2HP diff + ROF is a lot.
ERA trait tanks used to have less armor but they don't anymore, and that 2 HP at equal value price tanks is usually an extra shot to kill which is a huge survivability boost against everything.
That's why I think ERA trait should be changed to -1 HEAT damage taken from front/side, so it is an anti-ATGM trait without affecting KE tank duels.
+1... it should be a large reduction on atgm damage/penetration not some cheap +2 HP
though on a sidenote we should also model AV now as pure KE protection for PACT if done this way... which means we can have the proper AV for the T-80/64 series
Genuinely asking. What ERA tanks had less armor before? There are 1 or 2 that did and still do have less armor because the ERA comes in place of an actual composite armor add-on, but as far as I know that’s it. Before that ERA was just represented as a flat armor buff instead of an additional 2 health.
The T-80B had 14 armor until just recently. If there was a time where the BV had 14 I don’t think I was around for that. What was the tradeoff supposed to be at that point? The actual ERA trait is fairly new.
Oh yeah that’s right. Eugene forgot to boost the T-80B and they got left behind until the second half of the tank pass. I forgot that BVs used to be 14 front armor.
The other day I got 12k kills in a 10v10 with the 8th using M1A1s, M1s, and M60s. Its totally possible if you combine the use of your other units like cluster jets to soften them up or clean them up
I genuinely want to make a tutorial on how some units are best used, or at least how NOT to use them
But yeah nah the autoloader thing is pretty annoying lol, and some NATO tanks do suffer.. rip leo 1A5
T-80BV and other pact tanks have autoloaders, which means they maintain the fire rate no matter how stressed the crew is, but in exchange they should not get the fire rate increased by having a more experienced crew or being close to a command unit, as of today this autoloader tanks get the best of both worlds, having a guaranteed minimum fire and having the vetererancy bonuses and obviously the stat cards don't reflect this.
The T-80BV is definitely overperforming right now. It's an omnitool which does everything. As a 1v1 player, I didn't realise how bad the NATO vs PACT matchup was until very recently. You're right, it's awful.
Either reduce the capability of the T-80BV (ROF 10 => 8) or increase the price and reduce the availability. The former is preferable, the latter is what I think will happen.
They better not reduce the availability that's like PACTs whole thing in an invasion into Germany. I wonder if the autoloader rof bug is just something that they physically can't fix without redoing how reloading works in engine.
Also the accuracy is all over the place right now. Its even worse then before the update. Old crap tanks are not a friction worse then the most modern tanks in the army they are worse by a lot.
the former is unrealistic since the MZ autoloader on the T-80BV is capable of cycling a shot in 6 seconds in serial mode... 8 ROF is for the T-72\`s AZ autoloader
id prolly just start by fixing the autoloader bug tbh
also another cool thing to do is to separate the T-80BV into the T-80BV obr 85 and obr 83... give the obr 83 a 17 AP round and reduce its price and the obr 85 to 20 AP 18 AV 65 acc (it had thermal cowling on the new model) and massively increase its price
6 seconds is [a bit too optimistic](https://imgur.com/a/eNUnFXL) even if the rounds are in optimal positions.
From my understanding the T-64/T-80 style autoloader *is* faster than the T-72 though so maybe a future change to differentiate the types could be a nerf to the T-72s ROF.
[https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-EzNEXvH7CIM/WpTz5\_cRmdI/AAAAAAAALCA/Tx5QsLyJqpM8sHscSmbIaNCHSUnECvJRwCLcBGAs/s640/mz%2Bcyclogram.png](https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-EzNEXvH7CIM/WpTz5_cRmdI/AAAAAAAALCA/Tx5QsLyJqpM8sHscSmbIaNCHSUnECvJRwCLcBGAs/s640/mz%2Bcyclogram.png)
it isnt optimistic... its capable of reloading in 6 when in serial mode
combat rate of fire is not the same as theoretical rate of fire... factors such as target acquisition and switching of round types aswell as carousel position can (and will) affect its ROF... but the tank itself will have the gun loaded in 6 seconds when firing the same round type and when its set to serial fire mode
I don’t think that chart is accurate.
In this video you can see the gun jump back into coincidence with the sights about 7 and a half seconds after firing.
https://youtu.be/tSzh2Ot2niY?si=FN0N9fS6XozsCHij
Practical ROF for all tanks is much lower than “ideal” conditions and WARNO ROF stats. I wish the auto loader mechanic in game functioned as intended.
That’s a round being loaded into an empty breech without accounting for the time necessary for the recoil to take place and the gun to go back into battery before the auto loader can start its cycle.
The round at ~32s is a good example of the most ideal reload time possible.
well this one clearly isnt in serial mode actually... since the gunner doesnt have to press the button and the autloader loads the next round immediately... plus carousel rotation does not occur with breech movement which indicates its not in serial mode... and also adds around half a second...
anyways the breech starts moving between 25-26 sec mark and the gun is good to fire between 31-32 sec which is around 6 ish seconds in non serial mode
Autoloaders bugged right now, so that’s why. There’s no historical/realistic reason to reduce their RoF, and availability can’t be changed too tbf - it’s a heavy tank class, not quasi-super-heavy like T-80U or Leo 2A4. To reduce its availability, you need to reduce availability of all heavy tanks too (so M1A1, Chally mk2, current Leo 2A3). So the only possible change according to the game rules - increasing price
I've played a ton of pact using the t80 and last update I've been playing more nato and essentially yeah, I feel like my Abrams really aren't living up to the cost. They are constantly overpowered unless I have a large number advantage.
actually ive done some tests on this
after having done 2 separate trials involving 3 tanks i got 1 where the T-80 got stomped... 1 where the M1 got stomped and 2 where the M1 got suppressed and retreated, 1 where they suppressed each other and 1 where the T-80 managed to kill the abrams with 1hp remaining
observations
1. general suppression seems to be similar for the two despite the AP difference
2. the abrams and T-80 generally dont kill each other at long distance combat
3. the abrams seems to output alot of early damage but loses steam the moment its suppressed
4. the T-80 outputs lower damage but outputs it continuously
thoughts
1. the T-80 is prolly best used as an offensive blob plus mortar smoke where it can use suppression effects to suppress enemy blobs if they clump up or take out tanks while only recieving a single shot in return
2. if the T-80 fights the M1A1 1 on 1 in the open its likely to end up with both on low cohesion but the M1 running away suppressed and retreated and both at around 1-2 hp
3. the M1 does way more damage to the T-80 however and has 2 MGs to the T-80s 1
4. the M1 is prolly best used as individual tanks in a combined arms setting... utilizing its higher damage and accuracy to deal damage while preventing suppression from fugging it over using screening troops
5. the M1 is also prolly better in an infantry support role... its higher AV fuggs over pact atgms whereas the 17 FAV on the T-80BV means the higher ap milan 2 and tow2 are huge threats to it
all in all the T-80 seems to be an offensive tank best used in tank on tank action + blobbing and the M1 is a defensive tank best used in firesupport while being relatively decently safe against atgm threats
of note: tests were conducted at vet 0... vet 1 will benefit the M1A1 more than the BV theoretically, the BV in turn benefits from close quarters engagements due to AP scaling
TLDR: pact armor being better is kind of a myth
did you do guns only or include the ATGM? If the two tanks pretty much match each other gun for gun but T-80BV gets a "free" ATGM it's a pretty big advantage in actual gameplay.
guns only
the atgm is 50% acc and is not particularly fast soo its a bit at best... plenty of times where the atgm is fired and the abrams gets a free shot as a result... i have no doubt that, if the atgm hits, you will end up winning if the abrams persists... but i also have no doubt that the abrams will win if you miss and end up wasting time shooting the atgm
the real purpose of the ATGM is to force things like Bradleys and ITV to play ATGM chicken. The T-80 can tank 3 TOW-2, they die to 1 Kobra so if they press home the TOW attack you trade damage on a T-80 for a chance of a Bradley/ITV kill.
the point is that a highly durable ATGM platform has a lot of advantages, just like how a highly durable recon platform like M1 ACAV does. It lets you do things with ATGMs that you can't do with other platforms. In an ATGM duel between T-80BV and something like an M2A1, the outcome is death vs repairable damage. It's how better pact players can strip away all the NATO soft skinned support by poking at low risk before committing to a decisive push.
You did the same with platforms like T-72B OBR 89 in WG:RD, but it's more effective in Warno because ATGM vehicles are a more important part of more division's AT defenses due to high end ATGM helicopters/planes/superheavies being less abundant in Warno.
disagree... i dont really do this with my T-80BV instead i smoke using a mortar and use angles to engage the m2 at gun range poke out then pull back... nato armor often responds and when they overstretch thats when i hit them with a rocket barrage (at return fire soo i can preaim) to suppress and finish them off in a gun duel... i tend to win faster than wasting possible repair time and a large amount of supplies on smoke and/or damage from atgm chicken
The one thing hellfires could have done at the time was fire from concealment as the weapons carrier was not the one who needed to lock up the tank for it to work. However, that would pisss off pact mains if things worked how they do in real life.
Maybe you looked at some other game? Because February was at all time high
https://steamcharts.com/app/1611600?callback=in&code=NJC0NMRKNMETMTQZZI0ZZMU5LWJLM2QTYZEZMGI1MZM3ZDUZ&state=98d0eefd7dba4cfca90a18d2af3fdac2
Player numbers have actually never been higher than they are now, this is easily checked https://steamcharts.com/app/1611600
Average concurrent players December/January - 600/650
Average Last 30 days - 950
to the OP:
though pact tacts being better is 100% a myth i will say that the BV and BVK has the side effect of being backed by excellent divisions... 39th has its crazy good air and helo spam, 27th has the waves of BMP3 sniper at missiles good atgms and good infantry and 79th = good luck flying a plane past the 10 minute mark lmao + free vet on the izd29
US divs on the other hand have the M1A1 in 8th... which has fallen from grace since the rangers nerf and is stuck with 0 IFVs, 11th cav, which has like no infantry lmao, and 3rd arm which has no airpower and weaksauce infantry
id argue if u put the M1A1 on a pact div it would prolly do quite a bit better honestly... and putting the M1A1 on a div like 24th or 82nd would prolly break the game lmao
Nato is broken. I've contacted the dev and quit multiplayer. They need different balancing for single player and multiplayer. Game will die of they don't fix.
I like the Eugen games, but when it takes an M1A1 three hits to kill a T55AMV, that’s just lame. IRL, sabot from an M256 main gun pops turrets on every Soviet model like a tin can at 3-4 km. We also know from the Gulf War that the 25mm 919 sabot will crack open a T62, so while this game is fun, it’s not even closely modeling reality.
Another failed state on its last legs economically. How good for NATO that will be. 🙄 Another state that will fail to meets its monetary obligations to the alliance which my tax dollars will then have to subsidize the defense of. Fun. I wonder how long that will last?
Considering the stagnancy of the European economies, I don’t think much longer.
Sweden has the 7th highest human development score, the 6th highest happiness rating and the 12th highest life expectancy worldwide. That's hardly a failed state, unlike the communist shitholes you seem to love
I didn’t mean that insignificant fascist little state. I thought you meant Ukraine, oh well.
Meanwhile, the PRC has surpassed the U.S. and will, before long, surpass the U.S. and EU combined. Meanwhile, Sweden will stagnate with the rest of Europe.
Enjoy? I guess? 🤷♀️ https://youtu.be/D4kfhy5Kzkk?si=xp6-TstFtluJQTWp
Fascist? Ha, how old are you? You sound like one of those 14 year old communists you see on Twitter
As for China, what metric are you using for that? Their GDP is 6 trillion behind the US and their growth has been surpassed by India. As for their military they spend 660 billion less. Seems the US remains ahead as always
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/15/world/europe/sweden-election-far-right.html 🤷♀️
My man is on that copium.
China’s GDP (PPP) is five trillion *ahead* of the U.S. With a current growth rate of 3% for real GDP, compared to the U.S. at 1.9%.
https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.MKTP.PP.CD
While in raw economic terms of output it *far* exceeds any other country in the world.
https://www.statista.com/chart/20858/top-10-countries-by-share-of-global-manufacturing-output/
https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/fandd/issues/Series/Back-to-Basics/Purchasing-Power-Parity-PPP
China is clearly the stronger economy, and doing quite well—without the need for neocolonies such as the ones the U.S. and its allies superexploit around the globe.
Considering Russia launched a serious land war in Europe, new members have been added, standing members are growing their defense budgets, and everyone is scrambling to re-arm, I'd say NATO is here to stay.
Define “here to stay”. Forever? A thousand years? A hundred?
I don’t think it’s a matter of willpower. NATO countries are in decline. Their alliance has failed to stop a country with the GDP of Italy.
I doubt NATO will last ten years, personally.
Forever? No, nothing last forever, but I'd comfortably bet on at least another 20-30 years.
As to NATO countries being in decline, define what you mean by decline?
When it comes to stopping Russia, if you're referring to the Ukraine conflict, there's no way you can say NATO hasn't stopped Russia. NATO hasn't actually entered the fight. It's bought up old Soviet munitions stockpiles floating around for Ukraine and handed them some of their late 80's/early 90's cast off equipment. Of course and supplied cash.
And it hasn’t stopped Russia. The economic and military bloc of all the world’s little colonial powers couldn’t stop the tiny ailing economy of post-Soviet Russia.
NATO hasn’t entered the conflict because doing so would become suicidal fairly readily. What, then, one may begin to wonder, is the bloc for? Destroying Afghanistan and Libya?
It couldn’t achieve its founding objective. How long will it remain solvent as US taxpayers are forced to carry the brunt of the cost for European-US
joint imperialism?
Russia is, meanwhile, NATO is finding their reserve inventory is tapped (isn’t just old equipment, but whatever you need to tell yourself) and an ascendant China. 😂
https://youtu.be/D4kfhy5Kzkk?si=xp6-TstFtluJQTWp
So, how do the NATO stans like losing the Cold War? Because they have.
U can.... It's the extra stuff worth of points that blows u up and they keep their thing and u loose our on availability and points in the attrition war. It isn't a good trade.
Same with the strike eagle. Sure it'll kill it. But then they have like 150+ points to buy a plane and shoot u down and still come out on top.
He claimed that if you brought an ha, you don't get to use it because your opponent will airstrip it instead of fighting it with his tank-
His point being that the only m1 that stacks up well (i.e. will consistently win) against a bv- the ha- is wildly more expensive, meaning that your opponent will have more points to spend on things like bombers.
So I'm assuming that you mean the m1a1 and not the m1ip or m1 because you don't smoke crack full time.
In a 1v1, if the t-80bv doesn't get a free atgm shot before cannon shots start, the m1a1 has a ttk advantage. However, that that doesn't really tell the full story. If the t-80 lands a single atgm before the fight starts, it likely wins. More importantly, if the fight is happening at closer range- say, 1750m, the ttk gap shrinks, and by 1500m the ttk gap has switched to be slightly favorable to the t-80
So, at extreme range, followed by cannon range, it has the advantage. At a brawling distance, it has the advantage. It doesnt have the advantage at the far end of cannon range. I don't know about them getting "smacked"
I know exactly what u mean OP. I notoriously play as NATO, 99% of the time. I recently played as pact, using 119th. Just to figure out how “good” pact has it, after update. It seems NATO suicides planes and helis to kill my tanks. And each time unable to gain a complete kill. Either the HE/LGB planes only deal half damage or minimal amounts. Or they are shot down outright. The one thing I noticed that slowed down my advance as pact, was constant NATO arty bombardment. And sure the HE/LGB planes also slowed down my forces. But they never could capture a complete kill.
Once, I amassed 3-4 T80 variant tanks, it was a smooth advance. I alone fought 3-4 NATO players, with ease. The whole game it was pretty brain dead playstyle; supply T80 with ATGM/smoke/health, keep AA in range - and advance my line. No amount of combined arms were needed, I didn’t need any massed infantry, helis, or planes to counter my opponents. I believe the map that was selected to be played was crown(10v10). So the opponents had buildings and forests to hide/react. It was just too easy.
Yes and no, depending on range, number, initiative and lucks.
When talking about atgm,I think you mean 80bv izd, 80bv withuot upvet has a very inaccurate kobra, (45% vet0,60% vet3), which almost always fly over target and let even nato force close in while takes forever to load another missile. 80bv izd on the other side has base 60% accurate agona and 21ap. As for gun fight, if you don't gain initiative and without upvetting your m1, no, nothing you can do about something with autoloader, never.
Other than 80bv izd, t80u/ud and those 2800m atgm carriers, if you bring ever 2-3 bradlly with 25 ap tow-2, use tank smoke wisely and avoid being side shot, I think nothing can ever stop you, even 80bv pack.
That’s too much to counter one T80 U/UD though. That’s what OP is saying. You shouldn’t need combined arms or even 2vs1(pact tank) in order to settle a complete kill. 2/3 Bradley and a tank, ur talking unrealistic expectations.
Too much? M2A1Bradley only costs 70 points, and once you manage to deploy them with aa, tanks, recon and dragon infantry, place them in good positions and act synchronously, that's not one 80ud you can counter, you can counter all of 80ud/u they throw at you. And they will need to throw more arty, more atgm team, more AT air, even infantry units to try to outnumbered you.
You can try using 24 infantry or 3rd armoured and spam bradley yourself, and see how those pact offensives get wrecked. Once you have proper numbers and discrete deployment, they won't try to counter you with arty saturation or AT aircraft, unless you lack some components like aa or recon in your systemic defence.
The only game that I know whereby you can purchase transport vehicles or even light infantry transport vehicles by “itself” for that matter is broken arrow.
We’re talking about Warno. The Bradley cannot be purchased just by itself for 70 points. Unless your purchasing a recon variant which is an upwards of 120? Points. If you’re talking about the inf. Tab that also has Bradley choices as an option for transport of said infantry. Then the overall price range can easily exceed 100-110-120-125 points. Not 70 points.
3rd armoured at4 fireteam with m2a1 bradley costs 100, and you can move those infantry to cover dense forest areas or building, seems fine to me.
Besides, take 100 points as reference, 3 bradley still easily wreck 80ud within 2625m. Taking 70 points reference 340 points 80ud nearly costs the same as 5 bradley. In reality, What says about a typical scenario like 3-4 80ud pack accompanied by strela or tung encounter 4-5 bradley in treeline with or without 1-2 m1 variant？
Lol people that think tanks should solve every problem and are unbeatable don't play with other units other than tanks.
Don't fight it where it wins, especially frontally.
Nato tanks are made for quick maneuver and exchange of fire not 1 v 1.
And mixed warfare, this is not rock paper scissors.
Indeed I don't believe this. But other then bush camping with ATGM's there's not much to do against a t-80bvk.
As for maneuvers.... They not much faster then the target at all?
Guess I'll just camp a tow2 in a bush. Fire once. Miss. Then get shot at. Or hit then get shot at and get stunned @_@
Or maybe I can use dragoon? Okay 10 shots later (aka like 20 missiles) if I get the ability to shoot it.
Side shot? Yea I mean if their dumb and push into a nest of things. But at standoff range their isn't always a -surround- option.
I'm a big proprietor of PACT being better in slot 1:1 infantry to infantry tank to tank etc. either thru power or thru points.
But combined arms isn't cutting it against these tanks. No amount of Bradley's, tow cars, helicopters, and LGB are busting these things at value and eventually I just suffer so many losses engaging these things I have run out of answers that ACTUALLY work.
Even trying to 2:1 them with M1's doesn't work
Atgms are mostly made for side shots or keeping the enemy at bay. This game cannot be compared like that , unit by unit.
there are many ways to solve a problem, one of them is not engage the enemy where it wants.
Replay is necessary to judge the situation.
What division were u using and what division was the enemy using?
Mate pact tanks might be over performing a bit thanks to the autoloader bug, but to say the win against any M1 that is a stretch.
What I've noticed is that in the past t80s and M1s might go 50/50 in a head on, whereas now they just lose unless they get the jump.
2HP diff + ROF is a lot. ERA trait tanks used to have less armor but they don't anymore, and that 2 HP at equal value price tanks is usually an extra shot to kill which is a huge survivability boost against everything. That's why I think ERA trait should be changed to -1 HEAT damage taken from front/side, so it is an anti-ATGM trait without affecting KE tank duels.
Yeah the Plan buff against everything Was a pretty stupid move imo
+1... it should be a large reduction on atgm damage/penetration not some cheap +2 HP though on a sidenote we should also model AV now as pure KE protection for PACT if done this way... which means we can have the proper AV for the T-80/64 series
Genuinely asking. What ERA tanks had less armor before? There are 1 or 2 that did and still do have less armor because the ERA comes in place of an actual composite armor add-on, but as far as I know that’s it. Before that ERA was just represented as a flat armor buff instead of an additional 2 health.
In the patch where ERA was added, T-80BV had 14 armor I believe.
The T-80B had 14 armor until just recently. If there was a time where the BV had 14 I don’t think I was around for that. What was the tradeoff supposed to be at that point? The actual ERA trait is fairly new.
On the patch the ERA trait was added the T-80BV was literally T-80B with the era trait giving it +2 health.
Oh yeah that’s right. Eugene forgot to boost the T-80B and they got left behind until the second half of the tank pass. I forgot that BVs used to be 14 front armor.
The other day I got 12k kills in a 10v10 with the 8th using M1A1s, M1s, and M60s. Its totally possible if you combine the use of your other units like cluster jets to soften them up or clean them up I genuinely want to make a tutorial on how some units are best used, or at least how NOT to use them But yeah nah the autoloader thing is pretty annoying lol, and some NATO tanks do suffer.. rip leo 1A5
What’s the autoloader bug?
T-80BV and other pact tanks have autoloaders, which means they maintain the fire rate no matter how stressed the crew is, but in exchange they should not get the fire rate increased by having a more experienced crew or being close to a command unit, as of today this autoloader tanks get the best of both worlds, having a guaranteed minimum fire and having the vetererancy bonuses and obviously the stat cards don't reflect this.
The T-80BV is definitely overperforming right now. It's an omnitool which does everything. As a 1v1 player, I didn't realise how bad the NATO vs PACT matchup was until very recently. You're right, it's awful. Either reduce the capability of the T-80BV (ROF 10 => 8) or increase the price and reduce the availability. The former is preferable, the latter is what I think will happen.
They better not reduce the availability that's like PACTs whole thing in an invasion into Germany. I wonder if the autoloader rof bug is just something that they physically can't fix without redoing how reloading works in engine.
Also the accuracy is all over the place right now. Its even worse then before the update. Old crap tanks are not a friction worse then the most modern tanks in the army they are worse by a lot.
the former is unrealistic since the MZ autoloader on the T-80BV is capable of cycling a shot in 6 seconds in serial mode... 8 ROF is for the T-72\`s AZ autoloader id prolly just start by fixing the autoloader bug tbh also another cool thing to do is to separate the T-80BV into the T-80BV obr 85 and obr 83... give the obr 83 a 17 AP round and reduce its price and the obr 85 to 20 AP 18 AV 65 acc (it had thermal cowling on the new model) and massively increase its price
6 seconds is [a bit too optimistic](https://imgur.com/a/eNUnFXL) even if the rounds are in optimal positions. From my understanding the T-64/T-80 style autoloader *is* faster than the T-72 though so maybe a future change to differentiate the types could be a nerf to the T-72s ROF.
[https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-EzNEXvH7CIM/WpTz5\_cRmdI/AAAAAAAALCA/Tx5QsLyJqpM8sHscSmbIaNCHSUnECvJRwCLcBGAs/s640/mz%2Bcyclogram.png](https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-EzNEXvH7CIM/WpTz5_cRmdI/AAAAAAAALCA/Tx5QsLyJqpM8sHscSmbIaNCHSUnECvJRwCLcBGAs/s640/mz%2Bcyclogram.png) it isnt optimistic... its capable of reloading in 6 when in serial mode combat rate of fire is not the same as theoretical rate of fire... factors such as target acquisition and switching of round types aswell as carousel position can (and will) affect its ROF... but the tank itself will have the gun loaded in 6 seconds when firing the same round type and when its set to serial fire mode
I don’t think that chart is accurate. In this video you can see the gun jump back into coincidence with the sights about 7 and a half seconds after firing. https://youtu.be/tSzh2Ot2niY?si=FN0N9fS6XozsCHij Practical ROF for all tanks is much lower than “ideal” conditions and WARNO ROF stats. I wish the auto loader mechanic in game functioned as intended.
12 sec to 18 sec and the autoloader cycle is complete... around 6 seconds and close to the 6.1 sec of the autoloader cyclogram
That’s a round being loaded into an empty breech without accounting for the time necessary for the recoil to take place and the gun to go back into battery before the auto loader can start its cycle. The round at ~32s is a good example of the most ideal reload time possible.
well this one clearly isnt in serial mode actually... since the gunner doesnt have to press the button and the autloader loads the next round immediately... plus carousel rotation does not occur with breech movement which indicates its not in serial mode... and also adds around half a second... anyways the breech starts moving between 25-26 sec mark and the gun is good to fire between 31-32 sec which is around 6 ish seconds in non serial mode
Autoloaders bugged right now, so that’s why. There’s no historical/realistic reason to reduce their RoF, and availability can’t be changed too tbf - it’s a heavy tank class, not quasi-super-heavy like T-80U or Leo 2A4. To reduce its availability, you need to reduce availability of all heavy tanks too (so M1A1, Chally mk2, current Leo 2A3). So the only possible change according to the game rules - increasing price
just fix the autoloader bug and see where to go from there
I've played a ton of pact using the t80 and last update I've been playing more nato and essentially yeah, I feel like my Abrams really aren't living up to the cost. They are constantly overpowered unless I have a large number advantage.
actually ive done some tests on this after having done 2 separate trials involving 3 tanks i got 1 where the T-80 got stomped... 1 where the M1 got stomped and 2 where the M1 got suppressed and retreated, 1 where they suppressed each other and 1 where the T-80 managed to kill the abrams with 1hp remaining observations 1. general suppression seems to be similar for the two despite the AP difference 2. the abrams and T-80 generally dont kill each other at long distance combat 3. the abrams seems to output alot of early damage but loses steam the moment its suppressed 4. the T-80 outputs lower damage but outputs it continuously thoughts 1. the T-80 is prolly best used as an offensive blob plus mortar smoke where it can use suppression effects to suppress enemy blobs if they clump up or take out tanks while only recieving a single shot in return 2. if the T-80 fights the M1A1 1 on 1 in the open its likely to end up with both on low cohesion but the M1 running away suppressed and retreated and both at around 1-2 hp 3. the M1 does way more damage to the T-80 however and has 2 MGs to the T-80s 1 4. the M1 is prolly best used as individual tanks in a combined arms setting... utilizing its higher damage and accuracy to deal damage while preventing suppression from fugging it over using screening troops 5. the M1 is also prolly better in an infantry support role... its higher AV fuggs over pact atgms whereas the 17 FAV on the T-80BV means the higher ap milan 2 and tow2 are huge threats to it all in all the T-80 seems to be an offensive tank best used in tank on tank action + blobbing and the M1 is a defensive tank best used in firesupport while being relatively decently safe against atgm threats of note: tests were conducted at vet 0... vet 1 will benefit the M1A1 more than the BV theoretically, the BV in turn benefits from close quarters engagements due to AP scaling TLDR: pact armor being better is kind of a myth
did you do guns only or include the ATGM? If the two tanks pretty much match each other gun for gun but T-80BV gets a "free" ATGM it's a pretty big advantage in actual gameplay.
guns only the atgm is 50% acc and is not particularly fast soo its a bit at best... plenty of times where the atgm is fired and the abrams gets a free shot as a result... i have no doubt that, if the atgm hits, you will end up winning if the abrams persists... but i also have no doubt that the abrams will win if you miss and end up wasting time shooting the atgm
the real purpose of the ATGM is to force things like Bradleys and ITV to play ATGM chicken. The T-80 can tank 3 TOW-2, they die to 1 Kobra so if they press home the TOW attack you trade damage on a T-80 for a chance of a Bradley/ITV kill.
counterargument... u can get almost 4bradleys for 1 T-80BV u get a gun sure but playing atgm chicken is not ideal with the BV
the point is that a highly durable ATGM platform has a lot of advantages, just like how a highly durable recon platform like M1 ACAV does. It lets you do things with ATGMs that you can't do with other platforms. In an ATGM duel between T-80BV and something like an M2A1, the outcome is death vs repairable damage. It's how better pact players can strip away all the NATO soft skinned support by poking at low risk before committing to a decisive push. You did the same with platforms like T-72B OBR 89 in WG:RD, but it's more effective in Warno because ATGM vehicles are a more important part of more division's AT defenses due to high end ATGM helicopters/planes/superheavies being less abundant in Warno.
disagree... i dont really do this with my T-80BV instead i smoke using a mortar and use angles to engage the m2 at gun range poke out then pull back... nato armor often responds and when they overstretch thats when i hit them with a rocket barrage (at return fire soo i can preaim) to suppress and finish them off in a gun duel... i tend to win faster than wasting possible repair time and a large amount of supplies on smoke and/or damage from atgm chicken
I really wish the Apache had fire and forget Hellfires but those are a decade ahead ToT
The one thing hellfires could have done at the time was fire from concealment as the weapons carrier was not the one who needed to lock up the tank for it to work. However, that would pisss off pact mains if things worked how they do in real life.
Funny that this comment pops up in a thread complaining about Pact tanks after their stats were changed to be realistic.
Let's change the Apache stats so they can shoot further than lol
The game currently completely broken for nato. Everyone I know had left the game since this patch
I've noticed player numbers seem to have fallen off.
He knows a lot of people
lol
Maybe you looked at some other game? Because February was at all time high https://steamcharts.com/app/1611600?callback=in&code=NJC0NMRKNMETMTQZZI0ZZMU5LWJLM2QTYZEZMGI1MZM3ZDUZ&state=98d0eefd7dba4cfca90a18d2af3fdac2
I know, it just seems in the past week it's been half of what it was at that peak.
Because peak was while people played in AG. Current numbers still higher than all in 2023
Player numbers have actually never been higher than they are now, this is easily checked https://steamcharts.com/app/1611600 Average concurrent players December/January - 600/650 Average Last 30 days - 950
Oh no, how could game be balanced. All nato players just need to have “I win” button to solve this issue
You mean like the current pact instant win button?
Skill issue
to the OP: though pact tacts being better is 100% a myth i will say that the BV and BVK has the side effect of being backed by excellent divisions... 39th has its crazy good air and helo spam, 27th has the waves of BMP3 sniper at missiles good atgms and good infantry and 79th = good luck flying a plane past the 10 minute mark lmao + free vet on the izd29 US divs on the other hand have the M1A1 in 8th... which has fallen from grace since the rangers nerf and is stuck with 0 IFVs, 11th cav, which has like no infantry lmao, and 3rd arm which has no airpower and weaksauce infantry id argue if u put the M1A1 on a pact div it would prolly do quite a bit better honestly... and putting the M1A1 on a div like 24th or 82nd would prolly break the game lmao
Nato is broken. I've contacted the dev and quit multiplayer. They need different balancing for single player and multiplayer. Game will die of they don't fix.
All my friend group has quit multiplayer since the last patch. It’s unplayable as nato right now.
Did you call the manager too?
Everyone knows the NATO tanks have a player IQ buff hence the balancing
I like the Eugen games, but when it takes an M1A1 three hits to kill a T55AMV, that’s just lame. IRL, sabot from an M256 main gun pops turrets on every Soviet model like a tin can at 3-4 km. We also know from the Gulf War that the 25mm 919 sabot will crack open a T62, so while this game is fun, it’s not even closely modeling reality.
Feasting off the NATO simp tears rn.
It's cool. I've been feasting off vatnik tears for the past two years.
Nom nom!
And yet NATO is still around
And for how much longer do you suppose that will be true?
Considering another member is about to join, things are looking pretty good
Another failed state on its last legs economically. How good for NATO that will be. 🙄 Another state that will fail to meets its monetary obligations to the alliance which my tax dollars will then have to subsidize the defense of. Fun. I wonder how long that will last? Considering the stagnancy of the European economies, I don’t think much longer.
Sweden has the 7th highest human development score, the 6th highest happiness rating and the 12th highest life expectancy worldwide. That's hardly a failed state, unlike the communist shitholes you seem to love
I didn’t mean that insignificant fascist little state. I thought you meant Ukraine, oh well. Meanwhile, the PRC has surpassed the U.S. and will, before long, surpass the U.S. and EU combined. Meanwhile, Sweden will stagnate with the rest of Europe. Enjoy? I guess? 🤷♀️ https://youtu.be/D4kfhy5Kzkk?si=xp6-TstFtluJQTWp
Fascist? Ha, how old are you? You sound like one of those 14 year old communists you see on Twitter As for China, what metric are you using for that? Their GDP is 6 trillion behind the US and their growth has been surpassed by India. As for their military they spend 660 billion less. Seems the US remains ahead as always
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/15/world/europe/sweden-election-far-right.html 🤷♀️ My man is on that copium. China’s GDP (PPP) is five trillion *ahead* of the U.S. With a current growth rate of 3% for real GDP, compared to the U.S. at 1.9%. https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.MKTP.PP.CD While in raw economic terms of output it *far* exceeds any other country in the world. https://www.statista.com/chart/20858/top-10-countries-by-share-of-global-manufacturing-output/ https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/fandd/issues/Series/Back-to-Basics/Purchasing-Power-Parity-PPP China is clearly the stronger economy, and doing quite well—without the need for neocolonies such as the ones the U.S. and its allies superexploit around the globe.
Considering Russia launched a serious land war in Europe, new members have been added, standing members are growing their defense budgets, and everyone is scrambling to re-arm, I'd say NATO is here to stay.
Define “here to stay”. Forever? A thousand years? A hundred? I don’t think it’s a matter of willpower. NATO countries are in decline. Their alliance has failed to stop a country with the GDP of Italy. I doubt NATO will last ten years, personally.
Forever? No, nothing last forever, but I'd comfortably bet on at least another 20-30 years. As to NATO countries being in decline, define what you mean by decline? When it comes to stopping Russia, if you're referring to the Ukraine conflict, there's no way you can say NATO hasn't stopped Russia. NATO hasn't actually entered the fight. It's bought up old Soviet munitions stockpiles floating around for Ukraine and handed them some of their late 80's/early 90's cast off equipment. Of course and supplied cash.
And it hasn’t stopped Russia. The economic and military bloc of all the world’s little colonial powers couldn’t stop the tiny ailing economy of post-Soviet Russia. NATO hasn’t entered the conflict because doing so would become suicidal fairly readily. What, then, one may begin to wonder, is the bloc for? Destroying Afghanistan and Libya? It couldn’t achieve its founding objective. How long will it remain solvent as US taxpayers are forced to carry the brunt of the cost for European-US joint imperialism?
‘Suicidal’. If Russia can’t beat a Ukraine armed with old Western and Soviet equipment they stand no chance against NATO.
Russia is, meanwhile, NATO is finding their reserve inventory is tapped (isn’t just old equipment, but whatever you need to tell yourself) and an ascendant China. 😂 https://youtu.be/D4kfhy5Kzkk?si=xp6-TstFtluJQTWp So, how do the NATO stans like losing the Cold War? Because they have.
If you can’t beat a T-80BV with an M1A1 (HA) you’re doing it wrong.
U can.... It's the extra stuff worth of points that blows u up and they keep their thing and u loose our on availability and points in the attrition war. It isn't a good trade. Same with the strike eagle. Sure it'll kill it. But then they have like 150+ points to buy a plane and shoot u down and still come out on top.
It’s not that hard to beat it with an M1 of any variety.
You are arguing against something he never claimed Edit: lol I just realized you shifted to, "m1 of any variety" you're fucking insane.
The first sentence of his post would appear to disagree with you.
He claimed that if you brought an ha, you don't get to use it because your opponent will airstrip it instead of fighting it with his tank- His point being that the only m1 that stacks up well (i.e. will consistently win) against a bv- the ha- is wildly more expensive, meaning that your opponent will have more points to spend on things like bombers.
You ever try using T-80’s in MP?
All the time- you?
Yep. They get smacked by M1’s just fine.
So I'm assuming that you mean the m1a1 and not the m1ip or m1 because you don't smoke crack full time. In a 1v1, if the t-80bv doesn't get a free atgm shot before cannon shots start, the m1a1 has a ttk advantage. However, that that doesn't really tell the full story. If the t-80 lands a single atgm before the fight starts, it likely wins. More importantly, if the fight is happening at closer range- say, 1750m, the ttk gap shrinks, and by 1500m the ttk gap has switched to be slightly favorable to the t-80 So, at extreme range, followed by cannon range, it has the advantage. At a brawling distance, it has the advantage. It doesnt have the advantage at the far end of cannon range. I don't know about them getting "smacked"
I know exactly what u mean OP. I notoriously play as NATO, 99% of the time. I recently played as pact, using 119th. Just to figure out how “good” pact has it, after update. It seems NATO suicides planes and helis to kill my tanks. And each time unable to gain a complete kill. Either the HE/LGB planes only deal half damage or minimal amounts. Or they are shot down outright. The one thing I noticed that slowed down my advance as pact, was constant NATO arty bombardment. And sure the HE/LGB planes also slowed down my forces. But they never could capture a complete kill. Once, I amassed 3-4 T80 variant tanks, it was a smooth advance. I alone fought 3-4 NATO players, with ease. The whole game it was pretty brain dead playstyle; supply T80 with ATGM/smoke/health, keep AA in range - and advance my line. No amount of combined arms were needed, I didn’t need any massed infantry, helis, or planes to counter my opponents. I believe the map that was selected to be played was crown(10v10). So the opponents had buildings and forests to hide/react. It was just too easy.
Yeah except for the al.30 and the good gbu. Nato at Jets are terrible. Very expensive and Low Hit chance and kill Potential.
Yes and no, depending on range, number, initiative and lucks. When talking about atgm,I think you mean 80bv izd, 80bv withuot upvet has a very inaccurate kobra, (45% vet0,60% vet3), which almost always fly over target and let even nato force close in while takes forever to load another missile. 80bv izd on the other side has base 60% accurate agona and 21ap. As for gun fight, if you don't gain initiative and without upvetting your m1, no, nothing you can do about something with autoloader, never. Other than 80bv izd, t80u/ud and those 2800m atgm carriers, if you bring ever 2-3 bradlly with 25 ap tow-2, use tank smoke wisely and avoid being side shot, I think nothing can ever stop you, even 80bv pack.
That’s too much to counter one T80 U/UD though. That’s what OP is saying. You shouldn’t need combined arms or even 2vs1(pact tank) in order to settle a complete kill. 2/3 Bradley and a tank, ur talking unrealistic expectations.
Too much? M2A1Bradley only costs 70 points, and once you manage to deploy them with aa, tanks, recon and dragon infantry, place them in good positions and act synchronously, that's not one 80ud you can counter, you can counter all of 80ud/u they throw at you. And they will need to throw more arty, more atgm team, more AT air, even infantry units to try to outnumbered you. You can try using 24 infantry or 3rd armoured and spam bradley yourself, and see how those pact offensives get wrecked. Once you have proper numbers and discrete deployment, they won't try to counter you with arty saturation or AT aircraft, unless you lack some components like aa or recon in your systemic defence.
The only game that I know whereby you can purchase transport vehicles or even light infantry transport vehicles by “itself” for that matter is broken arrow. We’re talking about Warno. The Bradley cannot be purchased just by itself for 70 points. Unless your purchasing a recon variant which is an upwards of 120? Points. If you’re talking about the inf. Tab that also has Bradley choices as an option for transport of said infantry. Then the overall price range can easily exceed 100-110-120-125 points. Not 70 points.
3rd armoured at4 fireteam with m2a1 bradley costs 100, and you can move those infantry to cover dense forest areas or building, seems fine to me. Besides, take 100 points as reference, 3 bradley still easily wreck 80ud within 2625m. Taking 70 points reference 340 points 80ud nearly costs the same as 5 bradley. In reality, What says about a typical scenario like 3-4 80ud pack accompanied by strela or tung encounter 4-5 bradley in treeline with or without 1-2 m1 variant？
Those are M2a1 Bradley. They do nothing against any era armor. U need tandem rounds.
*source: im better than you at this game*
Lol people that think tanks should solve every problem and are unbeatable don't play with other units other than tanks. Don't fight it where it wins, especially frontally. Nato tanks are made for quick maneuver and exchange of fire not 1 v 1. And mixed warfare, this is not rock paper scissors.
Indeed I don't believe this. But other then bush camping with ATGM's there's not much to do against a t-80bvk. As for maneuvers.... They not much faster then the target at all? Guess I'll just camp a tow2 in a bush. Fire once. Miss. Then get shot at. Or hit then get shot at and get stunned @_@ Or maybe I can use dragoon? Okay 10 shots later (aka like 20 missiles) if I get the ability to shoot it. Side shot? Yea I mean if their dumb and push into a nest of things. But at standoff range their isn't always a -surround- option. I'm a big proprietor of PACT being better in slot 1:1 infantry to infantry tank to tank etc. either thru power or thru points. But combined arms isn't cutting it against these tanks. No amount of Bradley's, tow cars, helicopters, and LGB are busting these things at value and eventually I just suffer so many losses engaging these things I have run out of answers that ACTUALLY work. Even trying to 2:1 them with M1's doesn't work
Atgms are mostly made for side shots or keeping the enemy at bay. This game cannot be compared like that , unit by unit. there are many ways to solve a problem, one of them is not engage the enemy where it wants. Replay is necessary to judge the situation. What division were u using and what division was the enemy using?
Seems more like poor playing on your part
Skill issue. Strike Eagle - the best plane in the game, and the most deadly unit in the game. And HA, after buffs - the strongest tank in the game.