Why does the game treat US forces as less capable?

[Destro]

Not only do you pay three times as much for even a single infantry company..but the game treats US troops like Prima Ballerinas..but in combat even Zimbabwien troops are treated as their equals..leading to dumb resulsts..yet British,Canadian,and French Troops are treated as unstoppable..In comparsion.

Sometimes i think the game has an anti-US Bias...You will enjoy more success playing a Csnadian or British force,with less loss..against a similiar enemy..thsn a comparable US force..What the heck?

[loktarr]

Is it a joke? Just try the scenarii about Gulf War (1990) you will get a comparison between US,UK and French troops in game. If I remember correctly this is so easy to play US troops that one of this scen is the tutorial of the game...
And think about the fact that the prices are made to balance the game. For "real fight", try US with 5 times more buy points and tell us about the outcome.
Lok

[narwan]

Now there's a nice change from the accusations of the game being too pro-US!

But seriously, if you feel that way, give us a real and specific in-game example of US forces you feel are significantly unequal for their cost compared to similar western forces and not just a vague allusion to 'comparable' UK, Canadian or French forces. I am certain there's a very good explanation (probably something about the forces you're missing).

Narwan

[DRG]

I doubt this is a joke. We hear the same thing at least once a year, usually by someone with one post to their credit. Call it a drive by slagging.

No time period mentioned, No formation numbers quoted and gee what a surprise, Andy and I are Scottish and Canadian and the comparison is to " Canadian or British force"

Let's see, the points calculator calculates the price of a unit based on the weaponry or protection is carries. Nationality has nothing whatsoever to do with it. Make a copy of the US OOB to the Brit or Canadian OOB slots and run the points calc and the points calc'd will be the same. The other implication here seems to be that US troops are somehow coded to be more fragile in the game and I suppose I could say from now until the end of time that there is no code in the game to handicap the US forces but I suspect in this case that would fall on deaf ears.

A standard US rifle company is expensive because of the ATGM's it carries. A rifle company without all the toys ( formation 778 'Rifle Co [-AT] ) can be bought for between 411 and 510 points. A comparable Brit Rifle co in 2007 would be Brit formation 4 and that can be bought for 357 - 906 points and a comparable Canadian rifle Co would be formation 29 ( Infantry Co[-] and that can be bought 318 - 460 points. Each has different compositions which account for the difference in cost but none of those, unlike the "standard" US Rifle co ( formation 211 ) carries ATGM and if you don't want them DON'T buy the formation with them.

So, you don't HAVE to pay "three times as much for even a single infantry company" if you bother to look for the proper rifle company. The most that you can "pay" for US Rifle co ( formation 211 ) is 1518 points and that included SIX Javelin ATGM teams ! the most you can pay for a Brit 'Rifle company +" which included only FOUR Javelin ATGM teams is 1609 points so the entire premise as stated in the opening sentence is complete nonsense to anyone who actually LOOKS closely at the game and takes the time to learn how to play. The PROBLEM this player has is illustrated in the same line "but in combat even Zimbabwien troops are treated as their equals" NO, they are not. Zimbabwean troops have a base experience 30 points lower than US troops and have a morale 10 points lower. To say in the game they are "treated as their equals" is a joke.

Don

[Marek_Tucan]

Given the fact there from time to time appears someone who bashes the game as "Anti-Russian pro-US" and the other time someone else "Anti-US pro-Russian" I take it as indication the game is set to the middle, ie as close to reality as possible

[Uncle_Joe]

I think the effect he is seeing is that unis with Thermal Sights (regardless of nationality) tend to cost a lot of points. By and large, US formations tend to have a lot of units with Thermal, giving them a pretty high price-tag compared to formations from other nations that lack copious amounts of Thermal.

To compound the issue, novice players rarely get the most out of their Thermal Sights and dont properly use smoke to mask those expensive units and effectively render them immune to return fire.

Combine the two 'issues' and thats why it seems like US forces cost more and are less capable. However if used properly, you can often defeat large numbers of enemy units with minimal risk and quickly even the odds.

[DRG]

For US armour, yes, the added thermal sights will boost the cost but "vision" costs add little to a standard US rifle company ( circa 2007 ) unless they include the Javelin ATGM teams which come with "40" vision. The Rifle Co [-AT] can be purchaced with the company and platoon lead units having 10 vision and the rest either 10 or zero. The 40 vision "infantry" units tend to be scouts or missle teams or Arty Observers and yes, when they get to 40 vison the costs go up quite a bit becasue as you noted, if used properly under the correct conditions they have a huge advantage over troops that are not so well equipped.

Don

[EnemyAce]

I started to wonder what exactly matters how infantry can survive or fight if there's no nationatily faction? Weapons, gear etc.?

[mr_clark]

Well, as far as I understood the game Morale and Exp is very important as hte unit then is less likely to get routed.
Apart from that I think the 'US Problem' is that the infantry units of the USA are quite small (menpaower wise) in comparison to other countries as it's mainly mech inf, and then also often splitted into a 4men inf unit and a 2men AT team...