artillery that would let you trade up, also there's a hidden time limit we didn't tell you until 2 minutes before it runs out, have fun.

>>2071447
Nah, not at this rate. Not when I've only personally crashed once. Not when its right after they loss a few units

>>2071453
People quit because games are too long and if the enemy completely dominates you then, well, enjoy 40 more minutes of playing the lost match.
At least in Warno games end quite fast if one team holds all zones, but here it doesn't matter. It was even better in Wargame, where you could capture all zones and win almost instantaneously, because the opponent wouldn't be able to call more units.
I guess they thought it's a way to make the game more appealing to noobs, but it's just backfiring on everyone.

>>2071451
last US mission if you side with general is crazy so far, have to stop for stuff, early on it's whatever, once you cross the bridge their like "you have 10 minutes to push an entire city and secure the objective" and that's ridiculous given the amount of sorties, atgms, and helos they have and what little shorad you get

>you will get banned for using trainers in singleplayer
lol
lmao

>>2071456
There's still the instawin condition if you control all zones. It depends on map but it's possible if match is really lopsided.

Sweet fucking lord you werent kidding when you said to add the Apache Guardian to my deck, this thing is annihilating entire armored pushes by itself as long as I have recon

>>2071467
>match is lopsided enough that there's no chance for one team to win, but not lopsided enough that the enemy team can push out the last two zones
>or maybe the enemies decide they don't want to win and just want to play with their food
>35 minutes of torture ensues

>>2071483
Is there an AFK timer? Can you just alt tab and do something else until the game ends

>>2071483
You know pulling back and letting the enemy take the final zones is effectively a surrender vote in practice.

Shit is fucked. Air wins battles, Russia has superior AA and SEAD. Beyond fucking retarded

>>2071462
>Needs trainers in singleplayer
>Chink gacha.jpg
I'm noticing

>>2071518
I don't use trainers, I just saw a post on steam forum where one guy complained about getting banned. Also, I do not play gacha.

>>2071526
You are a coomer though

>>2071514
I hardly touch my air tab

>>2071514
inb4 US has 60% wr

>>2071527
And you're a fag

>>2071514
US and RU AA are nearly carbon copies of each other. The Armoured Brigade Patriot is identical to the Guards and Motorized S-300s. The Stryker's Patriot MSE is identical to the Coastal S-350s, and they have the PAC3 as well which trades less range for more missiles.

As for SEAD, the US is just better. Their main ARM has 8km range, while the best RU one is 7k (meaning it has to fly into AA range to fire its missiles). The Prowler with 4 of those missiles and 4x availability for 240pts is the best SEAD platform in the game. The best one available to RU is 3 of the 7k range missiles with 2x availability for 220pts.
RU has the benefit that a lot of their strike planes can bring a few ARMs alongside their main payload but piecemeal SEAD can't overwhelm a proper AD net and they don't have the same option to saturate air defenses with cheap SEAD that the US can.

The F-16J that can run a hybrid SEAD/ASF loadout also merits a mention since it doesn't sacrifice SEAD payload to bring AA missiles and can cover your air tax from cheeky spawn AA.

AC130 just saved my ass, wish the game had a replay feature.
>enemy breaks through
>I have nothing in reserve but a handful of infantry
>enemy is rushing forward out of the range of their long range AA
>teammates AC130 shows up and fucking annihilates them

>>2071514
>laughs in Prowler

>>2071536
You are getting carried or facing mouthbreathers

>>2071578
You are the mouthbreather I indicated

>>2071589
So everyone play one of their specialities as Marines and you can kinda match Russia. What amazing balance.

>he uses SEAD missile instead of dropping bombs on the AA with an F-35
ngmi

>>2071595
Stryker has a 4 HARM jet as well. Or you can stealth hawk SOF into the backline. Or you can snipe it with artillery. There are other ways to deal with AA instead of ragequitting because your nuke got shot and then you come post here right away crying that RUSSIA IS OP THIS IS IMPOSSIBLE!!!!

>none of my teammates call in ASF
>one of them has 2 patriots and a CRAM
>>ok should be fine
>I take out enemy IL76 with my F22 at the start, F22 dies
>enemy jets fly into our spawn
>not worried about my helicopters, teammate should have his patriots out with radar on already
>>>>>they just keep driving to where he wants them near the front as enemy jets rape every single heli on our side of the map

>>2071606
Holy shit projecting. Also, the f16cj is in no way equivalent to the Prowler. Either retard or trolling.

>>2071606
>Or you can stealth hawk SOF into the backline. Or you can snipe it with artillery.
nta but this is bad advice

>>2071578
>US and RU AA are nearly carbon copies of each other. The Armoured Brigade Patriot is identical to the Guards and Motorized S-300s.
Liar

how do I disable quick matching into mirror matches

Past two matches have had 2-3 people leave in the first phase and then an incredibly slow push by the other team to eventually hit the autowin in phase 3. Shit is stupid as fuck. I spend most of my time just waiting for another match. I haven't had an even match in hours.

The Russian fears the M107

>>2071709
wish I knew. My first two games weren't so I was happy that ranked was always red vs blue lol

I feel like this thing is gonna get nerfed, its too good.

>>2071724
Noobs can’t into SHORAD

>>2071725
That or no one is sending Helis armed with AA at your Apache

>>2071727
that's why you give the guardian a comanche friend with stingers :)

Okay, all the quiters are driving me crazy. I can't even get a half way decent match. How do we set up a premade group?

>VDV Helo mission
>"use your helicopters"
>at least 2 manpads at every site with others sporadic around the map
>send cargo helo to pick up supplies like the objective says
>gets shot by manpads outside my current area of operation
who the fuck designed this?

>>2071728
Seems a bit expensive. Maybe a DAP or a swarm of Eggs with Stingers?
Just gotta watch out for the SHORAD

>>2071721
How are you getting Green Berets to live this long? As soon as mine fire their 50 cal they get spotted and raped

>>2071747
idk, i had them in a skyscraper and kinda left them there like Jackson in the church tower until they almost died. the proper way probably is to micro them more and use them against infantry positions that you can outrange. I'm also only now 6 games in so like 425 elo so I might be playing shitters for all I know

Is there friendly fire or did my Delta just get lucky here

>>2071754
lucky
ive seen stray abms hit my dudes and mess them up

>>2071731
No one interested?

>>2071803
have you tried joining the people trying to start a stack ingame?
like not quickmatching? or are they being shitters too?

rate my shit deck imma try

Game really needs a surrender option. Sick of it being a 3v5 and still having 30 minutes left to go. And my team ignores me when I say "let them take all the points and this shit ends in 2 minutes"

>>2071827
>have you tried joining the people trying to start a stack ingame?
Who? Where?
Or rather: No, because I have no idea what you are talking about. Only been doing QP

>>2071828
How's the Centurion? It was ass in the Beta, wondering if they fixed it.
Also, I feel like you are over PACed unless you are in a group and they just let you handle all AA.

>>2071851
considering i just played a game and lost my 2 starting PACs to one SEAD plane, i think ill keepm

>>2071854
>i think ill keepm
Keep what: PAC or Cent?

>>2071851
>>2071856
Keeping PAC
Losing Cent
i think i went against a stack that had coms and dedicated support player
their coord with BMs and air was pure supremacy

>>2071859
Look in my pic. I use the Pivads and M-Shorad to "tank" for the PACs. You put them in front and turn their radar on and they are far more likely to be the SEAD target. They are cheaper if they die and if you use one with decent armor they will actually survive and you can just repair it real quick and send it back up. I had assumed that was what you were using the Cents for. Plus, any planes or helos that try to rush your PACs have to go through your "tanks."
In short: Lose some PACs and get more Radar shorad.

>>2071862
i do that in my armor cav deck
i didn't do that bc i forgot the SLAMRAAM was a thing in that deck

>>2071866
for Airborne units is what i meant

So I know this spec combo is something of a meme anyways, but I do hate air (lack of helis is hell though) any ideas on how to make this one more viable?

>>2071903
I didn't play as Russians yet so I'm not sure what exactly is in those specs you chose but I'd probably get some drones and drop some tube arty for mlrs if possible, specifically I think I'd get rid of mortars and one type of howitzers, and leave the other howitzer with clusters for counterbattery
also
>ksso
>didn't include a single unit of sso

>>2071909
Mech Guards only has the Buratino for MLRS which is quite bad with the lack of other options (I remember Guards used to have the Kama, I think it's gone) so as Mech Guards I'm just stuck with Tubes. Yeah I do find mortars to be too weak, I do want to keep the Malkas however, and the Koals are there with Cluster indeed. I also have no drones at all.
The KCCO name is a reference to GFL.

>>2071903

>no fast air
>can't air tax
>can't yolo airdop 10 squads into the middle of the map and lose everything

would disconnect if team mate/10

phase 1 is for fucking around

waiting for mod that replaces voice lines with C&C Generals
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bRWOFEpskZ8

>>2071728
Commanche is incredibly fragile. It will never successfully kill, or even trade, against an equivalent cost russian AA-armed helo

>>2071845
Go to Lobbies, sort by Standard

Haven't tried setting up voice chat with anyone. It's been hit or miss; 450 ELO players can play their absolute hearts out, whereas a 600 ELO player might as well not have hands to play withh

damn this game is hard, feels like army composition is extremely important since the scenarios like to throw you curveballs that need their hard counter

The last mission is an absolute ballbreaker

What the fuck were they thinking designing this

>>2071984
Russian or american?

>>2071991
American, and trying to help the General.
>On a timer
>SHORAD/SAMs everywhere, taking out the ballistic launchers costs a downed F35 for each of them
>Constant reinforcements of BTRs and T72s assaulting the bridge once you take it
>The bridge is covered by three heavy mortar/artillery positions
>The highway from the bridge is ambush alley
>You only get APS on the initial strykers you can call in
>MANPAD teams in every house
>Can't resupply, AI has scouts in every building and treeline, and parking a unit for more than two minutes will have artillery hitting it
>Helicopters patrol the treeline
>Regular airstrikes

I like to think of myself as a cut above the average RTS player, and I have no idea how to do it with the timer ticking

>>2071995
i had to rush hard and take a lot of loses after i took the bridge
but when i was repairing my attack force it got hit by a cluster bomb
id be ok with the timers if they made sense for the gameplay
World in Conflict final mission timer is actually very fair to newbs, so anyone who's decent can beat that part at least
45min given, 15 min used
but this
this somewhat realistic modern wargame expects people to bum rush an entire city without the tech needed to do that?
the spooks side just made me not want to play it
you know what first obj is?
hold 2 points in a hilly forest with infantry
sounds fair until you rmbr inf can still be easily eaten up in forests by btrs
not to mention you have to actually fight to start that mission path which is just atgm teams and bmps with atgms everywhere with only strykers and inf
and why tf in this "pier to pier" conflict im the only one not allowed to call in drones?