QB units values

[Placebo]

Well after getting more into Black Sea over the last couple of weeks I am really enjoyed the game.  However one thing that has become more and more obvious to me is the US technology is far superior to the Russians, and just how poor the Russian AT weapons are against the US.

 

I am not going to debate the accuracy of this as I am sure there are 101 argument for changes but as the 2 forces have never gone head to head in a real conflict we have no real world data to compare with (luckily)!!

 

However given that in CMBS the US are fighting on the Russian's doorstep is it fair to say that whatever size taskforce is sent to the region it could become overstretched but he size of the Russian forces present?

 

As a result of this the cost and rarity values could be higher for the US (as in Normandy where the superior german armour is priced a lot higher).

 

I think this would level the playing field slightly for QB.

Edited June 25, 2015 by Placebo

[Kieme(ITA)]

But what rarity would you increase? At the moment US Army only has 1 type of MBT and 1 type o IFV (the APS versions already has higher rarity costs). Increasing rarity on these vehicle would limit any force composition to infantry and very few vehicles (you couldn't be able to field a company).

[Placebo]

Agreed I think it has to be unit costs, to balance things out more.

[Sublime]

i find russian at weapons to be excellent. the US has obvioisly the best two at counters in the game - the javelin and abrams. But the AT-14 and AT13 have both killed numerous abrams for me. And the Khrizanthema is murderously deadly once you learn how to properly use one.

[Placebo]

From what i have seen a typical defence of an AT-14 and an Khrizanthema vs any US bradley or abrams goes:

 

US spots AT-14 and fires before the AT has aquired target - AT-14 destroyed

Khrizanthema spots US vehicle fires 2 warheads

US returns fire destroying target

1 incoming missile misses target, 2nd hits but is defeated APS or ERS defence

 

I am not saying they are invinsible but the combination of better spotting and the lack of accuracy of the ATGM means it is generally a very one sided fight.

Edited June 25, 2015 by Placebo

[Kieme(ITA)]

Well, it's a big of an exageration.

 

AT-14

- use buildings, they offer more cover and concealment.

- do not expose the AT-14 directly, let some other associated unit spot for him first

- try to place AT-14 at distance (more than 1000m from the targets) and in a flanking position (not directly ahead), alternatively, use it at the closest possible functional distance, but be sure to set up ambushes.

 

 

Khrizantema

- use good crew (Crack +)

- keep at distance (1000m +)

- use hull down as much as possible

- use smoke cover from other vehicles to protect it while it can shoot through using radar, or force the M1 to pop out smoke and then expose the Khriza.

 

US vehicles rarely use APS (due to the extreme costs in rarity) and ERA shouldn't be much of a problem against the 150mm warhead.

Edited June 25, 2015 by Kieme(ITA)

[Apocal]

As a result of this the cost and rarity values could be higher for the US (as in Normandy where the superior german armour is priced a lot higher).

 

I think this would level the playing field slightly for QB.

 

High-end German armor gets hit with increased rarity in CMBN because it was legitimately uncommon overall. The majority of the German force mix was something like StuGs and Mk IVs. If ninety percent of their armor had been Panthers and Tigers, they would get the common modifier and no rarity costs. That's effectively the situation with the US Army in 2017 CMBS.

 

That being said, baseline price is already higher (much higher) for US forces.

[Kieme(ITA)]

I agree, seems to me the US prices are fair. If nothing, I'd lower even more the prices of some outdated russian and ukrainian equipment, such as the T-64BV, hell, even the T-72BM3, while being a very good Platform, is still a bit expensive in my opinion.

Right now a "plain" M1 costs 579 points (regular/normal motivation etc.), a Bradley 299.

 

A T-90AM 458, a T-90A 424, 380 for the T-72BM3, 262 for a BMP-3M.

 

There's still too little difference between the T-90AM and the A, given the fact that there's a Whole lots of difference in terms of armor protection (all around) and spotting ability.

 

The UA T-64BV costs 293.

 

4 M1 will cost 2316 points, with those you can have 6 T-72BM3. I'd be happier with 8... 

4 T-72BM3 will cost 1520 points, enough for 5 T-64BV, even worse, too close in my opinion, given how different the two assets are (difference in armor, weaponry, fire control). I'd expect at least 6 T-64BVs for 4 T-72BM3, if not even 8, just like a personally ideal M1 - T-72 ratio.

Edited June 25, 2015 by Kieme(ITA)

[Stagler]

 I'd expect at least 6 T-64BVs for 4 T-72BM3, if not even 8, just like a personally ideal M1 - T-72 ratio.

 

Agreed.

 

AT-14 can kill abrams, but APS is still pretty common.

 

Air assets are the best things the Russians can bring to the table to level the threat. US Air assets are very expensive, whereas Hinds are not and do just as good a job as the US has very little AA capability, and most players will not choose to bring stinger teams.

[Kieme(ITA)]

Yes it's a gamble with air assets, although the risk against US is less than against russians or ukrainians.

Edited June 25, 2015 by Kieme(ITA)

[exsonic01]

 

Well, it's a big of an exageration.

 

AT-14

- use buildings, they offer more cover and concealment.

- do not expose the AT-14 directly, let some other associated unit spot for him first

- try to place AT-14 at distance (more than 1000m from the targets) and in a flanking position (not directly ahead), alternatively, use it at the closest possible functional distance, but be sure to set up ambushes.

 

 

Khrizantema

- use good crew (Crack +)

- keep at distance (1000m +)

- use hull down as much as possible

- use smoke cover from other vehicles to protect it while it can shoot through using radar, or force the M1 to pop out smoke and then expose the Khriza.

 

US vehicles rarely use APS (due to the extreme costs in rarity) and ERA shouldn't be much of a problem against the 150mm warhead.

 

Good point Kieme, but the problem is, not all the maps are ideal for those conditions. Some maps have only a few "so obvious" possible ambush positions or houses, that any American player could easily predict and use forced-attack or "flattening by arty" tactic. Or, some other maps are so open, that all the AT-14 ambush attempts easily fail, no matter how much tries. AT-14 ambush become only feasible (against Abrams) under very, very specific conditions.  Or, you need to put a lot (I mean, really a lot) of AT-14 teams, but if the US player is smart enough with good recon, then it can be easily countered by arty shells. 

 

About Khriz, abrams users can also increase their crew experience as crack+, and they will also find Khriz more faster. Only possible way is just hide & hull down Khriz, but after 2~3 turns, (or 1 turn, depends on how "well" the hull down position is, and placing vehicles in "good" hull down position is very difficult) crack Abrams will eventually find the Khriz.  Also, from the moment when the wind strength is medium+, IR blocking smokes will just scatter away in 30~60 sec, easily exposing vehicles within a single turn. I already tested, and it seems that "forced-smoke" tactic is only possible when the wind is calm, which gives 2~3 turn of smoke barrier. But depends on the map, still 1 turn of smoke barrier might enough, but it is really situational. 

 

I also almost always use crack Abrams, and they are in the level of  'eagle eye'. So far, my crack Abrams detected almost of flanking attempts quite nicely. I can't imagine how strong the elite Abrams would be. 

Edited June 25, 2015 by exsonic01

[Kieme(ITA)]

Well, there are also other assets that can be used. For example, precision artillery.

 

If enemy abrams are used to cover certain key positions they will also be static enough to get hit by precision arty; if they keep moving a lot they will most likely expose their flanks.

 

Regarding the Khriza, never try to use it in a direct attack. Make sure the enemy Abrams are kept busy (blow up) by other units (ATGMs, tanks, infantry) then move the Khriza to contact.

 

If the map doesn't allow manouvering on your side, try to hide behind Hills, force the enemy to expose. Don't give targets, nobody forces you to make contact in the first half of the battle, you can also adopt a passive behaviour, although be careful, that might cause you to lose too much ground.

In the end, the map is essential. If you happen to land on a full urban scenario the Arty wouldn't even be much of a use, and even a single RPG could destroy any Abrams by shooting from upper floors.

Edited June 25, 2015 by Kieme(ITA)

[Sublime]

kieme is right. id like to add if you only use only crack abrams thats a kinda warped view you.re getting. abrams crews should be small.amt reg mostly vet some crack. and one in hundreds elite. the game is 2017, any US tankers likely to have seen combat are now probably not in combat positions.

At14, At13, Khriz and T90s in ambush positions or at least hopefully not moving when contact is made. also i use at least 3 tank teams per abrams and thats very effective at getting a kill. your infantry can and will kill enemy ifvs and abrams if they gst close enough, theyll also take terrible losses due to US thermals. however su25s on light attack missions use cannons to scour enemt optics or even desteoy abrams gun. battalion tactical groups come with two modules of 3 152mm cannons. those basically can give you 20 minutes of constant fire. this will decimate US infantry and also immobilize US armor and damage subsystems.

so your using your arty to shell em. the planes are strafing em. you got At 14s in ambush positions. khriz in keyhole ambush positions at long range. tunguskas i wouldnt send looking for fights however can and will winagainst an abeam one on one. the abeams wont be destroted but basically every subsystem shredded and the crew so overwhelmed it wont fire and end up backinh off. that abrams is eitjer a mission kill or am easy kill for your at assets. you should also have your tanks placed in positions where they caneither A.ambush the enemy or B rush out full speed and with covered arcs in use and hunt when enemy contact is very likely to engage abrams passing near from flank or rear.

yes sometimes this is impossible or sometimes the map makes it not possible. thats life and the nature of war. the biggest thing of all isnt having armatas in game or changing qb points its everyone always wants the US side it seems. the Ukrainians are terribly underplayed and i seem to be the only pbem player who offers to be Russians consistently. and ive noticed a drastic improvement in my ability to fight US forces as time passes

Edited June 25, 2015 by Sublime

[exsonic01]

I dunno guyz. So far, blufor players were no fool, and they have Bradley and Javelin team as well, and their detection ability is also good. And they can use UAV + arty or UAV + "flattening arty dump" combo, and most of decent players didn't forget to move their vehicles every 2~3 turns to prevent precision rounds. Maybe the map was too open and US favorite.... and I admit my use of fire support and unit control was very poor. 

 

All of those are very map dependent. However, IMO, it seems that the blufor players is likely to (not always but good chance) recover from their mistakes. On the other hand, for redfor, one single mistake in front of Bradley, Abrams, or Javelin is a death sentence. Against good, patient, and decent player, there would be not much things that same level of redfor player can do. There are too much things to consider and take care for redfor than blufor. 

 

Or maybe I'm so bad at this game, which might be more true. I think I need to practice more redfor. 

 

About crack Abrams, it is just QB and I don't think that we need to take care of real world 2017 situation. If you use your points like 3 tanks per one Abrams, your other assets will suffer from lack of number, and force balance will be bad.  I also tried airplanes or choppers, but 3~4 Stinger team was enough to clear up the sky, though I used 3~4 air assets. Stingers were damn accurate. And too much airplane + arty will bring less troops on the field for redfor, so it become ugly as well, since smart US players will find out that redfor doesn't have enough land masses, and he will rush forward.

 

Maybe I need to find some different ways to break Abrams lines.... 

[Stagler]

I dunno guyz. So far, blufor players were no fool, and they have Bradley and Javelin team as well, and their detection ability is also good. And they can use UAV + arty or UAV + "flattening arty dump" combo, and most of decent players didn't forget to move their vehicles every 2~3 turns to prevent precision rounds. Maybe the map was too open and US favorite.... and I admit my use of fire support and unit control was very poor. 

 

All of those are very map dependent. However, IMO, it seems that the blufor players is likely to (not always but good chance) recover from their mistakes. On the other hand, for redfor, one single mistake in front of Bradley, Abrams, or Javelin is a death sentence. Against good, patient, and decent player, there would be not much things that same level of redfor player can do. There are too much things to consider and take care for redfor than blufor. 

 

Or maybe I'm so bad at this game, which might be more true. I think I need to practice more redfor. 

 

About crack Abrams, it is just QB and I don't think that we need to take care of real world 2017 situation. If you use your points like 3 tanks per one Abrams, your other assets will suffer from lack of number, and force balance will be bad.  I also tried airplanes or choppers, but 3~4 Stinger team was enough to clear up the sky, though I used 3~4 air assets. Stingers were damn accurate. And too much airplane + arty will bring less troops on the field for redfor, so it become ugly as well, since smart US players will find out that redfor doesn't have enough land masses, and he will rush forward.

 

Maybe I need to find some different ways to break Abrams lines.... 

 

That's a very fair point. Playing US is like playing easy mode. I think its the discrepancy between target acquisition that is the most telling. Who spots first wins,

[Kieme(ITA)]

Not sure the US use much UAVs... you'd better always pick a tunguska with your Rus forces, the only UAV capable of evading AAA fire is extremely expensive (rarity) and the others are vulnerable to ground fire. As regarding artillery make sure your units are in as much cover as possible (Always use the terrain shape as major cover against artillery -when there are no buildings available-, sometimes a little ridge can save your troops from very close explosions).

[Stagler]

The grayhawk also mega expensive points wise.

[Sublime]

i think as time passes and people get more experience playinh a TOTALLY NEW CMx2 army then people will get better with red force

[exsonic01]

Time will tell. Until then, I think I need to do more redfor Uraaaaaa

[Placebo]

^{Interesting comments Kieme, all of my battles to date have been on small or wooded maps, I will run a few tests in open long range combat and see if that changes their effectiveness.}

[Sublime]

Id disagree with the comment Khriz fires, first missile misses second is hit by APS. Everyone knows about  my APS house rule and one of my oppos screwed up and one single Bradley had APS. The Khriz salvo fired and one missile got through the APS... mind the first missile crashed into a tree it wasnt intercepted either. APS isnt fool proof though I still dont like it in my games.

And I havent had trouble with my AT14s. I get kills with them. I use AT 13s too frequently. The trick attack or defense with Russians is you have to get the balance exactly right.  Arty right, airpower right (if any) tank use correct, combined with your AT assets.  And to realistically take on Abrams especially in big maps you gotta buy defensive weapons with offensive.   The defensive Khriz or AT 14s provide overwatch and stop the enemy tanks from moving along interior lines of communication where possible, whilst your Russian tanks close in.

Edited June 27, 2015 by Sublime

[Nidan1]

Trying to make QBs against human opponents as fair as possible and still allow for the game to be fun is a tricky balancing act. Selecting nothing but crack Abrams crews might be fun for the US player, but watching one AFV after another blasted into so much junk would not be fun for the Russian player. US superiority in spotting and target acquisition is nearly as effective with regular Abrams crews. Picking US crews that are not top in their class at gunnery school is more in keeping with what you would see on the real battlefield.

 

 IMO its the map that creates most opportunities for parity for the Russian player. Using the map wisely along with the some of the other tactics mentioned here by other posters can certainly give the Russian force a fighting chance against a US combined arms unit. Map selection in a QB is very important IMO, you must recognize what the map is giving you before force selection. Agreeing to a basic force structure with your opponent gives you some limits that can help making unit selection easier, and avoiding the impulse to buy nothing but uber equipment.

 

Pure game experience is another factor, the more you play, the more you learn, the more you learn the better you get. Well it should work that way.

Edited June 27, 2015 by Nidan1

[Sublime]

exactly. like i said i think in a year you.ll see less posts by people here now who still post complaining about game inequality. its practice practice practice.

Id agree with another poster a tunguska is a must for any russian or ukrainian player its so close in price theres no reason for a strela and a tunguska will do a number on any US armor if it gets the drop. prolly ko brads and abrams will lose almost all subsystems maybe gun kill and crew will be so overwhelmed it wont fire back. of course any other american tanks or equipment nearby will ruin this party but... hey its rlly helped me before.

[exsonic01]

Don't you think the fact itself that "redfor needs far more practice to become same level with blufor" is meaning of inequality? You must admit, that the playing blufor is very-easy-mode. 

 

I dunno how much you are good in CMBS, but if there are tournaments, my 5cents for winner will be blufor. I never saw any decent & patient blufor player committed suicide like you mentioned. 

 

Back to original topic, I agree with the posts that the redfor tank and IFV prices should be readjusted. 

Edited June 27, 2015 by exsonic01

[Nidan1]

Don't you think the fact itself that "redfor needs far more practice to become same level with blufor" is meaning of inequality? You must admit, that the playing blufor is very-easy-mode. 

 

I dunno how much you are good in CMBS, but if there are tournaments, my 5cents for winner will be blufor. I never saw any decent & patient blufor player committed suicide like you mentioned. 

 

Back to original topic, I agree with the posts that the redfor tank and IFV prices should be readjusted. 

What you say is true if you purchase all crack US crews and teams in a QB and play on a 5000mx 5000m pool table, and then let the TAC AI make all of your decisions. Playing the Redfor side requires more flexibility and innovation because of the disparity in technology. A 125mm gun on a Russian tank will put a hole in an Abrams if you hit it in the right spot. AT-14s will do the same. There is a nice selection of UKR and Russian systems, using them correctly is the hard part.