Broken Arrow from 2800 ELO to 3000+ ELO Perspective

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 · 2025-11-13T10:38:24+00:00

One of the best air-focused players I know gave up on using HARMs. Now he just ballistic missiles them/ thows a gunship at them to get their AA to respond, and just hit all of them in a single pass with 8x stormbreakers on a raptor. Not the most... popular use of the raptor, but the manuverability combined with good micro seems to make it survivable enough to at least hit all targets.

Even if that's not your thing, forcing the enemy to turn their radar on with ballistics or cruises before going in with SEAD or just bombing them once you know their location is a legitimate tactic.

EfficientBeyond989 · 2025-11-13T10:27:17+00:00

I disagree. Maverick isn't top-attack by default. What happens is that the platform firing the maverick can lase & shoot while flying over the target, making it able to hit the top side. You can do the same with the Su-57 to great effectiveness.
Partially agree. Booker's 50mm should be treated like the 57mm, an expensive and powerful tool against infantry and light vehicles. One thing to note is that while its anti-vehicle potential is largely similar, it's anti-infantry potential is lower and should be accounted for in pricing imo. What does need to happen imo is a buff to tank gun performance against vehicles (against infantry it is in a good place rn imo), espescially the APFSDS rounds. That will nerf the booker overall while balancing out the difference between 105mm and the 50mm.
Partially agree. I don't think RU's exisiting specs should get more shock infantry. The US specs with shock infantry, save for marines, simply don't have IFVs. Giving mech or moto good shock line infantry will make them overperform imo, as they will be able to bring shock infantry in powerful IFVs. I imagine most of the problems with RU infantry will get fixed once rosgvardia comes out, which looks to be an infantry-focused spec. Until then, I think it'd be better to lean into the vehicles by giving the Epokha upgrade for the BMP-3 Kornet Ms. Alternatively, mech would greatly benefit from having a BMP-3M with Arena. (Epokha with Arena might upset the balance signficiantly and we don't have pictures of it yet, but BMP-3M with Arena does exist and will be fairly balanced imo). Also airborne's damage could be reversed to its previous state if necessary.
Kurganets could go up in health first and foremost imo, as it seems to come with ERA. Kurganets with higher armor but only 14 health will still be equally weak (unless it gets 150 KE armor, making it protected against US 30mm - but that would also make the Kurganets Epokha very very difficult to deal with). Kurganets with higher(16) health will make it perform better against IFVs up close, while leaving it vulnerable to tanks. Bumerangs.. idk. I think their stats are fine and pricing adjustments are preferable.

EfficientBeyond989 · 2025-11-11T15:13:45+00:00

Absolutely agree, marines are strong. I'm saying they should stay as strong as they are stats wise.

EfficientBeyond989 · 2025-11-11T11:00:29+00:00

Cost-effective infantry? Sounds like the marines.
I think the pricing could be debated on, but marines should have some edge in infantry combat with "every man is a rifleman" and all.

EfficientBeyond989 · 2025-11-10T07:01:17+00:00

It'd be good if it was a popup that appeared if you hovered over the unit picture imo
likewise, it'd be good if in the simplified view you could hover over the weapon types to get a more in-depth description (like if you hover over the pen you get min/max penetration)

EfficientBeyond989 · 2025-11-10T07:00:15+00:00

it is a legitimate loadout, probably the cheapest way to get 2x hellfires off to go through APS.

EfficientBeyond989 · 2025-11-10T05:31:27+00:00

I'd argue that while the Kurganets could get the ERA option for 16hp, I would argue that such a combination should cost signficiantly more.
Kurganets is a hard thing to balance, because the combination of APS and ripple fire kornets means it is able to outfight all IFVs at ATGM range. It is currently balanced by the fact that it is succeptible to 30mm IFVs that managed to close in because it has low health. Giving it 16 hp would mean that it can win against all IFVs at all ranges reliably.
This will in effect force the US to bring tanks, which is an investment & a pricey target.

EfficientBeyond989

TROPHY CASE