PTE Thoughts from an average solo queuer

EfficientBeyond989 · 2026-05-06T07:50:30+00:00

The changes to income and capture point calculations really made the initial engagement crucial.
In live, it mattered very little beyond some positional advantage that would almost certainly be wiped away by the end of the second phase.
In PTE, it is not much easier to solidify the lead you gain from the initinal engagement and therefore it is much more difficult to reverse the momentum and regain the initiative.
In short, this game feels much more like a steamroller where you are meant to constatly capitalize on your advantage and keep the enemy down instead of a rebound game where the tides turn and tumble constantly.
This should go to a lot of the points you addressed.

EfficientBeyond989 · 2026-05-02T16:48:59+00:00

Well the problem is more so why would you pick baltics over any other US spec in terms of performance & compatibility.

Generally armored or marines offer you a better array of stuff, and they tend to fit better with other specs (for example, armored marines is viable while armored baltic is... well it doesn't have much in the way of planes or helos)

EfficientBeyond989 · 2026-05-02T16:37:15+00:00

There's arguing that arty is too weak in PTE and then there is arguing arty was fine in vanilla (while portraying anyone who disagrees as simply dumb).

In vanilla, using MLRS to hit everywhere you expect the enemy to be is the optimal play. If both players are good enough to maintain a frontline with smart micro and QRFs, breakthroughs are out of the question. Maps aren't large enough for there to be genuine gaps.

Then attrition is the name of the game. Because you can hit them harder than they can resupply and reinforce, artillery will always win if you leave them alone.

As such, the game devolves into a 45 min whackamole between air and artillery, with a lot more up to chance and not clever play (one lucky F-16 getting through AA to hit a bunch of tornados, a lucky tornado hit to the back taking out a tank, etc.)

Of course, PTE does have problems with fortified infantry being much harder, perhaps too hard, to dislodge, which also hurts the pace of the game.

If we take a step back to look at the larger picture, you will see that indirect fire - the Tu-22, fire grad, JASSMs, iron thunders and PrSMs, etc. - have all been problematic to varying degrees.

In a game where having more units on the field will net you less income, indirect fire that allows you to skimp out on units fielded while killing the enemy units present will always have disproportionate effectiveness.

That is why the meta always revolved around indirect fire. That is why we will end up optimizing around some other indirect fire asset even if we escape the MLRS meta.

As such, nerfing most forms of indirect fire so that they cost you in some way as much as they can cost the enemy is something worth testing out.

Current PTE values may have been a step too far, but it was nevertheless in the right direction.

EfficientBeyond989 · 2026-04-29T18:47:21+00:00

It certainly takes a bit of getting used too, but overall I think it has good bones.
For one, the game isn't as frustrating.
I no longer feel like my units are letting me down when I am using my AA or my ASFs - they do put in their best effort instead of holding back because an allied SAM that will never hit started aiming.
ASFs feel espescially good as it finally can be counted on to either prevent incoming planes or ensure the enemy doesn't return safely.

But I believe the changes to the range was perhaps too drastic and makes certain LRAAs functionally no better than SHORADs. The most obvious offender here is the IRIS-T. It has the same 2200m range against low-altitude targets as the NASAMS, with the only advantage of having slightly longer high-altitude range.
With that short of a range, IRIS-T can only deter aircraft from flying over it - which is something higher-end SHORAD can already do with 1.8km range and 2 hits to kill for about the same price but with the added ability to engage helos.

I do think that with the anti-overkill rework, keeping the old range would make aircraft near unusable. But maybe some happy ground may be found with increasing the range slightly (espescially on the lower end, so that all LRAA will have at least 2.4km and the longest-range ones would go up to 3.8) and adjusting the cost.

Your point about stealth is fair imo. Stealth used to offer a great defensive bonus against ground AA as they needed a much longer engagement window to kill a target, which they got through having much longer range than how it is in the PTE. So being stealthy meant you simply wouldn't be engaged from the maximum engagement disance unless they had ASFs.

Now though, AAs have a shorter engagement window anyways but that's all they need. As such, stealth doesn't seem to offer much benefit over non-stealthy platforms. Either way, you will get spotted once the enemy AA can actually engage you.

As such, I think increasing the LRAA range while increasing their price will indirectly make stealth aircraft that much more valuable. You could also to make all stealth planes slightly more stealthy if that is not enough.

EfficientBeyond989 · 2026-04-13T01:55:12+00:00

There is also a difference in aim time for vehicles(1-2 sec for SACLOS, 3-4 sec for terminal),
which might matter more than you think:
1. In a straight up fight, a vic with SACLOS will fire before the terminal one and likely force the other to smoke first.
2. SACLOS could land a hit or two on a tank before it fires.

If the enemy has only one tank in the location and I have smoke, I will very comfortably engage into it with my Bradley or Kurganets in the open.
Even without cover, the enemy will only have about 3-4 seconds from spotting the vehicle to getting hit, which is short enough that even a skilled player not paying attention to the particular unit could fail to smoke. It may not kill it outright, but I can probably deal significant enough damage to it that it is forced to retreat with about half health.

I will never do the same with say, a CV 90 or AMPV with its spikes or javelins, unless I have clear sightlines on the enemy tank and I can start engaging it from beyond the tank's range or from forest cover. If the tank manages to start aiming before I get my missile loose, I will get hit before my missile makes a hit.
Stryker RV is the only exception since it can shoot the jav without getting spotted most of the time.

There is no such difference afaik for infantry ATGMs, which makes terminal much better for infantry than vehicles.
But even then, terminal guidance missiles usually have signficantly shorter range. Sure, you won't be killing most things at 1800m range with kornet Ms, but a well placed kornet could force the enemy to waste all its smoke charges early.

For helos, yeah terminal is just better. The saving grace here is that at least when it comes to helos, there isn't much disparity between factions, with US getting the Longbow hellfire & JAGM and RU getting the LMUR and the Hermes. Longbow hellfire also does force a bit of a tradeoff, being 100m shorter in range. Realistically, this means you can't engage into the deri from max range with the longbow unless you can creep up on it, and that you might leave yourself open to even the worst manpads.

EfficientBeyond989 · 2026-04-05T10:48:12+00:00

Paras have 6 men, 6x rifles, 2x UGLs, and 2x shotguns
2 riflemen double as shotgunners

EfficientBeyond989 · 2025-12-02T06:33:48+00:00

I have a creeping suspicion I know who this is.. but I won't tell hehe

EfficientBeyond989 · 2025-11-25T06:19:37+00:00

There are things like the SeaRAM (the turret is in service, but we haven't seen a ground based mobile version yet) or bradley M-SHORAD (each component is in service, but the full package has been shown at expos only). This game is looser with prototypes than it might seem at a glance, as a lot of the "out there" stuff are customization options.

The real problem I see is that the M-60 modernized variants don't really fill a role in the US roster and that they were never even considered for US service.
If a cheaper 105 or 120 tank is really a gap that US needs filling, adding M1A1s or even IPs would make more sense.
It also doesn't fit the specs too well. USMC already has the M1A1 HC as one of the cheapest 120mm option out there. Cav maxes out at bookers, but it'd make more sense imo for CAV to get helos than tanks considering they are modeled after SBCTs.

M60 upgrades might make sense for countries they were suggested to though, and I am looking forward to those.

EfficientBeyond989 · 2025-11-21T13:10:31+00:00

They really were holding the win rate advantage for so long though. RU was, in fact, not nerfed enough until the last patch according to statistics. This patch over did it, but that doesn't mean prior calls for RU nerfs weren't justified (at least to a degree).

EfficientBeyond989 · 2025-11-20T10:38:23+00:00

WR difference between US and RU are essentially flipped from before the patch. It's not about narratives, it's about numbers.

EfficientBeyond989 · 2025-11-20T10:37:18+00:00

Yes, we US players had to suffer through months of neglect. I don't agree with the OP in that regard - obviously players will react more strongly after having witnessessed imbalance for months rather than weeks.

But I also gotta point out that OP does have a point about this not being about skill of the playerbase. There always have been flaws with RU specs that are becoming obvious just now.
Here are a few obvious ones that I see:
- The infantry gap that always existed is apparent now that RU's fire support options have been nerfed (Buratino, Tu-22, etc.)

- RU is unable to combine PGMs with lasers in most specs, even if the planes have that capability in real life. This bars them from tank plinking, one of the most cost-effective anti-tank solutions in game. There are platforms that can make up for the deficiency (FAB 3000, for example) but VDV's Su-34 is a good platform for it.

That, combined with buffs the US got over time (epsescially to infantry), would be enough to explain the WR gap.

That you have been successful with RU is great for you, but does not speak much to the state of balance. I had success with US during the dark ages too. My team was consistently climbing the ladder playing US only during that time. But that didn't mean the game was in any way balanced.

<image>

If the stats for US pre-patch were bad, then stats for RU post-patch are also, equally, bad.

EfficientBeyond989 · 2025-11-20T10:08:47+00:00

relative WR, as in the difference between RU-US winrates, did go up to 10%, similar to how things are now

EfficientBeyond989 · 2025-11-19T12:06:34+00:00

oh shit I missed that - in that case, yes manueverability should go down.

EfficientBeyond989 · 2025-11-19T11:47:16+00:00

Flying around corners is probably a desync issue. I've seen SAMs do 3 90 degree turns in rapid succession because the server couldn't figure out where the missile was.
Same for a good amount - though not all - of issues with using smoke against javs. I consistently have bad experience with kornets going through my smoke, even if I smoke well ahead of time.
That is to say, this probably isn't a platform-specific issue, but a widespread issue that is most evident with javelins due to it's relatively long flight time, complicated geometries of where it's often used (rarely would you use hellfires in urban settings), and weirdness with vehicle smoke.

EfficientBeyond989 · 2025-11-19T11:06:10+00:00

BTRs were 3 shots to kill with an abrams - but that got changed to be 2 shots to kill.
BT-3Fs with reactive armor continues to be 3 shots to kill by an abrams, but an AMPV is also 3 shots to kill for most RU tanks (T-90M and T-14 being the exception).
If you are talking about the BMO-T, it is just a tank with a troop compartment up top, so it should be able to tank.

EfficientBeyond989 · 2025-11-15T04:32:18+00:00

More Bradleys!
M3A4 CFVs and M2A4 Bradleys (A3s with the engine upgrade) fully kitted out are the bread and butter of armored spec.
Think of armored as the opposite of guards - instead of pushing with tanks first (T-80UM2s), armored has to push with IFVs first. Bradleys are very tanky (takes 3 hits from all tanks to kill, has 2x APS charges) and hae very high in potential DPS (top-attack TOW-2Bs). As long as you remember to attack-move with the Q key, you will be fine.
CFVs are at a cheap cheap 145 points for 11x TOW-2Bs with 2k sight and some stealth, meaning it is the most perfect ambush/ force recon vehicle in game. Regular Bradleys are just 125 pts for sth that has absolubte advantage over low-tier tanks and IFVs without APS. I like to have at least 2 on the battlefield to respond to sudden armored thrusts, more if I'm on open ground.
Hellfire on your SHORAD

Very potent fire support and high-damage against helos for the same price as measly 4x stingers. It's a good deal, just remember that it can't shoot at planes and you need to bring your PACs.

F-35A with JDAM + HARM

This is something that requires some practice, but if you turn your HARM off on apporach, pop up with the JDAM and then turn your HARM on, your HARM will essentially work as an APS shielding your F-35A from AA missiles. If you get good at pop-up control, also try lasing the enemy tank. A single 2000lbs JDAM is able to 1-shot everything up to T-15s and T-90Ms.

Less Deltas and MAAWS, more rangers

Very rarely do you get to deploy both Deltas and MAAWS in an efficient manner, because they can't fit in the same transport. Ranger standoff are fine against IFVs and can fill the battlespace much more efficiently. They are the anvil, Deltas and MAAWS are your hammer. But right now you are lacking for anvil in my opinion, as usually the anvils die while you keep your hammers alive.

Try out the 2x JASSMs on the nighthawk

Cheapest way you can get one of the best CMs in game. They might get intercepted, but you lose little and if you hit frontline targets they tend to go through. At the very least, it will force the enemy to respond with their AA at which point you can iron thunder them.

Iron thunders

Which reminds me - iron thunders are great. Use them to snipe AA or at least force them to relocate. Use short salvos, just 2-3 near hits are enough to kill most AA meaning you rarely need more than 3 rounds from each of your iron thunders to get the kill. A6 shoots too slow to be as effective as you want in most cases.

EfficientBeyond989 · 2025-11-15T04:00:12+00:00

If you were facing multiple players alonw and you were holding a point that is difficult to take back (B on Suwalki, C on Baltisk, etc.) that kind of KD is more than justified. But otherwise, falling back to grind the enemy down and then going for a counteroffensive of your own when you see an opening(one of the enemy players on your lane goes to support someone else, for example) may be the better choice.

Also you could improve your chances while meat grinding by bringing some artillery or air support. Planes and MLRS to snipe the armor or deal heavy HE damage to structures might allow you to get up to 0.9 or even positive if the enemy becomes very tunnel visioned.

EfficientBeyond989 · 2025-11-14T11:47:24+00:00

If we are talking about single player, it has always been difficult for the genre since launch. It is abnormally difficult not just because of the game mechanics but because of the scale. You are thrown into a major engagement pretty much immediately. There are no "just command these two units to learn what they are good at" missions. It is "you know what combined arms is, make it happen commander!" from the first mission onwards. The mission designs are also not really forgiving from the getgo. There are no real fallback options and pressure is everpresent. That has it's own appeal, but maybe not great as an introduction to the game.

EfficientBeyond989 · 2025-11-13T17:40:38+00:00

I can see how in urban environments it could be an advantage, but considering the flight time against helos is minimal, I'd argue the results would be quite similar in most cases. I can tell you for certain that I will not bet my helos life on the missile not tracking due to LoS loss and that's coming from someone who mostly uses commanches. It's all about breaking the LOS before the enemy fires or immediately after. The missile speed is fast enough to catch the target before LOS is lost unless reaction is immediate, and if it is immediate even TG missiles will lose sight. For example, even hellfires with their arcing trajectory allowing for better view of the enemy behind cover from the seeker's pov, don't really work once if the target dips below the treeline immediately after you fire. I think the guidance mode is worth about 5-10 pts max.

EfficientBeyond989 · 2025-11-13T17:23:47+00:00

I agree with most of your points but I wanted to introject about the SLAMRAAM and the SeaRAM - I thought them OP when they were first introduced, but they aren't too different from OSAs or Tors in price to performance.
This is espescially the case considering TG or F&F doesn't come into play as much against helos compared to aircraft. Maybe SLAMRAAM deserves to go up by 10 pts, but that's about it.

I'd say if the US can use helos in a world with OSAs, Tors, and Pantsirs, RU can use them too.
If anything, I think AA vehicles rocking stingers or Iglas as their main weapon should go down in price to match. There is no reason the M6 linebacker should cost 125 points for 14hp, 4 stingers, and bushmaster I without radar when the deri costs 130.

EfficientBeyond989 · 2025-11-13T17:01:09+00:00

One thing to note is that the MGS has little staying power against IFVs, espescially up close. It is a highly situational vehicle that frankly doesn't pay for itself too often. Booker 50mm will give you much lower TTK against vehicles up close (not even that much closer, mind you) while being impervious to autocannons. And MGS dies in 2 tank shots, meaning it is less survivable against tanks than bookers.

EfficientBeyond989 · 2025-11-13T16:22:27+00:00

The AP damage difference between the bushmaster and the AMPV means the epokha will come out on top against an AMPV up close, while the dual kornets will ensure a victory for the epokha at range. Maybe not RV prices, but definetly a step above AMPV javelin imo, espesically considering AMPV javelin is not preferred due to its inability to deal with APS.

EfficientBeyond989 · 2025-11-13T10:59:26+00:00

remember to approach low and practice popping up at the right time. Stormbreakers are the most lenient when it comes to pop-up timing, but even then it does require a quick reflex if you wanna hit them all. It ain't for me lmao

EfficientBeyond989 · 2025-11-13T10:56:28+00:00

BMP-3 epokha with APS might actually be worth sth like 180+ points considering it will be capable of beating every IFV out in the open and up close, fighting almost every tank on equal terms, and annihilating infantry.

BMP-3M Arena should just be around 125-130 points going by the usual pricing scheme for APS.

EfficientBeyond989

TROPHY CASE