So there is a difference in the tempo of the game compared to ALB and this takes some getting used to. Overall I feel that the improvements made to the franchise improve playability and help move things along. There has been some issue of balance, and this seems a constant concern but having played PACT forces for a while now I feel that balance is maintained throughout RD.
Initially I had thought that there was much lacking, as my first multiplayer games as a Red China armor deck gave me a thorough thrashing. However, one has to remember that each country in a given deck is going to be different. Japan and SK for example have shit all for armor, and so any armor deck made from those countries is necessarily going to be inferior. The PRC armor options aren't great, and PRC players have to spend a lot more to get even decent tanks compared to the Soviet. So the issue of balance is preserved when one keeps in mind that the deck system takes into consideration the doctrinal and technological state of development of the respective countries.
I mostly play as PACT, and when I do I usually play as Soviet although Czech and E. German decks can certainly hold their own.
Some things to keep in mind, in no particular order.
If the map is large, then a motorized deck is probably called for, and very large maps Air mobile decks do very well. If the map is small, mechanized or armored decks work well, and support decks (which allow for more supply, CV, and artillery, AA assets) seem to fit any occasion.
Light Trucks:
Truck mounted infantry are mostly absent from the order of battle in the Soviet decks. This is in contrast to ALB where even an armor deck could get three slots of truck mounted Motor Rifles (motorstrelki). There is a sneaky work around though in that you can generally procure up to nine truck mounted Radzveka (Reconnaissance) troops, even as an armor deck. I especially liked using truck based units in ALB b/c they are cheap, fast, and the trucks themselves can be used to block axis of advance, etc. and are only worth one point when lost to enemy fire.
Artillery:
Artillery is much more useful and lethal in RD than in ALB. Most tanks were largely immune to artillery fires in ALB, and rocket artillery wasn't worth having at all except in the rare cases where it could be used to temporarily stun an advancing push or immobilize a built up area in preparation for attack. I am certain that the artillery battle in RD could take up a master's or doctorate thesis alone with all the details and nuances so I shall only make a few brief remarks.
Usually the Soviet deck (not support) need accommodate two support slots of 2S3 Akatsiya ( 7 x 2 = 14) which is more than enough guns. The guns need to be brought out slowly over the course of the game and positioned in such a way so as to be as dispersed as possible and well hidden. Counter Battery fires are the major threat, and NATO rocket artillery makes for extremely effective saturation fires which can quickly decimate your entire complement if the cannon are not well dispersed. The firing sequence for the guns is much improved to provide steadier and constant fire compared to ALB. When the artillery have been moved into position they should all begin firing at their selected areas. If the front is static then Pact's doctrine should be to bring up artillery and hammer the enemy. If the front is fluid, it would be better to reinforce your defenses with ground based units, however.
As a rule I prefer tube artillery because it is accurate and the ammo consumption is much slower than rocket artillery, however rocket artillery has it's place although usually in a motorized deck (i.e. some deck other than armor). Rocket artillery such as the Grad and Uragan makes for excellent counter battery fires. Their mobility allows them to get very close to the enemy and lowers the dispersion of their ordnance.
BTR-80A
A welcome addition to the Soviet Pact is the BTR-80A, an eight wheeled troop transport that mounts a 30mm gun in a turret instead of the 14.5mm gun. It comes in two flavors, one which hauls infantry and the other which is just a recon variant.
The BTR series of troop transport is overall an outstanding unit, combining good speed, decent armor (for a light vehicle), amphibious capability, and long range. The BTR-80A compliments this unit class by adding an accurate and powerful 30mm cannon. This weapon has a longer range than the 14.5mm, is more accurate, is better against troops, and also effective against low flying helicopters, etc. I have seen the vehicle perform well in quick draw situations.
Deployment doctrine (at least IMHO) is to use the BTR-80A to deliver troops (which in motorized decks can even include spetnaz although I prefer motorstrelki since you get 13 of the former vs 7 of the latter). Then once the troops have been delivered, the vehicle is set off in a position of defilade with a good firing angle. The combination of troops with RPG-7 and the 30mm cannon can in some cases be enough to destroy a NATO heavy. If helicopters are used the BTR-80A can respond with suppressive ground fire. In the event a position is being overrun the BTR-80A maintains a speed advantage which it can use to either retreat or attempt to flank and conduct reconnaissance.
Depending on the deck, I typically eschew the 80A recon variant if motorized b/c under such circumstances the vehicle becomes redundant. Redundancy is always a consideration that one should keep in mind when building a deck. I am sometimes torn for example when choosing to include a BMPT in a deck that already has BMP-3 infantry b/c the BMPT is just a heavily armored BMP-3 that carries no troops and cost 70 points, etc. The BMPT is useful for holding built up areas, but sometimes flame throwing T-55's work just as well at a fraction of the cost and in combination with BMP-3 delivered infantry are more effective combo for the price.
BTR-90
The BTR-90 is a welcome addition to RD as well, although one should note that it does not carry any troops at present. The BTR-90 is the ultimate eight wheeled fighting vehicle. Not only is it amphibious, but it also has better armor than the BTR-80 series, a 30mm cannon, and an improved Konkurs ATGM which is more accurate and lethal than the standard Konkurs. The BTR-90 as of this writing carries some 12 ATGM missiles, which is the same compliment as the Sturm launcher (which sadly seems hardly worth the 50 pts that latter vehicle costs as it's missiles are not as powerful nor as accurate). The BTR-90 replaces the Sturm launcher as it does everything the latter does only better. There is talk of adding a troop transport capacity in some future update, but that is probably just talk. In real life the BTR-90 mounts a coaxial 7.62 machine gun and a 30mm grenade launcher.
REVIEW:
Once again, let me review my over-all impression of the franchise and it's subtle genius. Focus Entertainment has done an excellent job with this RTS, bringing to life a playable and fun game which mirrors the "feel" of the different Cold War belligerents.
NATO: Is faster, tends to have better armor, tends to have more accurate weapon systems. Is more user-friendly. NATO players should strive for the Schwerpunkt, that is to say a rapid and decisive blow to the enemy.
NATO has slightly better air superiority fighters and dedicated attack helicopters depending on the country (US).
PACT: Is somewhat slower, units are typically more lightly armored but cheaper, often have an amphibious capability NATO lacks. PACT is more granular. PACT players should strive for elastic defense, that is to say position units in such a way so as to maximize the element of surprise and concentrated fires which will degrade the enemy.
PACT has more armor options than NATO and slightly better tanks depending on the deck (Soviet Armor).
DOCTRINE:
Typically, depending on the map and a number of other factors too numerous to mention here, the multi player games all start out with players filling their respective sectors with units and taking up defensive positions, then building up forces for an attack and probing the enemy with fires, recon, infantry infiltration and so on.
Tentatively I think the following holds true but keep in mind I am and will always remain a dedicated proponent of the armor school of warfare (which states that the key to victory in battle is the ability of tanks to break through and assault the enemy rear).
NATO should strive to concentrate a heavy armor position around some strategic element of the map with an eye towards out maneuvering PACT forces if the occasion arises, supported by smoke screens, attack helicopter, ground attack aircraft, and artillery fires. Schwerpunkt! NATO's heavies have better armor, typically, and out perform their PACT tank counterparts in quick draw encounters and maneuver fights.
PACT should strive to degrade NATO's advance by concentrating in built up areas, denying routes of advance, and assembling artillery to hammer NATO if the line's remain static. Elastic Defense! PACT tanks are slower than NATO counterparts and often have weaker armor. Some PACT tanks have the option of firing tube launched ATGM missiles which can negate NATO's range advantage in the scenario where PACT has an element of surprise, laying in wait as it were.
NATO armor decks really only have one option which is to use those slots for expensive and heavily armored tanks with highly effective guns and armor. PACT armor decks can range wildly from low quality high quantity configurations to high quality low availability configs. The emphasis on massed armored formations overwhelming higher quality but fewer opponents seems to have died somewhere between the first game and RD. There are simply too many ATGM type systems which populate the battlefield. Every tank, every gun, must be emplaced so to speak by the PACT player in order to maximize it's effectiveness. The scenario in which an overwhelming force of cheap tanks can successfully carry the day is simply too rare to even consider.
CHEAP PACT TANKS?
What to do with all those cheap PACT tanks if they aren't capable of the grand movement? First off, one should seriously consider using those precious slots for other weapon systems or higher quality tanks altogether. That said, some decks can benefit from the addition of cheap T-55, etc. As a *force multiplier* cheap tanks can provide an additional punch to troops in built up areas, i.e. building elements on a given map.
Combined with infantry in buildings they can often provide the one-two knockout punch to prevent a NATO heavy breakthrough. The cheap tanks provide an element of endurance and firepower that the troop transports lack such as the BTR, BMD, and BMP series. So I think they are worth considering. Also keep in mind that you often have the option of flame tanks (T-55, 62 respectively) which can be used for your vehicle slot. Flametanks are the great promise that never quite lives up to expectation in my experience, but when they do shine they are positively on fire! They are cheap, and for the slot and cost seem like a great value. They often mount a decent main gun with an AP rating that is, if not respectable then borderline "credible" and a flamethrower(!) which is fantastic on infantry. However they lack a machine gun which could ward off helicopters, and they require some micromanagement as their main gun has to be turned off before they will start spitting flames everywhere.
ASU-85
The ASU-85 is much improved from previous incarnations of the game. It is my favorite dirt cheap unit available to PACT forces (but not NK or PRC decks). A single slot in vehicle buys you 22 of the plucky little self propelled guns.
1. They have decent frontal armor for such a light vehicle, I think.
2. They have a more powerful AP rating than either the SU-100 or SU-122.
3. They have a heavy machine gun which is great for both infantry and low flying helicopters.
4. They have slightly better accuracy than an early model T-55.
5. Their speed and range are improved in RD.
6. They have a decent HE rating of 3 I think which is pretty good for such a cheap unit and plenty good for catching infantry exposed in the open.
7. Smaller (harder to detect) than the BMP series.
How do I use the ASU-85? I like to salt built up (read urban, buildings) areas with the ASU-85 after I have already got troops dismounted and occupying structures. The ASU-85 hides well in built up areas. It lays in wait. If the enemy tries to conduct a heliborne assault it can provide sustained ground fire. Infantry can often spot the advance of dismounted infantry which then allows the ASU-85 to creep out and open fire on said infantry thus complimenting both the range and the firepower of friendly infantry forces. Finally, the ASU-85 provides the two to the one-two knock out punch of infantry RPG fires on NATO heavies. At least it gets a shot off, and if it should become damaged during a NATO heavy rush that provides additional reload time for infantry to fire a second or third RPG salvo, often to devastating effect.
I like the ASU-85 as a force multiplier for infantry in built up areas better than other cheap tank candidates like the PT-76, etc. b/c it does roughly everything those other vehicles can do but cheaper. The lack of a turret is not a big demerit as it's main avenue of attack is from a prepared firing position anyways. Of course, like all light-skinned vehicles any top attack munitions will destroy them instantly, and they are very vulnerable to artillery fires in general. However, being that they are completely enclosed they have some resistance from napalm and will maneuver away from an area so affected. Also since they are completely enclosed they have resistance to small arms and light machine gun fire, but can return fire with their own machine guns so they tend to come out on top in a close range fight vs. open air wheel mounted recoil less guns.
Finally, since they are so cheap you can often salt an area with multiple units to cover different quadrants. They carry a lot of ammo for such a small weapon system so the unit type also has good endurance for it's class. Don't get me wrong I don't include them in every deck, but they assuredly make up at least two vehicle slots for air born decks. And this would be consistent with the doctrine of the Soviet air assault forces of the day since they would be easy to transport in heavy lift and/or are truly air-droppable unlike a Sheridan (which is a really BF deal to air drop despite what was told to the US army procurement staff). The Russians went on to develop further air-droppable turreted light tanks* or tankettes in the BMD series but early post war the ASU-85 was a brilliant compromise and far ahead of the west's thinking during the time and for about twenty years thereafter.
All that for just Ten points!
NATO has something approximating the ASU-85 I think for the Swedish deck, it's like the IKv-103. It's just a post-war tank destroyer like a German Hetzer but with a taller profile. And for it's stats it's worse than the BMP in every respect, less accurate and lower AP rating, slower, etc.
*NOTE: While I do occasionally include the BMP-685 as a slot in an armor deck, I do not strictly speaking consider it a tank. It doesn't really even qualify as a light tank (Whereas the M8 AGS mobile gun system does qualify). Nor for that matter the PT-76 which is even lighter. These are both more like "reconissance in force" vehicles with good mobility and sufficient firepower to defeat NATO wheeled transports and some marginal tracked IFV's like the AMX series, M113, etc.
The New Countries added in RD are hardly worth mentioning as I find any deck which specialized with them tends to be mediocre. Japan and SK, NK and PRC add a few more vehicles and a glimpse at doctrine, but I don't play them much if at all and neither does it seem do others players online. They certainly enhance the "meta" decks, which pool different units from coalition of countries. People say that meta decks are the most well rounded and the hardest to beat, that they are the most professional if one were playing for money to put odds on a win, but I think PACT decks that specialize with one country can do just as well (Soviet, E. Germany, Czech, Poland, etc.).
