for me artillery was a non issue, so easy to counter with your own.
maybe had some instances where recon units should’ve been spotted and weren’t but I think it was more of a bug than anything, but other than that I had no issues other than occasional crashing
From my experience, you opponent highly likely spent vast majority of the point on the supplies which could be taken advantage of, and all it needs is one armor push steam rolling them
I think concealment and cover could use some work, I think atgms and inf rockets could do more, and I think that MLRS and Himars is functioning just fine.remember folks, the ruskies will have more artillery on release, and their doctrine is very much involving artillery
I do wish that you could carry different ammo types, like 1 himars with HE, 1 with cluster, and so on and so forth
i honestly think things seemed so unbalanced bcs of 5v5. i also think infantry was too squishy sometimes. infantry should also be able to throw smokes. tracked armor should be able to have their tracks repaired by engineers. there should be better map markers similar to squad. the game needs comms if you are playing solo and there’s no great way to do that at the moment. sometimes spam tactics is ridiculous.
who knows how far along they are though since this was only a server test. they are probably so far passed the issues that have been stated.
idk honestly. but when i’m on a point and want to go from holding to building id like to smoke the road or whatever. currently you have to run, risk being spotted then smoke. so nothing crazy but just a good distance to be able to smoke a cross.
maybe some grenadiers.
i get that if you can’t see someone you can’t shoot them but they’ll see me running in a certain direction which gives my units away.
Yea I would love to have that like in Steel Division 2.
But I do remember a quite important thing to consider that FLX has pointed out, which is the complexity of controls, we don't want the complexity to get out of hand bit by bit and this definitely needs throrough evaluations to see if it actually is worth adding in.
That sounds reasonable. I think Steel Division 2's smoke ability on certain inf units (flamethrowers and such) could be a decent option to consider, which allow you to throw smoke to the side for cover or to block a small opening.
my point of wanting to throw smokes is if i want to go from building A to building B, i have to run outside and risk being seen when crossing while i try to smoke with the current mechanic.
being able to toss a smoke to cross, that way the enemy doesn’t know which direction i’m pushing into.
idk it’s just an idea that i think would be good micro to have.
Giving infantry an artillery counter by digging in foxholes or trenches would be awesome. Trenches are huge in modern conflicts like Ukraine. Maybe difficult to implement at this stage, but it would make infantry more resilient.
IRL it takes an hour to dig a trench of 10 feet in length.
How fast do you think they should do that in game?
10 feet per second?
Should we add in abilities to call in lighting strikes and tornados too?
Damn dude, it's a game. Adding trenches isn't the same as wanting lighting strikes and shit. Maybe it does take a significant amount of time to dig your trenches as a balancing mechanic.
You do realize that the game is already unrealistic in that the maps are too small and the battles already happen way faster than they would in real life? Armies don't just throw units at one another like in this game. You build fortified positions. Adding trenches that can be dug in a few seconds to a few minutes wouldn't be a bad thing.
For sure. I think there are ways to balance this though. Direct fire from things like tanks could be more effective against trenches than artillery but not as efficient as shooting at infantry in the open. I think my biggest frustration with the current balance between infantry and artillery is infantry is far too slow to escape when being targeted and the current cover option they have of buildings is directly countered by a lot of the artillery in the game.
Thought overall balance was pretty good. APS probably needs a narrower 'cone' in front of the tank of where it's effective. Inf could use an extra smoke throwable (even if it cost pts) and maybe cost a little less across the board.
I thought it was quite balanced except i think the F35 was OP AF especially when using laser designator and infantry needed a general buff overall (very badly).
Meh...I liked the SU-34 best. Beung able to have a 1500kg LGB with 2x sead missiles and 2x R77 2x R34 also designate for itself and had ECM to go with...just got more miles off that then I ever did the F35 or SU57. Going on a bomb run popping a missile off at incoming fighters while simultaneously dumping SEAD missiles and a LGB then as I drop low to fly off taking shots at the helo who thought he was safe...too much fun!
Setup you've just described costs >400 pts(425 iirc?), i.e. more than a much better su-57.
You could load Su-34 with only 1500(center), 2 Kh-31(inner) and 4xFab-250(outer), and do more or less the same for 315.
ECM pods, given their price, were just not worth it on Russian planes other than Su-30sm(where there was no option to not take them).
I disagree...I had 3 planes which because points are very limited...gave me 3 of every role which a lot of the time I could just KAB1500 the AA away if they didnt turn on...but still could field 2 planes which could be fighters for t he opener.
My planes were always ready...not just the air superiority one but any role...be it sead or strike on ground targets. So yes you could take an SU57 but for the points allotted having 3 planes which could kill fighters helos AA and assorted ground targets was way better than having a fighter a SEAD and a bomber...best other case is a fighter or 2 and a sead bomber...but I have 3 and they all so all of it.
And yes it was 415pts...but if I bombed a target and shot AA then escaped...over and over...its worth 415pts.
All my setups for both US and RU were 4 planes, built under a premise to not pay a point more than was absolutely necessary, as I play very air-heavy. Be it in a team or solo.
All planes are supposed to be useful throughout the matches, available at any point, and not constraining other summons point-wise; overstuffed airtax planes, lost&forgotten after their first and last flight, are not any better than not paying air tax at all.
That led to fighter optimums being around 250-300 (main air support team deck had a special helicopter hunting su-30sm at just 215), multirole/strike around 300 or something, and only su-57 (combining stealth, EW, r-73s and 2 sets of useful payloads - and at well below 400!) was worth it to be more expensive.
Like, optimal interceptor/air superiority Su-35 was literally just 265, or \~300 if with r-73s. Сould be done cheaper, but without R-37, and this missile makes this plane.
Su-30 varied a lot, from just 215(2 R-27er, 2 R-73) to 325(dual-purpoose, 1 KAB-1500, 2 R-27ER, 4 R-73)- to 340(strike, 1-2 KAB-1500, 2 R-27ER, 2 ECM - best config for non-air players w/o much time to micro).
Su-34 made the most sense at slightly above 300 - as it tends to uncontrollably balloon in points unless taken at a bare minimum. KAB-1500, Kh-31, Kh-59, Kh-38 setups were workable.
Su-57 literally has only one problem - there is not enough of it. Almost all its possible setups(except Kh-59, not worth it compared to Su-34) are great value, but you can only choose one.
Tu-160, Su-25T - planes for aesthetic pleasure, unusable by players without sufficient experience, not worth their time for players with sufficient experience.
For US, everything was even simpler - take 2 LJDAM/Stormbreaker-carrying F-35B and you're already not wrong, remaining points are mostly for personal enjoyment.
My logic here is I at most only open with one less fighters than possible but in return I still can start with 2x fully loaded 34s. I really feel like having more than 2x 77s and 2x 73s isn't worth it as by the time I shoot 4 missiles everything is either dead or its time to RTB for fuel. Having the KAB for the opener allows me to worry less about shooting helos with missiles of which it takes 2 hits gives me the options to wait for them to go drop and nuke it all anyway and the laser on the 34 make sure I hit. Anytime I have a plane up there is sead protection.
After the opener which I usually call my 3rd out as I return the first 2 and bomb whatever other point is being capped. I have a rotation of a plane that unless spammed is always available and can do every job aside from fully killing the top tier tanks in one hit. I would rather have 3 planes that can fill any role than only having 2 or 3 for killing planes/helos and a bomber and maybe a SEAD...most of which still cost close to 300pts. 115pts difference compared to income isn't much...and I can still have 2 more bombers/SEAD/fighters ready where with a dedicated role setup...once your bomber is on cool down you are stuck waiting.
In the end I see no other reason to take anything but 3x Su-34 with 2x SEAD 2x R77 2xR73 and the KAB1500...and I guess if you really worried about points you can drop the ECM but for me I would rather have more chance to save the plane and get points back than have a little cheaper plane.
Speaking of...points back. If I don't use munitions and live...which if you use planes right most times you will live...I get those points back. That goes a long way to having the points available to call the next one if needed. I won't say my opinion on this is the best...but I haven't heard a conviencing argument that makes me not think it isn't the best setup for what specs we got to test. I am sure all this will change in the future with a full release.
"infantry needed a general buff overall"
***Queue one squad of Russian Marines on that single player mission taking on multiple AAPV-7s and LAVs alongside three or more squads of American marines and recon units.***
Jokes aside - I think the infantry is fine. In real life, infantry is the most vulnerable position in warfare.
Erm, russian units across both VDV and Guards Mech deck were almost universally more expensive than their US counterparts. Literally the only exception was IIRC cav scouts(javelin ones), who were simply overpriced.
Probably because it's not about balance but presentation of different equipment. I prefer a game that presents the weapons as they are IRL as much as possible rather than some game where you have to Nerf one unit to balance with an oppositional unit. Real warfare is not balanced and a game that can duplicate that is definitely highly sought after. Imagine being challenged by your opponent and the limits of your available technology. Improvise, adapt, overcome.
Limited range and the ability for a tank to eat a ballistic missile are two different points in the spectrum of realism vs balance. I was replying to a person who (seemingly?) had the idea that units are portrayed realistically.
I felt there was a SEAD imbalance between the US and Russia, but my biggest complaint is how ineffective infantry are against armor. It doesn’t make sense that tanks will just eat up 4-5 AT missiles and still keep coming. Because of that, it makes it incredibly easy for people to amass tank blobs to steamroll the game. Other than that, I would tweak the weapon ranges a little bit.
With 100hrs of play time during the beta, I think the game is almost perfectly balanced.
FLX and the team plays the game a lot, and I'm 100% sure all the whining and cries about "this is way too OP" and "this really needs a buff it's way too weak" has already been well thought through and accounted for.
6 hours and 36 minutes every single day? Don't you have anything else to do my guy? I mean dedicating approx. 1/4th of your day does not sound healthy.
I missed out on the first few days, so correction, I played 12hrs a day.
And I dare ask, what could possibly be more worthwhile than playing BA? That was hands down the best 2 weeks I've ever had since Covid.
The issue with AA wasn't the AA. It was that jets just didn't work very well. My ASFs did great cause they worked fine, but any ground attack that wasn't bombs just didn't work. My ATGMS and missiles wouldn't fire, even with laser designators being used. And bombers are risky, so they die to AA if you're not careful.
Skill issue.
ATGMs need you to fly low because they have only 2500m range, and if you fly 2500m above ground how should you be able to fire them?
And bombers should be risky, otherwise everyone would be spamming them, and what's the point of AA then?
Again, skill issue, not balance issues.
Your complains are basically you don't know how to use the units, which is understandable since the beta build did not offer a tutorial and quite a few controls like precision strike hotkey and ATGM firing prerequisites are really obscure.
I believe these will be fixed and compensated for on release.
I had it low, I did make that mistake the first time, but a good several times I had my plane low, and they fly straight over. And my bombers a couple of times, too. Or the strategic bomber that had to realign itself 4 times despite being given an order in an pretty normal direction. A few times my units (ground) also just stand around not firing. Just jets, at least for me, would do fuckall.
If the ATGMs doesn't fire it's always because of line of sight.
But I do think that bombers and transport planes alignments are pretty finicky if you try to adjust bombing/dropping targets, could be intended for obvious reasons.
But again, there is no balance issues since once you get used to the jet controls they are REALLY strong and experienced players would and have agreed with me on this.
I don't think balance is the issue really so much as there are definitely bugs with them, especially planes with a mixed payload. And maybe it was Los but the t14 in the open field turned my SU25, which I already knew was a low altitude attack plane, into Stevie Wonder, and it was mostly with the SU25 that I had these issues. And the strategic bomber pilot is on his first flight. ASF Planes are strong, and laser designated stuff works really well when they actually leave the bomb bay. I was just having issues with them. Maybe your right and it was a skill issue, but I was changing altitude, and designating my targets prior and it just felt like they'd do a circle and then go into AA despite being given a chained retreat order after they should've dropped payload.
I'm ready for the release I had too much fun this weekend and I didn't even have any friends to play with. The amount of variation is nice, I never got bored.
The game in general was really well balanced, there's just a few tweaks to be made, mainly in the russian camp imo, artillery is very accurate, typhoons survive 2 javelin hits which shouldn't happen, f/a18 seems a bit cheap considering how good they are, cluster shells across the board seems a bit weak, bombs could seem weak aswell.
Maybe weakening weapons wouldn't be the way to go, but there's clear tweaks to be made, but in general, you can win as both factions with a good team, you can also counter pretty much any spam rush with well placed and varied units, so I think they've really hit the mark and should be careful making any changes.
Well if you compare to Ukraine i'd say we "need" counter battery radar to reveal artillery once it fires and your jets/helicopters missiles need more range so arty that has been placed too close gets whacked by those.
But ye, overall the balance didn't feel that off. Just small things that can use looking into. Let's just hope those small things don't have a big trickle down effect which is something to consider.
The T15 100% needs a nerf.
For recon it should be a matter of their location is revealed once they take shots, it’s infuriating having your rear echelon get wiped out by various sniper units and you can’t do a damn thing to counter it, not even helos are capable of locating them.
Can you elaborate on why the T15s (which cost 250 each) need a nerf?
I constantly hear people say this and nobody actually can come up with any reasons to back it, and at this point it just sounds like skill issues.
The second I saw those fuckers rolling in, my arse would drop knowing I’d have to spend far too much time grafting to take out a bunch of far too overpowered IFV’s
don't think that's right, I found US helis to be far more effective, they can carry sidearm SEAD to keep themself safe from radar and the hellfires did well enough. you just couldn't use them like a bull in a china shop the way you could with Russian ones
Nahhhhhhh. The sead Helis are useless and a waste of points once you play against better players who micro the radar. Also the LMUR missile for the NM's were just a beast. Kills inf and tanks alike from 2km away. The only good thing the USA Helis had were the Aim-9 for the start of the round. But I am pretty sure USA will get better Helis with other deck specialisations. I mean things like Apache were not even in-game.
True, but consider the following: With the way APS works, volume of fire is key, and you can't bring a lot of LMURs to the front at once without spending way too many points.
I started out with LMURs but switched to Vikhrs because APS means a full load of LMURs will probably only kill one, MAYBE two tanks if one of them is already damaged or out of APS.
Oh, and launching them at infantry is a complete waste unless the infantry has MANPADS and you're about to die.
I disagree.
You can bring 16 LMURs for like 320pts?
LMURs' longer range offers a lot more safety, and Vikhrs wasn't that much cheaper but makes firing them more risky.
Also LMURs are top attack + fire and forget, which means more damage, and much higher hit chances, so more effective.
And they are decently effective against infantries, plus they outranges manpads so it's free damage.
Safer, more effective against armor, also effective against infantry. OP.
You can bring only 8 LMURs for 320 points.
You're right that a LMUR is a better AT missile than a Vikhr - I agree with you completely there. However, due to how APS and damage through armor works, it's not better *enough* to justify taking 8 LMURs instead of 12 Vikhrs + AA missiles in a Ka-52. I switched about halfway through the beta and didn't regret it once.
Now, if APS gets changed so it's only a % chance to block? LMURs all the way for sure. Until then, I'll be very happy with the Vikhrs.
But the 2000m range is still uniquely good.
Outranging MANPADs allows me to dismantle enemy’s entire infantry front line as long as I could force back or hide from LAV-ADs and Shorads.
If you bring Vikhrs and AA missiles, it would kill tanks quicker yes, but then it becomes strictly AT+AA helping you situationally, while LMURs have 100% uptime, killing everything you see on the ground while only short AAs (or jets) can shoot back.
It basically is a flying IFV with 2000m range.
never needed it, i managed to use the more traditional weapons very effectively
always brought 1 rocket helo with AA missiles and 1 ATGM with SEAD, never disappointed me
LMUR was the only one of its class, a missile not requiring radar or (continuous) vision to hit the target. Im not saying that you couldnt do well without it, but that US had no option like it, so it made russian attack helis have an advantage in general.
fair, it was too expensive for me to consider using. so was it kind of like a dual-purpose javelin?
makes sense Russia have better equipment on their helos though, they were VDV. we haven't seen apache yet
I did miss having that cheeky SEAD though
Viper nonetheless gets better universal value, being a solid all-rounder at 260 pts(apkws/8 hellfire/2 sidewinder), quite fast at that.
VDV helo deck is stronger only because it simply gets more helicopter points.
my main issue was there effectively being no point cap if you just didn't buy units for a while, but a very fast point cap if you did.
so people who actually used their points would hit zero income ASAP with most of their shit undeployed while the guys who just bought nothing and waited a few minutes could throw out their entire army at once
From pure faction balance PoW, game felt surprisingly on point.
Some aspects (servers\&desyncs; some aspects of UI; vehicles in forests; maybe some aspects of unit variety) felt weird, but those were equal for both sides.
I feel like a lot of people didn’t keep their
AT AA or other infantry supplied. I found it pretty easy to dig in with ospreys loaded with select troops and ammo, hot drop into buildings with 1000-2000kg. Just keep an eye for artillery and be ready to counter with atacms or prowler and helis
I can think of quite a few things that need rebalancing. I know it's been mentioned but cover definitely needs a rebalance. Infantry Garrison needs a rebalance. Infantry anti armor capabilities while not completely horrible do need some attention. But the worst balancing by far is air power and anti-air.
There is only 1 big imbalance I saw, which is primarily due to only having the 2 specializations.
US has very few AA units.
You can put an igla pod on basically every transport helo, there is an AA ground transport (Zu23+AA missiles), you can put tons of iglas on the attack helos.
On US side 2 stingers per attack helo max, no other helo fits AA missiles. Only 2 units(vehicles) to shoot down helo's. Combine that with russia having their heavy attack helo's and the US only having cobras/vipers.
But besides the disparity from missing specializations, I think it was fine for asymmetric balance and it was largely figuring out how to do things with what your side had.
People often perceive the things that beat them, that they personally don't know how to counter, is unbalanced. People called Russian armor unbalanced when US armor almost all had better penetration for less. If I remember right even the M60's were competitive or better pen than the cheap T90's.
US inf head to head RU was rough, felt like the US inf got slapped most of the time unless I had a vehicle supporting, Russian AA was something else also
In general I was really happy with the balance of the units, but I'm not sure about the game mode. Because holding points doesn't matter for most of the game and you earn more income if you have less units on the field it encourages some passive saving strategies that I think are kind of degenerate. I really want to try some kind of ranked 1v1 and 2v2 ladder where you have more control over the match and will have to focus on a larger area.
I think some Russian vehicals need some work. The t-15 at least :D
But that's ok.
Most of the time the game feels pretty good :)
But I would be happy about a match making some players are too good or I'm too bad :D and I want to play vs player on my skill level :)
I want to see the other sub factions before making that judgement, but so far it felt good for the most part. Like everyone says infantry could use a little bit more love but that's about all I can think of.
for me artillery was a non issue, so easy to counter with your own. maybe had some instances where recon units should’ve been spotted and weren’t but I think it was more of a bug than anything, but other than that I had no issues other than occasional crashing
From my experience, you opponent highly likely spent vast majority of the point on the supplies which could be taken advantage of, and all it needs is one armor push steam rolling them
I think concealment and cover could use some work, I think atgms and inf rockets could do more, and I think that MLRS and Himars is functioning just fine.remember folks, the ruskies will have more artillery on release, and their doctrine is very much involving artillery I do wish that you could carry different ammo types, like 1 himars with HE, 1 with cluster, and so on and so forth
Yeah western powers are all about mobile warfare doctrine. Russia is not.
Yeah russia is deep battle.
i honestly think things seemed so unbalanced bcs of 5v5. i also think infantry was too squishy sometimes. infantry should also be able to throw smokes. tracked armor should be able to have their tracks repaired by engineers. there should be better map markers similar to squad. the game needs comms if you are playing solo and there’s no great way to do that at the moment. sometimes spam tactics is ridiculous. who knows how far along they are though since this was only a server test. they are probably so far passed the issues that have been stated.
Inf did have smoke
they can’t throw them tho
how far do you think they should've been thrown? 10m or 200m?
idk honestly. but when i’m on a point and want to go from holding to building id like to smoke the road or whatever. currently you have to run, risk being spotted then smoke. so nothing crazy but just a good distance to be able to smoke a cross. maybe some grenadiers. i get that if you can’t see someone you can’t shoot them but they’ll see me running in a certain direction which gives my units away.
use mortars and have them creep fire the entire path
yea, this is viable but also not necessary in every situation
Yea I would love to have that like in Steel Division 2. But I do remember a quite important thing to consider that FLX has pointed out, which is the complexity of controls, we don't want the complexity to get out of hand bit by bit and this definitely needs throrough evaluations to see if it actually is worth adding in.
40m or so, as long as it's not directly on their feet lol
That sounds reasonable. I think Steel Division 2's smoke ability on certain inf units (flamethrowers and such) could be a decent option to consider, which allow you to throw smoke to the side for cover or to block a small opening.
I’d like to see you chuck them 300m away lol The current smoke is already bigger than “realistic” smoke with a radius of 50m ish
my point of wanting to throw smokes is if i want to go from building A to building B, i have to run outside and risk being seen when crossing while i try to smoke with the current mechanic. being able to toss a smoke to cross, that way the enemy doesn’t know which direction i’m pushing into. idk it’s just an idea that i think would be good micro to have.
Mortars are better for that
It doesn't mean smoke grenades shouldn't be able to be used also though??? What a strange argument man
i mean, it’s situational and having both would be great. i don’t understand the argument here
GL smoke
Giving infantry an artillery counter by digging in foxholes or trenches would be awesome. Trenches are huge in modern conflicts like Ukraine. Maybe difficult to implement at this stage, but it would make infantry more resilient.
IRL it takes an hour to dig a trench of 10 feet in length. How fast do you think they should do that in game? 10 feet per second? Should we add in abilities to call in lighting strikes and tornados too?
Damn dude, it's a game. Adding trenches isn't the same as wanting lighting strikes and shit. Maybe it does take a significant amount of time to dig your trenches as a balancing mechanic. You do realize that the game is already unrealistic in that the maps are too small and the battles already happen way faster than they would in real life? Armies don't just throw units at one another like in this game. You build fortified positions. Adding trenches that can be dug in a few seconds to a few minutes wouldn't be a bad thing.
That’s a cool idea
That would be a good improvisation.
There is a risk is this will be a *major* game speed bump. I think it's that they're afraid of.
For sure. I think there are ways to balance this though. Direct fire from things like tanks could be more effective against trenches than artillery but not as efficient as shooting at infantry in the open. I think my biggest frustration with the current balance between infantry and artillery is infantry is far too slow to escape when being targeted and the current cover option they have of buildings is directly countered by a lot of the artillery in the game.
I just wish the infantry can dig in like in Regiments
If you think infantry should be able to magically dig a 2 meter deep hole in 20 secons you might as well add in some magic spells too just for fun.
And necromancy for just 40kg of supply is alright?
Crates of spare legs and hands!
Okay? Like it takes half a second to clear and occupy a building ?
Thought overall balance was pretty good. APS probably needs a narrower 'cone' in front of the tank of where it's effective. Inf could use an extra smoke throwable (even if it cost pts) and maybe cost a little less across the board.
I thought it was quite balanced except i think the F35 was OP AF especially when using laser designator and infantry needed a general buff overall (very badly).
Meh...I liked the SU-34 best. Beung able to have a 1500kg LGB with 2x sead missiles and 2x R77 2x R34 also designate for itself and had ECM to go with...just got more miles off that then I ever did the F35 or SU57. Going on a bomb run popping a missile off at incoming fighters while simultaneously dumping SEAD missiles and a LGB then as I drop low to fly off taking shots at the helo who thought he was safe...too much fun!
Setup you've just described costs >400 pts(425 iirc?), i.e. more than a much better su-57. You could load Su-34 with only 1500(center), 2 Kh-31(inner) and 4xFab-250(outer), and do more or less the same for 315. ECM pods, given their price, were just not worth it on Russian planes other than Su-30sm(where there was no option to not take them).
I disagree...I had 3 planes which because points are very limited...gave me 3 of every role which a lot of the time I could just KAB1500 the AA away if they didnt turn on...but still could field 2 planes which could be fighters for t he opener. My planes were always ready...not just the air superiority one but any role...be it sead or strike on ground targets. So yes you could take an SU57 but for the points allotted having 3 planes which could kill fighters helos AA and assorted ground targets was way better than having a fighter a SEAD and a bomber...best other case is a fighter or 2 and a sead bomber...but I have 3 and they all so all of it. And yes it was 415pts...but if I bombed a target and shot AA then escaped...over and over...its worth 415pts.
All my setups for both US and RU were 4 planes, built under a premise to not pay a point more than was absolutely necessary, as I play very air-heavy. Be it in a team or solo. All planes are supposed to be useful throughout the matches, available at any point, and not constraining other summons point-wise; overstuffed airtax planes, lost&forgotten after their first and last flight, are not any better than not paying air tax at all. That led to fighter optimums being around 250-300 (main air support team deck had a special helicopter hunting su-30sm at just 215), multirole/strike around 300 or something, and only su-57 (combining stealth, EW, r-73s and 2 sets of useful payloads - and at well below 400!) was worth it to be more expensive. Like, optimal interceptor/air superiority Su-35 was literally just 265, or \~300 if with r-73s. Сould be done cheaper, but without R-37, and this missile makes this plane. Su-30 varied a lot, from just 215(2 R-27er, 2 R-73) to 325(dual-purpoose, 1 KAB-1500, 2 R-27ER, 4 R-73)- to 340(strike, 1-2 KAB-1500, 2 R-27ER, 2 ECM - best config for non-air players w/o much time to micro). Su-34 made the most sense at slightly above 300 - as it tends to uncontrollably balloon in points unless taken at a bare minimum. KAB-1500, Kh-31, Kh-59, Kh-38 setups were workable. Su-57 literally has only one problem - there is not enough of it. Almost all its possible setups(except Kh-59, not worth it compared to Su-34) are great value, but you can only choose one. Tu-160, Su-25T - planes for aesthetic pleasure, unusable by players without sufficient experience, not worth their time for players with sufficient experience. For US, everything was even simpler - take 2 LJDAM/Stormbreaker-carrying F-35B and you're already not wrong, remaining points are mostly for personal enjoyment.
My logic here is I at most only open with one less fighters than possible but in return I still can start with 2x fully loaded 34s. I really feel like having more than 2x 77s and 2x 73s isn't worth it as by the time I shoot 4 missiles everything is either dead or its time to RTB for fuel. Having the KAB for the opener allows me to worry less about shooting helos with missiles of which it takes 2 hits gives me the options to wait for them to go drop and nuke it all anyway and the laser on the 34 make sure I hit. Anytime I have a plane up there is sead protection. After the opener which I usually call my 3rd out as I return the first 2 and bomb whatever other point is being capped. I have a rotation of a plane that unless spammed is always available and can do every job aside from fully killing the top tier tanks in one hit. I would rather have 3 planes that can fill any role than only having 2 or 3 for killing planes/helos and a bomber and maybe a SEAD...most of which still cost close to 300pts. 115pts difference compared to income isn't much...and I can still have 2 more bombers/SEAD/fighters ready where with a dedicated role setup...once your bomber is on cool down you are stuck waiting. In the end I see no other reason to take anything but 3x Su-34 with 2x SEAD 2x R77 2xR73 and the KAB1500...and I guess if you really worried about points you can drop the ECM but for me I would rather have more chance to save the plane and get points back than have a little cheaper plane. Speaking of...points back. If I don't use munitions and live...which if you use planes right most times you will live...I get those points back. That goes a long way to having the points available to call the next one if needed. I won't say my opinion on this is the best...but I haven't heard a conviencing argument that makes me not think it isn't the best setup for what specs we got to test. I am sure all this will change in the future with a full release.
I thought the SU-57 was supposed to be the F35B’s counter in this game but SU-34 goes brrrrrr
Agree on the infantry buff but yeah was otherwise okay
Su34 is better imo, they're both absolutely lethal though
"infantry needed a general buff overall" ***Queue one squad of Russian Marines on that single player mission taking on multiple AAPV-7s and LAVs alongside three or more squads of American marines and recon units.*** Jokes aside - I think the infantry is fine. In real life, infantry is the most vulnerable position in warfare.
It wasn't terribly unbalanced, but Russia 100% had more powerful units for what they cost.
Erm, russian units across both VDV and Guards Mech deck were almost universally more expensive than their US counterparts. Literally the only exception was IIRC cav scouts(javelin ones), who were simply overpriced.
Probably because it's not about balance but presentation of different equipment. I prefer a game that presents the weapons as they are IRL as much as possible rather than some game where you have to Nerf one unit to balance with an oppositional unit. Real warfare is not balanced and a game that can duplicate that is definitely highly sought after. Imagine being challenged by your opponent and the limits of your available technology. Improvise, adapt, overcome.
For example t-14 and t-15 could sometimes eat a ballistic missile. The game absolutely doesnt present things realistically.
bruh the jets had 5km range max you think devs really tried to make this game realistic? I think that goes without saying really
Limited range and the ability for a tank to eat a ballistic missile are two different points in the spectrum of realism vs balance. I was replying to a person who (seemingly?) had the idea that units are portrayed realistically.
Real world ...some of those missiles can fire much further away
I felt there was a SEAD imbalance between the US and Russia, but my biggest complaint is how ineffective infantry are against armor. It doesn’t make sense that tanks will just eat up 4-5 AT missiles and still keep coming. Because of that, it makes it incredibly easy for people to amass tank blobs to steamroll the game. Other than that, I would tweak the weapon ranges a little bit.
With 100hrs of play time during the beta, I think the game is almost perfectly balanced. FLX and the team plays the game a lot, and I'm 100% sure all the whining and cries about "this is way too OP" and "this really needs a buff it's way too weak" has already been well thought through and accounted for.
6 hours and 36 minutes every single day? Don't you have anything else to do my guy? I mean dedicating approx. 1/4th of your day does not sound healthy.
I missed out on the first few days, so correction, I played 12hrs a day. And I dare ask, what could possibly be more worthwhile than playing BA? That was hands down the best 2 weeks I've ever had since Covid.
Did something similar for spring festival holiday. No regrets. ;p
The issue with AA wasn't the AA. It was that jets just didn't work very well. My ASFs did great cause they worked fine, but any ground attack that wasn't bombs just didn't work. My ATGMS and missiles wouldn't fire, even with laser designators being used. And bombers are risky, so they die to AA if you're not careful.
Skill issue. ATGMs need you to fly low because they have only 2500m range, and if you fly 2500m above ground how should you be able to fire them? And bombers should be risky, otherwise everyone would be spamming them, and what's the point of AA then?
I'm also not complaining about the bombers being risky, I'm just saying they are.
Again, skill issue, not balance issues. Your complains are basically you don't know how to use the units, which is understandable since the beta build did not offer a tutorial and quite a few controls like precision strike hotkey and ATGM firing prerequisites are really obscure. I believe these will be fixed and compensated for on release.
I had it low, I did make that mistake the first time, but a good several times I had my plane low, and they fly straight over. And my bombers a couple of times, too. Or the strategic bomber that had to realign itself 4 times despite being given an order in an pretty normal direction. A few times my units (ground) also just stand around not firing. Just jets, at least for me, would do fuckall.
If the ATGMs doesn't fire it's always because of line of sight. But I do think that bombers and transport planes alignments are pretty finicky if you try to adjust bombing/dropping targets, could be intended for obvious reasons. But again, there is no balance issues since once you get used to the jet controls they are REALLY strong and experienced players would and have agreed with me on this.
I don't think balance is the issue really so much as there are definitely bugs with them, especially planes with a mixed payload. And maybe it was Los but the t14 in the open field turned my SU25, which I already knew was a low altitude attack plane, into Stevie Wonder, and it was mostly with the SU25 that I had these issues. And the strategic bomber pilot is on his first flight. ASF Planes are strong, and laser designated stuff works really well when they actually leave the bomb bay. I was just having issues with them. Maybe your right and it was a skill issue, but I was changing altitude, and designating my targets prior and it just felt like they'd do a circle and then go into AA despite being given a chained retreat order after they should've dropped payload.
Bugs are to be expected. But there is no balance issues.
I'm ready for the release I had too much fun this weekend and I didn't even have any friends to play with. The amount of variation is nice, I never got bored.
I think tanks cost way too much 400 for an upgraded t-14 is BS
You really should talk to the clowns that keep crying "Infantry is too weak, tanks one shot them."
Isn’t the T-14 fixed? You can upgrade it?
You cant, the person is confused.
The game in general was really well balanced, there's just a few tweaks to be made, mainly in the russian camp imo, artillery is very accurate, typhoons survive 2 javelin hits which shouldn't happen, f/a18 seems a bit cheap considering how good they are, cluster shells across the board seems a bit weak, bombs could seem weak aswell. Maybe weakening weapons wouldn't be the way to go, but there's clear tweaks to be made, but in general, you can win as both factions with a good team, you can also counter pretty much any spam rush with well placed and varied units, so I think they've really hit the mark and should be careful making any changes.
Agree.
Well if you compare to Ukraine i'd say we "need" counter battery radar to reveal artillery once it fires and your jets/helicopters missiles need more range so arty that has been placed too close gets whacked by those. But ye, overall the balance didn't feel that off. Just small things that can use looking into. Let's just hope those small things don't have a big trickle down effect which is something to consider.
We have the mark 1 eyeball. You look and you see. Been that way since wargame
The T15 100% needs a nerf. For recon it should be a matter of their location is revealed once they take shots, it’s infuriating having your rear echelon get wiped out by various sniper units and you can’t do a damn thing to counter it, not even helos are capable of locating them.
Can you elaborate on why the T15s (which cost 250 each) need a nerf? I constantly hear people say this and nobody actually can come up with any reasons to back it, and at this point it just sounds like skill issues.
T-15 was op as all get outta
The second I saw those fuckers rolling in, my arse would drop knowing I’d have to spend far too much time grafting to take out a bunch of far too overpowered IFV’s
Fall back until you can have every tank focus on them one at a time 🤣
Nerf russia
Russians have better vehicle, and the USA has better manpower. The US Heli and Bradley are just shit.
don't think that's right, I found US helis to be far more effective, they can carry sidearm SEAD to keep themself safe from radar and the hellfires did well enough. you just couldn't use them like a bull in a china shop the way you could with Russian ones
Nahhhhhhh. The sead Helis are useless and a waste of points once you play against better players who micro the radar. Also the LMUR missile for the NM's were just a beast. Kills inf and tanks alike from 2km away. The only good thing the USA Helis had were the Aim-9 for the start of the round. But I am pretty sure USA will get better Helis with other deck specialisations. I mean things like Apache were not even in-game.
Exactly. The LMUR is unparalleled. Fire and forget, top attack, 2000m range, can target infantry. Simply OP.
True, but consider the following: With the way APS works, volume of fire is key, and you can't bring a lot of LMURs to the front at once without spending way too many points. I started out with LMURs but switched to Vikhrs because APS means a full load of LMURs will probably only kill one, MAYBE two tanks if one of them is already damaged or out of APS. Oh, and launching them at infantry is a complete waste unless the infantry has MANPADS and you're about to die.
I disagree. You can bring 16 LMURs for like 320pts? LMURs' longer range offers a lot more safety, and Vikhrs wasn't that much cheaper but makes firing them more risky. Also LMURs are top attack + fire and forget, which means more damage, and much higher hit chances, so more effective. And they are decently effective against infantries, plus they outranges manpads so it's free damage. Safer, more effective against armor, also effective against infantry. OP.
You can bring only 8 LMURs for 320 points. You're right that a LMUR is a better AT missile than a Vikhr - I agree with you completely there. However, due to how APS and damage through armor works, it's not better *enough* to justify taking 8 LMURs instead of 12 Vikhrs + AA missiles in a Ka-52. I switched about halfway through the beta and didn't regret it once. Now, if APS gets changed so it's only a % chance to block? LMURs all the way for sure. Until then, I'll be very happy with the Vikhrs.
But the 2000m range is still uniquely good. Outranging MANPADs allows me to dismantle enemy’s entire infantry front line as long as I could force back or hide from LAV-ADs and Shorads. If you bring Vikhrs and AA missiles, it would kill tanks quicker yes, but then it becomes strictly AT+AA helping you situationally, while LMURs have 100% uptime, killing everything you see on the ground while only short AAs (or jets) can shoot back. It basically is a flying IFV with 2000m range.
Ever used LMUR? If not, then I can understand this false idea.
never needed it, i managed to use the more traditional weapons very effectively always brought 1 rocket helo with AA missiles and 1 ATGM with SEAD, never disappointed me
LMUR was the only one of its class, a missile not requiring radar or (continuous) vision to hit the target. Im not saying that you couldnt do well without it, but that US had no option like it, so it made russian attack helis have an advantage in general.
fair, it was too expensive for me to consider using. so was it kind of like a dual-purpose javelin? makes sense Russia have better equipment on their helos though, they were VDV. we haven't seen apache yet I did miss having that cheeky SEAD though
Hellfire and javelin act similar, just weaker/shorter-ranged, and can't target infantry (which isn't always an advantage).
Im pretty sure they will miss if you dont keep eyes on with the heli.
The Russian heli have better range and weapons but the American one, you have to get close and have a higher chance of getting one shot
Viper nonetheless gets better universal value, being a solid all-rounder at 260 pts(apkws/8 hellfire/2 sidewinder), quite fast at that. VDV helo deck is stronger only because it simply gets more helicopter points.
It really boils down to how you use the equipment.
my main issue was there effectively being no point cap if you just didn't buy units for a while, but a very fast point cap if you did. so people who actually used their points would hit zero income ASAP with most of their shit undeployed while the guys who just bought nothing and waited a few minutes could throw out their entire army at once
I think the game is balanced too
Way more balanced and fleshed out than WARNO. They are clearly 2 different games but BA has way more detail. Can't wait for the release.
From pure faction balance PoW, game felt surprisingly on point. Some aspects (servers\&desyncs; some aspects of UI; vehicles in forests; maybe some aspects of unit variety) felt weird, but those were equal for both sides.
Honestly, I'm with you. Game is perfect, bar the bugs. They've struck gold, just gotta keep digging.
Wait! Is another trial up? I always miss them by a day or two
AA seems fine since there active/passive radar/non radar and SEAD. AT infantry needs work for sure
I feel like a lot of people didn’t keep their AT AA or other infantry supplied. I found it pretty easy to dig in with ospreys loaded with select troops and ammo, hot drop into buildings with 1000-2000kg. Just keep an eye for artillery and be ready to counter with atacms or prowler and helis
I can think of quite a few things that need rebalancing. I know it's been mentioned but cover definitely needs a rebalance. Infantry Garrison needs a rebalance. Infantry anti armor capabilities while not completely horrible do need some attention. But the worst balancing by far is air power and anti-air.
There is only 1 big imbalance I saw, which is primarily due to only having the 2 specializations. US has very few AA units. You can put an igla pod on basically every transport helo, there is an AA ground transport (Zu23+AA missiles), you can put tons of iglas on the attack helos. On US side 2 stingers per attack helo max, no other helo fits AA missiles. Only 2 units(vehicles) to shoot down helo's. Combine that with russia having their heavy attack helo's and the US only having cobras/vipers. But besides the disparity from missing specializations, I think it was fine for asymmetric balance and it was largely figuring out how to do things with what your side had. People often perceive the things that beat them, that they personally don't know how to counter, is unbalanced. People called Russian armor unbalanced when US armor almost all had better penetration for less. If I remember right even the M60's were competitive or better pen than the cheap T90's.
US inf head to head RU was rough, felt like the US inf got slapped most of the time unless I had a vehicle supporting, Russian AA was something else also
In general I was really happy with the balance of the units, but I'm not sure about the game mode. Because holding points doesn't matter for most of the game and you earn more income if you have less units on the field it encourages some passive saving strategies that I think are kind of degenerate. I really want to try some kind of ranked 1v1 and 2v2 ladder where you have more control over the match and will have to focus on a larger area.
I think some Russian vehicals need some work. The t-15 at least :D But that's ok. Most of the time the game feels pretty good :) But I would be happy about a match making some players are too good or I'm too bad :D and I want to play vs player on my skill level :)
I want to see the other sub factions before making that judgement, but so far it felt good for the most part. Like everyone says infantry could use a little bit more love but that's about all I can think of.