Difference between us army and russian army Squads

[Lacroix]

how would you describe the difference in quality, organisation ,idea,equipement ,morale etc (talking about game only,assumptions based on Real life might not be implemented in the game )

 

i am playing around with them and noticed some differences, but need your opinion/conclusions

 

is it balanced ? would you say US is OP in comparison (over powered)  to russian army at the current game build 1.1? (not including armor) or vice versa

Edited March 29, 2015 by Lacroix

[AttorneyAtWar]

OP?  No, the U.S. military is just overall better equipped than the Russian army, simple as that.

 

The phrase "OP" has no meaning in games/simulations like Combat Mission these unless there are abrams shooting jets out of the sky at 40,000 feet, than you can say we have an "OP" problem. The forces represented in CM are as close as the engine can make them to there actual counterparts.

[vincere]

US infantry's biggest advantage I've seen so far is communication, and quicker and more diversified ability to call in fire support. Much like RL since at least, Nam', possibly before if we include Ground-Air communication and support.

 

Biggest disadvantage- QB pure Infantry: points that will get you a US company + buys a Two, yes 2!!! Battalions of Russians. That just isn't pretty, especially in close terrain.

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

The communications is pretty killer, as it can be paired with very precision fires.  It also helps with spotting I think in that neighboring squads will alert each other better to targets.  Also a lot more high end optics.  If you're put either unit in a fog or other degraded spotting situations, the US squad will still be marginally effective, while the Russians can go pretty Helen Keller.  While Russian squads do not lack for the ability to fight at night, the passive type systems they use are not as effective at basic spotting, or as mentioned working at all in foggy/rainy conditions as the thermal type optics employed by the US.

 

These are really your decisive elements.  The ability to better spot targets, and engage them first is pretty much the definition of how to win any engagement (basically the first person to get a round broadly on target tends to win engagements more often by a level of several magnitudes).  The communications piece means that your idiot dismount squad can drop some serious artillery hurt in a pretty timely manner, and at the least feed your situation awareness piece pretty well.

 

In terms of weapons, I'd say the only real meaningful difference is the availability of the Javelin to US squads.  The small arms offer no meaningful difference outside of optics, same deal with grenade launchers (M-25 is not "bad" but it is not quite the infantry eraser it is against unarmored troops).  Light AT RPG type weapons are all equally marginally useful (Russians get more to shoot, but I have not seen many situations were I've slapped the desk and cursed the ability to feet another AT4/RPG into an APS system, or watched it just go "nope!" after striking armor, it's either a situation where it is enough to get the job done with 1-2 rockets, or not worth doing at all).  

 

Armor is also again, about the same, both survive and die from about the same sort of weapons. 

[vincere]

In terms of weapons, I'd say the only real meaningful difference is the availability of the Javelin to US squads.  The small arms offer no meaningful difference outside of optics, same deal with grenade launchers (M-25 is not "bad" but it is not quite the infantry eraser it is against unarmored troops).  Light AT RPG type weapons are all equally marginally useful (Russians get more to shoot, but I have not seen many situations were I've slapped the desk and cursed the ability to feet another AT4/RPG into an APS system, or watched it just go "nope!" after striking armor, it's either a situation where it is enough to get the job done with 1-2 rockets, or not worth doing at all).  

 

Armor is also again, about the same, both survive and die from about the same sort of weapons. 

 

I meant to add: If armour or IFVs are in the mix, US Javelin is an edge, but the Russian RPGs are numerous and deadly infantry team killers, even in green troops hands.

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

 

 

I meant to add: If armour or IFVs are in the mix, US Javelin is an edge, but the Russian RPGs are numerous and deadly infantry team killers, even in green troops hands.

 

From my experience they're not much better than the M-25 or M320 fire.  Like it's a bigger warhead, but the kill/wounding radius isn't vastly superior, and it's not going to bring down a building.  Also requires getting close enough to reliably hit which can be dicey.  

[DreDay]

From my experience they're not much better than the M-25 or M320 fire.  Like it's a bigger warhead, but the kill/wounding radius isn't vastly superior, and it's not going to bring down a building.  Also requires getting close enough to reliably hit which can be dicey.  

 

Are you refering to regular HEAT RPG ammon (i.e. PG-7N, PG-7V, etc..) or dedicated anti-personnel grenades (i.e. OG-7). I have actually had a chance to observe a demonstration on OG-7s back in early 2000s and was quire impressed by their accuracy and their fragmentation damage radius; but yeah they certainly not going to bring any building down and should not be seen as any major force multipliers - just pretty useful anti-personnel projectiles...

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

I'm talking about in game.  I did not notice an exceptional level of lethality from RPG equipped squads over grenade launcher users, and in terms of fragmentation type weapons.  IRL OG-7 especially they're pretty darn good at exposed troops, but the same sort of cover that protects from small arms and smaller grenade launchers does just fine against them.  They're a lot like the M-25 in the sense that within their niche they're quite handy, but it's not something like the armor eraser Javelin, or semi-automatic rifle vs bolt action rifle units in the WW2 type games were it works well enough to be worth noting as an advantage.  

[Djiaux]

I would say that US squads are much more powerful than Russian squads, this is not balanced but this game is about realism, not balance, for a more balanced battle you will have to add more Russian troops. It is easy to have a very balanced battle.

 

Reasons for the US squad to be much more powerful:

 

- More soldiers on each squad. A Russian squad has 6 soldiers while a US one has 9 (am I right? I think it's nine, srry, I am playing RT lately).

- Better optics. US squads can see better over long distances and much better in the night, also having 9 soldiers you also have 3 more spotters in each squad.

- Javelins. A US squad has javelins this is HUGE, US soldiers can kill any vehicle from a concealed position with ease and over long distances.

- More firepower for each squad. Each squad has more soldiers -> more firepower but they also have the XM25 which adds a little extra.

 

- 'That little something' hehehe, sorry but they are indeed a little OP, in one recent mission one of my US squads entered a building (quick movement) and started going upstairs (again quick movement, no pause), they spotted a Russian squad on the top floor of a building across the street and started firing on them, the Russians were probably waiting to ambush my squad but they spotted them first while moving and started to fire on them. Well done boys, but I don't think this is reallistic, at such close range in plain daylight the Russian soldiers should have spotted me first.

This said, they are not very OP, I just think it needs a little ironing, real war is not balanced and having to make up for better squads with better positioning and better command makes this game great. Also in WW2 armies weren't also balanced for instance.

[vincere]

From my experience they're not much better than the M-25 or M320 fire.  Like it's a bigger warhead, but the kill/wounding radius isn't vastly superior, and it's not going to bring down a building.  Also requires getting close enough to reliably hit which can be dicey.  

 

Hmm going to have a think, and re-observe when I'm back playing with US. It could partially be observer bias of me noticing more when my squads take hits. That said, RPGs can be killers in buildings more so than the M320.  

 

Add- I know this is observer bias- but those Russian machine guns tend to sting too.

Edited March 29, 2015 by vincere

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

Of course my bias is I play more armor centric games so its possible there's just fewer infantry engagements for me to get a feel for the anti infantry RPGs.

[Codename Duchess]

I tend to agree with everything said here, with the exception of the RPG-7. I find it to be a huge advantage in CQB, and when it hits I always seem to lose 2 men. The Russians are also much more likely to use it (HEAT or Frag) against infantry than the US soldiers will with Javelin.

[Doug Williams]

Combat Mission, the Role Playing Game. I wanna play a tank class (specifically the Abrams).

 

Now we just need a healer, crowd control, and a couple of DPS. ;-)

[DreDay]

I'm talking about in game.  I did not notice an exceptional level of lethality from RPG equipped squads over grenade launcher users, and in terms of fragmentation type weapons.  IRL OG-7 especially they're pretty darn good at exposed troops, but the same sort of cover that protects from small arms and smaller grenade launchers does just fine against them.  They're a lot like the M-25 in the sense that within their niche they're quite handy, but it's not something like the armor eraser Javelin, or semi-automatic rifle vs bolt action rifle units in the WW2 type games were it works well enough to be worth noting as an advantage.  

 

Right, I get you what you mean now and I agree. OG-7 (and perhaps TBG-7 which I have not seen live) is a very useful round against the enemy personnel out in the open (the effective fragmentation radius during the demo that I saw seemed to be around 30-40 meters which is no joke at all); but it is definitely not some major force multiplier (a-la Javelin) either... I feel like the current version of the game somewhat nerfes the Russian anti-personnel infantry HWs (i.e. OG-7, RPO-Am) while buffing the American ones. I don't believe that this is due to any particular bias, but rather the lack of play testing. Hopefully the next patch would address this.

Edited March 29, 2015 by DreDay

[Apocal]

Of course my bias is I play more armor centric games so its possible there's just fewer infantry engagements for me to get a feel for the anti infantry RPGs.

 

Yeah, it is a bit more effective and noticeable than your post implies. When it actually hits, that is. The last time one managed to nail one of my squads (actually two teams in a medium-sized building) it wounded two guys sharing the window it smacked and a fragment DRT'd their squad leader one or two action spots away. That pretty much sent the immediate firefight's momentum over to the Russian side and I had to risk a Stryker to get the ball back in my court.

Edited March 29, 2015 by Apocal

[akd]

I feel like the current version of the game somewhat nerfes the Russian anti-personnel infantry HWs (i.e. OG-7, RPO-Am) while buffing the American ones. I don't believe that this is due to any particular bias, but rather the lack of play testing. Hopefully the next patch would address this.

Address what exactly? I'm not aware of any specific problem that was quantified.

[DreDay]

Address what exactly? I'm not aware of any specific problem that was quantified.

 

 

My personal CMBS testing has shown both RPOs and OG-7/TBG-7 to be quite underwhelming both in the open field and particularly in closed spaces where they should be quite deadly. I also find in-game RPG/RPO accuracy to be much lower than in real life (even when used by crack troops with no wind or other limitations). At the same time, I find US anti-personel infantry munitions (i.e. M25) to be much deadlier which would seem a bit questionable given their much smaller caliber. Those are just my personal observations, but I have heard others voice the same concearns here as well.

 

Again, I don't blame BattleFront devs for any kind of biass; but perhaps more play/balance testing can be done with those before the next patch comes out..

[Childress]

Again, I don't blame BattleFront devs for any kind of biass; but perhaps more play/balance testing can be done with those before the next patch comes out..

 

You can kind of expect that  BS would have teething issues. There are a lot of hypotheticals. It has to be the most intricate and detailed game that BF ever came out with.

[Stagler]

Prices are the only things that can be tweaked to allow for better balance per se. Russia is at a disadvantage of numbers mainly. They are three members down from a US section off the bat.

[DreDay]

You can kind of expect that  BS would have teething issues. There are a lot of hypotheticals. It has to be the most intricate and detailed game that BF ever came out with.

 

Oh for sure, that's why I do not want to make a big deal out of this... just something to look at when BF devs have the time and budget for it.

[Doug Williams]

Prices are the only things that can be tweaked to allow for better balance per se. Russia is at a disadvantage of numbers mainly. They are three members down from a US section off the bat.

 

You need to quit flappin your gums on the forums and send me the next turn in your ass whuppin. ;-)

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

 

 

Yeah, it is a bit more effective and noticeable than your post implies

 

Fair enough.  I still don't see it as dramatically better or changing the flow of battle often, it's simply a "different" capability like the M-25 or M110.  

[Vanir Ausf B]

My personal CMBS testing has shown both RPOs and OG-7/TBG-7 to be quite underwhelming both in the open field and particularly in closed spaces where they should be quite deadly.

 

Keep in mind that soldiers in Black Sea (at least US and Russian, I am not certain about Ukrainian) are more resilient than in other CM titles because of body armor.

I have tested RPO against US troops in buildings. Like with any other explosive ordinance, the building type has a large influence on results. Against heavier structures the rocket needs to penetrate into the interior to do much damage, which it only does occasionally. But when it does it will usually inflict 50%+ casualties.

 

I also find in-game RPG/RPO accuracy to be much lower than in real life (even when used by crack troops with no wind or other limitations).

 

A valid complaint, IMO, but it's not just RPGs or Russian equipment. I think unguided AT rockets and rifle grenades are too inaccurate in all CM titles. But BFC disagrees so it will probably not change.

 

At the same time, I find US anti-personel infantry munitions (i.e. M25) to be much deadlier which would seem a bit questionable given their much smaller caliber.

On a per-round basis I do not find the M25 to be particularly deadly. But it does have a high rate of fire and built-in laser range finder. In fact, get ready to hate the M25 even more because it will be more accurate after the next patch (right now it often takes half a dozen shots before it dials in the correct range, which should not be necessary with a LRF).

 

[vincere]

Keep in mind that soldiers in Black Sea (at least US and Russian, I am not certain about Ukrainian) are more resilient than in other CM titles because of body armor.

 

Yeah, I've noticed this, but more so with US rifle grenade than anything else.

 

Regarding points for QB and Russia having smaller squad sizes. I find the 2 to 2.5 to one in formations more than adequately, even over balance, that !

[DreDay]

Keep in mind that soldiers in Black Sea (at least US and Russian, I am not certain about Ukrainian) are more resilient than in other CM titles because of body armor.

You are correct, this should certainly be a factor when calculating the damage from lighter fragmentation munnions (i.e. AGLs and UBGLs), but RPO and other thermobaric charges operate on a different principle and body armor has no effect on their effectiveness…

I have tested RPO against US troops in buildings. Like with any other explosive ordinance, the building type has a large influence on results. Against heavier structures the rocket needs to penetrate into the interior to do much damage, which it only does occasionally. But when it does it will usually inflict 50%+ casualties.

Agreed. I have seen the same results in my testing as well. The problem though, is that a crack operator (with no outside pressure) should be able to get his RPO round into a window at 300-400 range… if not on a first try, then certainly on a second – and that is not something that I saw in my trials. Moreover RPO-M (used by the Russians in CMBS) has a tandem warhead with a HEAT precursor charge that is designed to penetrate light armor and most buildings – so accuracy (as in hitting the window or other opening) is much less of an issue with it.

A valid complaint, IMO, but it's not just RPGs or Russian equipment. I think unguided AT rockets and rifle grenades are too inaccurate in all CM titles. But BFC disagrees so it will probably not change.

No argument here. We are definitely on a same page when it comes to this.