Is CSAT really that Over Powered?

[rekkless 240]

So tonight we had a pretty large adversarial mission. Totaling 50 players from I think 5 clans we held our biggest event.

 

It was a Vanillaish remake of ShackTac's 'Dark Business' Team vs Team mission.

 

I was the CSAT platoon leader.

 

For those that don't know what dark business is I suggest you Youtube it, it is a very exciting tvt mission.

 

Anyway by the time it came to make the exchange of the Prisoners for the Ammo vehicle the entire NATO force were wiped out in a previous shoot out with AAF.

 

AAF's forces were cut down by at least a third.

 

Since I knew this as the foolish AAF platoon leader told me I decided we would backstab the AAF kill the remaining guys and take the prisoners AND the ammo vehicle.

 

 

 

Anyway IMO my guys were positioned in superior positions and we over all won the gun fight. We ended up destroying the ammo vehicle and made off with the prisoners winning the game.

 

In the debrief we had complaints from both Bluefor AND Independent sides that the CSAT forces were over powered.

That the Katiba and the CSAT armor is of a much higher caliber than both AAF and NATO.

That CSAT are by a considerable way the superior force and thus the mission was unbalanced and CSAT would win the mission every time if it came down to a shoot out.

 

 

 

Now bear in mind I used only vanilla units. Meaning I didn't edit what a 'medic' spawns with or what a 'ammo bearer' spawns with.

 

all playable units were as there are out of the box how Bohemia Interactive has them. (minus night vision).

 

 

So is it really always going to be an unfair fight pitting CSAT up against AAF or NATO even if the sides are equal with their default load outs from Bohemia?

 

 

I've always been under the impression CSAT and NATO are almost bang on equal and AAF is only slightly less powerful with the majority of their weapons 5.56 instead of 6.5. But a superior strategy and leadership would always win out.

 

All the armor is same isn't it? a CSAT vest has the stopping power as a NATO vest doesn't it? and a NATO vest has the same stopping power as the AAF vest (in the same class that is ie. one carrier rig against another).

 

 

So my question is:

Are CSAT forces over powered? Is the Katiba that significantly better than the NATO MX or the AAF MK20?

Is the CAST Armour over powered? Do their default vests have a significantly greater armor value?

And if they are greater than both NATO and AAF does it really play a significant factor in a gun fight?


I mean people play King of the Hill all the time and Independent forces win all the time, the AAF gear can't be that under powered is it?

[en3x 209]

If you look from position of the scenario I would agree that CSAt forces are stronger and better protected.

 

Obviously that alone doesn't win battles, but certainly helps, and complaining after match is childish since

everyone knew or should know that before battle.

 

I remember rolling thunder that pitched T-100 versus nato's Slammer.The mission designer decided

to remove night vision or thermals from t 100 to balance speed and firepower counter to slammer

lesser armor and firepower capability.

 

take it as food for thought.

[IndeedPete 1038]

I don't feel they're overpowered. Looking at the infantry, it's quite the opposite actually. The Katiba has a slightly slower rate of fire than the MX, not sure if the punch is the same. There's not a great difference in marksmen rifles or GLs, the CSAT Zafir is certainly superior to NATO's MX SW, but on the MMG level, both factions are equal again with the Navid and SPMG. Plus NATO got the NLAW wich can lock on targets whereas CSAT's RPG can't. CSAT's body protection is also far below NATO's; they only got TacVests and these IForgotTheName thingies with a huge capacity but almost no armour. Both cannot really compete with NATO's or AAF's plate carriers, let alone the heavy vests which CSAT does not even possess. Headgear seems to be equal as well. I don't know if the CSAT uniform has any protection values though. Also not sure if the vehicles are that different so that even a skilled NATO tank commander could not beat a T-100 under any circumstances.

[kbbw123 115]

The vests of CSAT are acctually weaker, they don't carry body armour but chest rigs (ammo holders so no reinforced plating).

The uniform of CSAT has more armour than the uniforms of AAF and NATO.

CSAT "Bughelmet" has the most armour value (100 I believe).

 

Som armour wise on the soldiers

 

                NATO   CSAT  AAF

Vest             +         -         +

Uniform       -          +        -

Helmet        -          +        -

 

Weapons.

 

NATO and CSAT Have a 6.5 caseless caliber.

AAF has a 5.56 caliber.

CSAT has a 7.62 LMG, NATO a 6.5 MX SW, AAF a 6.5 MK200

NATO has a .338 MG, CSAT a 9.3MM MG.

NATO has the following Marksman rifle's: EBR 7.62, that maksman weapon can't remember the name 7.62, MAR-10 .338, M320 LLR .408

CSAT has the following Marksman rifle's: Rahim 7.62, Cyrus 9.3, ASR 12.7, Lynx .50 (russian caliber version)

AAF has the following Maksman rifle: EBR 7.62

The Katiba seems to have less recoil than the MX but that might also be just me so it won't be counted.

 

                                   NATO CSAT AAF

Marksman Calliber         -        +      --

MG Calliber                    -        +      -----

Default Calliber              +       +       -

LMG Calliber                 -        +       -

 

 

So thats basicly Inf based the only - that CSAT recieved was for the vest, the rest is all superiour.

That NATO lost from the AAF just means that NATO troops underperformed toAAF troops. possibly because of experiense etc,etc.

NATO has some more armour equipment to counter CSAT:

NATO CAS is more powerfull than CSAT CAS

NATO has sandstorm CSAT doesn't

NATO has 40mm Auto cannon CSAT only 30mm

AH-99 has AA, AT and cannon, CSAT Kajman only AT and cannon

Ghosthawk has miniguns and the AH-9 ofcoarse so thats how its ballanced a bit but Inf whise CSAT is the clear victor

[rekkless 240]

Thanks for the response guys.

 

I really was only after small arms and vests for infantry gun fights. But all the extra information is fantastic thank you very much.


KBBW thank you heaps for posting that, that is a lot of great info.

So in your opinion does the Katiba and CSAT armour make CSAT over powered compared to NATO and AAF.

 

 

Please keep in mind in regards to our gun fight tonight that started the accusations that I unbalanced the mission by allowing CSAT to have a Katiba.

Keep in mind the vast majority of NATO had MX's the vast majority of AAF had MK20s and the vast majority of CSAT had Katibas.

And all forces had their default armor which I know varies with the class (I know a Squad Leader has better armour than a Ammo Bear for example).

 

The forces initially had equal numbers but due to previous gun battles and some connection issues when it came for the final battle CSAT outnumbered AAF and basically stomped them. Then in the debrief I was told my mission was unbalanced because CSAT had the Katiba and better armor.

Is CSAT really that much more powerful? Or were the AAF just sore losers and cry babies (please note I will be linking them this thread, I want to you be as honest as possible).

 

 

Also for this argument sake we are comparing MOSTLY AAF to CSAT not CSAT to NATO.

[drebin052 324]

Anyway IMO my guys were positioned in superior positions and we over all won the gun fight. We ended up destroying the ammo vehicle and made off with the prisoners winning the game.

 

[...]

 

But a superior strategy and leadership would always win out.

 

There's your answer. Has nothing to do with whether CSAT equipment is OP or not.

 

That the Katiba and the CSAT armor is of a much higher caliber than both AAF and NATO.

That CSAT are by a considerable way the superior force and thus the mission was unbalanced and CSAT would win the mission every time if it came down to a shoot out.

 

[...]

 

All the armor is same isn't it? a CSAT vest has the stopping power as a NATO vest doesn't it? and a NATO vest has the same stopping power as the AAF vest (in the same class that is ie. one carrier rig against another).

 

No to all. The Katiba and MX both fire, config and lore-wise, the same 6.5mm NATO round (B_65x39_Caseless).

 

The only difference between them is that the baseline MX rifle has a lower muzzle velocity compared to the Katiba (MX 800m/s vs. Katiba 900m/s) while accuracy wise the MX has slightly less dispersion (Katiba 0.00116 vs. MX's 0.00087). The Katiba also has a slightly higher fire rate compared to the MX due to having a smaller reloadTime value (MX 0.096 vs. Katiba's 0.075). In the Mk20's case it is obviously inferior to the Katiba since 5.56mm NATO was nerfed by BI for whatever reason and will always under-perform in comparison, although it has the highest fire rate compared to the other two (0.07).

 

Protection-wise, both AAF and NATO wear plate carriers as opposed to CSAT who don't wear plate carriers (the load bearing vest harnesses do not have armour values) but uniforms that provide full protection to their body minus their face.

 

The lightest and most common plate carriers, the NATO Carrier Lite and AAF's GA Carrier Lite don't cover much of the body; only from the chest to abdomen so all other body parts are vulnerable and take full damage from bullets and explosives. They also have identical config armour values of 16 and passThrough values of 0.3. Anything 7.62mm or above can basically kill in one or two shots to the exposed areas like the pelvis or neck.

 

The grenadier Carrier Rigs are also identical but cover more of the body, arms, and the pelvis (with armour values of 78 and a passThrough of 0.6) but are still exposed to leg shots. The Spec Rigs worn by NATO medics, UAV operators and paratroopers have the highest protection values (armour 24 and a passThrough of 0.1) but don't cover the pelvis.

 

CSAT uniforms have very low armour values of 6, but because their passThrough values are set at 0.04 it means they take slightly less damage from small to medium-sized calibres but still take the same amount of damage from larger calibres. You could almost say that CSAT is worse off since their uniforms are less effective at stopping you from being killed by multiple large calibre rounds being hit on one part of the body (like the chest) as opposed to AAF/NATO, who can shrug off three to four 5.56/6.5 (two for 7.62) to the chest, although this is basically their trade-off for being more lighter as most of the plate carriers are very heavy and take up 1/3 if not more of a unit's carrying capacity.

 

Headgear-wise, AAF has the worst helmet (Modular Helmets are rated at 6), NATO in the middle (6 for Combat Helmets, 10 for Enhanced Combat Helmets, and 4 for the Light Combat Helmets), and CSAT being the best (8 for Protectors, 10 for Assassins, and 12 for Defenders). However, all three of the basic and most commonly worn helmets (Modular/Combat/Protector) have more or less the same protection values and also share the same passThrough values of 0.5.

 

But they do differ in the amount of surface area they cover (CSAT Protectors/Assassins/Defenders cover most of the head). However, none of the combat helmets cover or have armour values for the face.

 

So just aim for the face if you're playing against CSAT as NATO/AAF. If in doubt, spray and pray on their chest and anywhere else on their body. They are by no means OP in any manner, however.

[fn_Quiksilver 1636]

I have gotten used to the "4 flinches" of the CSAT soldiers during 400m engagements with 6.5mm.

 

The CSAT soldier has to flinch 4 times before it goes down.

[war_lord 934]

Sounds like sour grapes honestly. The AAF do have inferior equipment (BI's version of 5.56 is a joke), so it was dumb of them to get into a big firefight with NATO, and then tell you, the enemy, that they had took major losses in the process. Your win had nothing to do with an equipment advantage, you just had better planning, and a little bit of luck. Ultimately, a slight weapon disparity was the only "imbalance", they could have been given Katiba's and it wouldn't have effected the outcome, they lost to bad luck and poor tactics.    

[instagoat 133]

Why not test it. Put some units down, take the different weapons at combat ranges and shoot to see what happens. Especially now with the arsenal integration, this kind of test is easy to do. You can even test armor/Helmet/clothes combinations otherwise nto available very easily.

 

But in my experience, the performance difference between MX and Katiba is effectively nil. And the slight armor benefit CSAT gets really only helps against the lighter calibers, long distance FN-2000 shots or pistol rounds. The LMG situation is the only thing where CSAT has a real advantage, they are the only ones with a squad level support weapon that has a large battle rifle caliber round. The MK200 the AAF gets is a brilliant weapon, though, and if used correctly it should level the advantage from 200 meters in.

 

The Units are fairly well balanced, performance wise I think. For vehicles that's maybe a different story, but correctly using your vehicles can make a T-55 cut a T-100 to ribbons even if 1 on 1, the T-100 should win every time.

[I give up 152]

So my question is:

Are CSAT forces over powered? Is the Katiba that significantly better than the NATO MX or the AAF MK20?

Is the CAST Armour over powered? Do their default vests have a significantly greater armor value?

And if they are greater than both NATO and AAF does it really play a significant factor in a gun fight?

I mean people play King of the Hill all the time and Independent forces win all the time, the AAF gear can't be that under powered is it?

Short answer, No. 

The different levels, armour, skill, etc, are the same of Nato or FIA forces (when having similar gear).

The only overpowered beast from CSAT is the freakin Gunship, can easily put down and without mercy a full geared F-18.

[rekkless 240]

Awesome information guys, the CSAT uniform going all the way over the neck and everything else is not something you really think about when considering video game armor. Once again its goes to show the cheer detail BI have put into this game.

 

If anyone is interested here is the video of said Dark Business mission that caused the controversy

 

[froggyluv 2136]

 Demo of how to rekt these motherfuckers

 

[rekkless 240]

So basically what I've taken away from this is

 

The light infantry is pretty well balanced across all 3 sides.

 

With CSAT and NATO have equal standard rifles and AAF having a slight longer distance disadvantage with the 5.56 but it makes up for it as a marginally better CQB rifle.

 

NATO and AAF have pretty much equal armor with CSAT having the worst.

 

CSAT however have a more resistant uniform with the only exposed area around the the face. (something not many of use really consider)

 

CSAT have a significant advantage in the LMG area with a 7.62mm LMG and NATO and AAF not.

 

 

Over all CSAT and NATO are pretty bang on equal but both sides have their pros and cons. AAF are slightly disadvantaged but nothing good planning, good leadership and good teamwork won't solve.

[war_lord 934]

Yeah, I'll also add in the point that when Shacktac runs Dark Business, the Independents are a guerrilla force, meaning they have shortages of even basic gear. So if anything the team playing the AAF had an advantage that doesn't exist in the traditional game mode. When playing Dark Business, the independent side is always at a pound for pound advantage. Smart thinking is essential to their victory.  

[rekkless 240]

Yeah, I'll also add in the point that when Shacktac runs Dark Business, the Independents are a guerrilla force, meaning they have shortages of even basic gear. So if anything the team playing the AAF had an advantage that doesn't exist in the traditional game mode. When playing Dark Business, the independent side is always at a pound for pound advantage. Smart thinking is essential to their victory.  

 

Can you remember at all if the Independent faction out numbered the Opfor Faction? I know it was like 60vs5 for BLUE for but I always assumed Indi and Opfor were balanced between the two.

[peegee 118]

I see Indfor and Blufor run out of breath quick with their heavy weapons and plate carriers.

Opfor on the other hand keeps pushing and pushing with their lighter gear. You can play more aggressively, your wholy body is protected from tip to toe.
Some classes have the extra protection with the tactical vests without making one too heavy.

My personal opinion is that Katiba reigns over other standard rifles. That's just me! Their other standard weapons are powerful too, like Zafir.

Opfor's RPG with HE ammo is devastating against infantry and buildings. Blu and Ind have to find different ways to demolish buildings, Opfor infantry levels buildings from a distance.

Their ground vehicles are also very powerful and might have advantages over other factions counterparts. For example Ifrit is fairly armored, fast and the driver can pop smokes.

I play tons of Warfare and I've seen Opfor (with their own equipment) fairly often completely destroying enemy teams and successfully winning in very short time.
Blu and Ind are buying heavier weapons, heavier armor, bigger backpacks and heavier helmets... Some desperately try to carry AT:s with those massive loadouts.
Opfor tends to stick with the lightweight Katibas and Rahims. And their maximum armor can be Defender helmet and Tac vests. They clearly can outmanouver Blu and Ind in a infantry firefight more easily.

Can't forget that Opfors got Orca with DAR, devastating Kajman and fastest CAS plane that has AA capability. They seem to have air superiority.
My guess is that Opfor is meant to be the tougher enemy. And it is hard to balance a PvP mission against them. This is why I'd rather stick to altered Guerilla's, Blu and Ind in missions that strive for balance between factions.

[major_barnes1987 33]

I see Indfor and Blufor run out of breath quick with their heavy weapons and plate carriers.

Opfor on the other hand keeps pushing and pushing with their lighter gear. You can play more aggressively, your wholy body is protected from tip to toe.

Some classes have the extra protection with the tactical vests without making one too heavy.

My personal opinion is that Katiba reigns over other standard rifles. That's just me! Their other standard weapons are powerful too, like Zafir.

Opfor's RPG with HE ammo is devastating against infantry and buildings. Blu and Ind have to find different ways to demolish buildings, Opfor infantry levels buildings from a distance.

Their ground vehicles are also very powerful and might have advantages over other factions counterparts. For example Ifrit is fairly armored, fast and the driver can pop smokes.

I play tons of Warfare and I've seen Opfor (with their own equipment) fairly often completely destroying enemy teams and successfully winning in very short time.

Blu and Ind are buying heavier weapons, heavier armor, bigger backpacks and heavier helmets... Some desperately try to carry AT:s with those massive loadouts.

Opfor tends to stick with the lightweight Katibas and Rahims. And their maximum armor can be Defender helmet and Tac vests. They clearly can outmanouver Blu and Ind in a infantry firefight more easily.

Can't forget that Opfors got Orca with DAR, devastating Kajman and fastest CAS plane that has AA capability. They seem to have air superiority.

My guess is that Opfor is meant to be the tougher enemy. And it is hard to balance a PvP mission against them. This is why I'd rather stick to altered Guerilla's, Blu and Ind in missions that strive for balance between factions.

 

I agree about OPFOR being more agile but not in all their assets.I play alot of CTI and i know a lot about units deploying and how each faction's equipment works.I'll try to explain how ballanced the game really is.So in my opinion:

 

OPFOR soldiers are indeed faster than the others and they have the best rifle in the game by far,the katiba equipped from the start.The Blu MX comes second and the poor mk 20(5.56) of the greenfor.Most of the best weapons and equipment  i can't count them all right now belongs to OPFOR.So if we have a Op group against Blu or green.Well greens and blues will have a hard time,can't say they will lose it always depends on the player skill.

 

Now for the MRAPs Ifrit is not the best.Strider is!I've seen the details of all 3 and the Strider has the best armor,it's amphibious aaaaaand something the Wiki doesn't say(it says only about top speed).It accelerates like hell.Try putting all 3 of them in a drag race and you will see who will go first.Acceleration in rough terains like Altis is more important than top speed.So greens win the MRAP fight.

 

APCs and IFVs.OPFOR has one wheeled apc marid with HMG and GMG while blues have tracked panther with HMG and GMG.Tracks always better than wheels on the battlefieldBut Greens have tracked Mora with 30mm autocannon and 7.62 MG.Well autocannon always better than HMG and GMG but Mora and panther is not amphibious like marid so we have a draw.For IFVs now: blues have the marshal witch is amphibious and has 40mm autocannon.Ops have the kamysh witch is not amphibious and has 30mm autocannon and LMG not as powerfull as the marshal but it also has 2 AT missiles.So kamysh can kill any marshal from very long distance any time.Now for the greens they have the gorgon witch has a 30mm autocannon 2 AT missiles and LMG and it's amphibious.Greens win by very few points the battle of the IFVs.

 

Tanks: Ops T-100 Varsuk,not so heavy armored like Kuma or Slammer Up but the fastest of all 3 by far.And with the best 125mm cannon.But one shot kills are very rare cause the other 2 tanks are too heavy armored like i said.Green MBT -52 Kuma is tough but slow.You can't move it easily from place to place.M2 Slammer has the 120mm gun while the slammer Up has the 105mm gun.Not much of a firepower but tough armor like Kuma.The 2 tanks are very much the same But......there's an ace in blues pocket no one is using right.The slammer(based on Merkava Mk4) is the only tank in the world that has the engine on front and on it's back it can hold up to 6 soldiers i think 6 is the right number.It's basicaly a tank and an apc at the same time.It can carry a whole squad  of AA guys to help with enemy air units or engineers or mixed squads.No one is using that asset correctly not even me?And i wonder why?If slammer is used to it's full potential blues win the tank battle.

 

Arties are pretty much the same but greens dont have arties only mortars.Both opfor and blufor have howitzers but only blues have MLRS.So blues win the Arty war.

 

AAs are pretty much the same except greens withch has no AA vehicle.

 

Now in the air orcas are very ballanced  in all aspects while the hellcat is slower and diffycult to maneuver it.Both can hold up to almost the same number of ppl.The hummingbird/pawnee is the most agile of them all.From my experience the pawnee survive most of the enemy AAs than the other 2 and can give the saem hell to a ground spot than the other 2.The ghosthawk is something else.This heli is more like a croud control vehicle using 7.62 miniguns.Flying around a spot and keeping the enemy on the ground.While it can transfer up to more ppl than other helis.Cant remember the right number.

About gunships now: i think the kajman is little bit more heavy armored.The kajman can hold 8 soldiers so that makes it a transport and a gunship.It has alot of firepower but....the blackfoot is the only helicopter in the game(correct me if i'm wrong) that has AA missiles.And it is faster than the kajman.It can kill any kajman with missile lock on any time.As you say the opfor jet has AA capability so...opfor win the air battle by few points.

 

Logistics: Greens only have zamak trucks while blufor has the Hemmt truck variations.The opfor on the other hand have the Tempest truck variations.The tempest is heavy armored like an MRAP and can withstand mine explosions.But blues on the other hand they have the bobcat vehicle.This bad boy here can clear minefields,repair any other vehicle and has an HMG to keep enemies away while repairing.Another blufor asset no one is using right.Blues win the logistic fight too.

 

Now all of the above don't mean s#it unless you have a good functioning team and skilled players.Use all the assets every faction has.Improvise with what you have and find new ways to defeat your enemy.

[peegee 118]

I agree about OPFOR being more agile but not in all their assets.I play alot of CTI and i know a lot about units deploying and how each faction's equipment works.I'll try to explain how ballanced the game really is.So in my opinion:

 

OPFOR soldiers are indeed faster than the others and they have the best rifle in the game by far,the katiba equipped from the start.The Blu MX comes second and the poor mk 20(5.56) of the greenfor.Most of the best weapons and equipment  i can't count them all right now belongs to OPFOR.So if we have a Op group against Blu or green.Well greens and blues will have a hard time,can't say they will lose it always depends on the player skill.

 

Now for the MRAPs Ifrit is not the best.Strider is!I've seen the details of all 3 and the Strider has the best armor,it's amphibious aaaaaand something the Wiki doesn't say(it says only about top speed).It accelerates like hell.Try putting all 3 of them in a drag race and you will see who will go first.Acceleration in rough terains like Altis is more important than top speed.So greens win the MRAP fight.

 

APCs and IFVs.OPFOR has one wheeled apc marid with HMG and GMG while blues have tracked panther with HMG and GMG.Tracks always better than wheels on the battlefieldBut Greens have tracked Mora with 30mm autocannon and 7.62 MG.Well autocannon always better than HMG and GMG but Mora and panther is not amphibious like marid so we have a draw.For IFVs now: blues have the marshal witch is amphibious and has 40mm autocannon.Ops have the kamysh witch is not amphibious and has 30mm autocannon and LMG not as powerfull as the marshal but it also has 2 AT missiles.So kamysh can kill any marshal from very long distance any time.Now for the greens they have the gorgon witch has a 30mm autocannon 2 AT missiles and LMG and it's amphibious.Greens win by very few points the battle of the IFVs.

 

Tanks: Ops T-100 Varsuk,not so heavy armored like Kuma or Slammer Up but the fastest of all 3 by far.And with the best 125mm cannon.But one shot kills are very rare cause the other 2 tanks are too heavy armored like i said.Green MBT -52 Kuma is tough but slow.You can't move it easily from place to place.M2 Slammer has the 120mm gun while the slammer Up has the 105mm gun.Not much of a firepower but tough armor like Kuma.The 2 tanks are very much the same But......there's an ace in blues pocket no one is using right.The slammer(based on Merkava Mk4) is the only tank in the world that has the engine on front and on it's back it can hold up to 6 soldiers i think 6 is the right number.It's basicaly a tank and an apc at the same time.It can carry a whole squad  of AA guys to help with enemy air units or engineers or mixed squads.No one is using that asset correctly not even me?And i wonder why?If slammer is used to it's full potential blues win the tank battle.

 

Arties are pretty much the same but greens dont have arties only mortars.Both opfor and blufor have howitzers but only blues have MLRS.So blues win the Arty war.

 

AAs are pretty much the same except greens withch has no AA vehicle.

 

Now in the air orcas are very ballanced  in all aspects while the hellcat is slower and diffycult to maneuver it.Both can hold up to almost the same number of ppl.The hummingbird/pawnee is the most agile of them all.From my experience the pawnee survive most of the enemy AAs than the other 2 and can give the saem hell to a ground spot than the other 2.The ghosthawk is something else.This heli is more like a croud control vehicle using 7.62 miniguns.Flying around a spot and keeping the enemy on the ground.While it can transfer up to more ppl than other helis.Cant remember the right number.

About gunships now: i think the kajman is little bit more heavy armored.The kajman can hold 8 soldiers so that makes it a transport and a gunship.It has alot of firepower but....the blackfoot is the only helicopter in the game(correct me if i'm wrong) that has AA missiles.And it is faster than the kajman.It can kill any kajman with missile lock on any time.As you say the opfor jet has AA capability so...opfor win the air battle by few points.

 

Logistics: Greens only have zamak trucks while blufor has the Hemmt truck variations.The opfor on the other hand have the Tempest truck variations.The tempest is heavy armored like an MRAP and can withstand mine explosions.But blues on the other hand they have the bobcat vehicle.This bad boy here can clear minefields,repair any other vehicle and has an HMG to keep enemies away while repairing.Another blufor asset no one is using right.Blues win the logistic fight too.

 

Now all of the above don't mean s#it unless you have a good functioning team and skilled players.Use all the assets every faction has.Improvise with what you have and find new ways to defeat your enemy.

Agree on alot of what you said. I have to correct myself, I did not mean Ifrit was the absolute best, but it has advantage of being easy to use; the driver pops smokes and it's fast and agile, though not the fastest as you said. =)

I also didn't want to compare how the vehicles win one on one battles against their counterparts. What I was going for was that CSAT with their assets combined are the strongest or just easiest faction, BUT, it is only my point of view.

Opfor infantry with their light gear are also the easiest to play, more importantly, easier for new players too, as you don't get punished that much for moving fast.

There is no question that Arma's balance is tricky. Like you said "Now all of the above don't mean s#it unless you have a good functioning team and skilled players".

When we think the balance we tend to grasp on things that makes the asset "best" at something. Like you mentioned how Strider is the best as it is fast, but let us think of it this way too:

I've noticed that I shoot Ifrit's wheels and more importantly the wheel hubs in the front to disable or stop the enemy vehicle, as the windshield is sloped and the side windows are small.

The driver usually manages to escape or pop smokes, and crew flees.

Now if I shoot strider, I just fire everything at that vertical big windshield and after it breaks the enemy heads are easy pickings.

So Strider has this big "flaw" and that is what makes things interesting. Luckily we are playing Arma, because if it was any other title the windshields shape or the fact that is it sloped or not would not probably matter at all!

The asymmetric factions truly make this game. From point of view the Opfor might be the dominating faction as it is bit easy to play, but for some would say it's far from it.  Someone else might say NATO is overpowered.

 

Some could even argue that Indfor beats all because of their camoflauge or whatever :D

 

Opfor is just a bit different from other Factions and that's what I meant how it's hard to balance it to a mission where the maker wants absolute balance. And the fact what makes it strong, is strong assets combined with ease of use/play.

E: What I mean by absolute balance is that if you look at CSAT sniper and other faction snipers you see that Opfor is the only one with armor, and still it is lightweight. Light Rifleman is also the same case.

So if someone wants to use Opfor assets without the armored fatigues to balance a scenario, it's best to switch Opfor uniform to something like Guerilla uniform and use the unmarked plate carriers/Indfor carriers to balance it against others.

[major_barnes1987 33]

Yes it's easier to play with opfor.It's just the other 2 factions are hard to learn.To learn their best assets and how to approach the enemy.It needs time to learn all that stuff,time some people don't want to spend.

I agree about the strider crew being easy target if it's disabled.I killed many times this way. :P

So about what @rekkless wanted to know we all agree that CSAT troops have a slight advantage in an infantry vs infantry firefight.

[CaptainAzimuth 714]

Quote: "Are CSAT forces over powered? Is the Katiba that significantly better than the NATO MX or the AAF MK20?

Is the CAST Armour over powered? Do their default vests have a significantly greater armor value?
And if they are greater than both NATO and AAF does it really play a significant factor in a gun fight?
I mean people play King of the Hill all the time and Independent forces win all the time, the AAF gear can't be that under powered is it?"

 

Firstly, CSAT and NATO are pretty much the same, except for a few things. CSAT use bull-pup, which means even though their guns use the same round, by default their guns are automatically far better in terms of accuracy than the MX rifles, due to the shorter barrel, respectively. CSAT's uniform really, at least to me, hasn't had a profound impact, at least from my experience. AAF are screwed. (5.56, GG)

 

The rest of your questions, really, i think based on your original story about being in a superior position to the enemy pretty much explains it all. If you position yourself in a way to always overcome the enemy, than you should incur some butthurt from the enemy in the end. =P

 

Also, playing as BugForce, i mean, Opfor, usually gives you the feeling of being a deadly bad guy, and thus making you better at being bad guy. So yes, CSAT is OP. =P

[x3kj 1247]

 

Opfor, usually gives you the feeling of being a deadly bad guy, and thus making you better at being bad guy. So yes, CSAT is OP. =P

red color is OP

[silentghoust 132]

You have to remember the battle doctrines each side has. AAF are set up for occupation and anti-insurgent operations. Hence the smaller rifles and plate carriers, all designed to let them dig in and flush out the enemy. CSAT still follows Russia battle doctrune, using large motorized forces. The U.S faction is about each asset able to be multi-role. 

[IR.csat 0]

Hi  , 

many thanks to everyone for this useful topic , i have been searching for this kind of discussion for months !

iam from iran and i always use CSAT faction because they speak persian and i like it , beside i realy belive that CSAT Infantry is the best in fighting , i have tested this for many times (over 50 times ! i dont remember) and the result :  lets start with their weapons : 

 

CSAT : katiba (isnt correct , SAMA is the true name of this weapon) is better that nato MX because of its caliber and it has low recoil and i feel more comfortable with that but their 

MACHINGUN is realy bad , and a thing like RPG ( :D i dont know, you call it a rocket luncher yeah ? ) ALAMUT is not bad but you need to practice .

 

NATO: MX is a little bit slow and noisy and if you have a shot with both nato and csat weapon you will find out that the KATIBA is much more better but i love the nato PCML ! its powerful and easy to aim and shot and their MACHINGUN is much more better that CSAT but  NATO sniper rifle is not as good as CSAT  . 

 

and the uniforms :

 

CSAT : their light uniform is good for infantry fights and i found URBAN soldiers stronger that the others ! 

 

NATO: is the most protected uniform in the game ! hard to kill from long distance ! 

 

their cars are basically the same but CSAT is faster .

and the armor ! SLAMMER tank is a big heavy powerful tank ! and i think its more powrful than T- series 

as i said before NATO airfoce is better but its depends on players skill .

 

NATO forces are the most protected and they are good in defence situations not attack ! (my opinion)

 

i have tested this about 50 times in ground attack without using tanks and armors : 44 times CSAT killed all of the nato forces .

and also in another case i test 15 times their airpower : 9-7 nato (depends on playes skill)

and in the sea i tested 20 times : 18 times CSAT won ! ( iranian speed boats are famous !!  :) )

but in defence situations i tested 20 times and 16 times NATO won ! ( depends on players how to attack nato forces , ambushing is the best way ) 

 

 

good luck, i hope you answer and tell me your idea about my tests ! 

[germanske_norge 43]

CSAT is far superior on an infantry level in nearly every way, the recent APEX Expansion only widened that gap even further. 

[nkenny 1057]

*Shrug* In my community we usually joke that CSAT seems to be getting all the best gear. I expect this is a concious choice by Bohemia to ensure that the baddies are a bit developed. 

The katiba is for reasons mentioned earlier in the thread superior on the most common engagement ranges, i.e., short-- but the real killers on the squad level is access to a proper 7.62 MMG. Cross ammunition compatability matters little when so much firepower is lost.  Likewise I find the CSAT RPG superior for its flexibility. HE and AT rounds. Fast reloads. Reasonably effective accuracy. It is a great weapon to which bluefor has no or little response. 

 

The Marksman DLC again gave CSAT the Navid and NATO the SPMG. One of them is a furious beast, the other fires bullets at a glacial rate of fire.  

Also in the mechanized department the more traditional equipment available to CSAT is superior. A belted, autocannoned and TITAN bearing IFV with room for eight soldiers. This, alongside its smaller wheeled brother, provide exceptional firepower on the battlefield in a very fast and convenient package. More to the point, its spread of weapons can engage any type of target. The same which cannot be said for their bluefor counterpart. 

 

Pointing to differences in autocannon caliber, 20mm, 30mm and 40mm seems of little difference to me. An autocannon is an autocannon as far as most targets are concerned. In the case of hard targets, CSAT can deploy rockets. The NATO tank has a 105mm cannon. I need say little else. 

 

All in all, it seems to me that CSAT are better geared for a modern, industrialized, war. Whereas NATO forces seem caught with equipment better suited for Afghan/Iraq styled policing (or at best counter insurgency) style operations.  It is no wonder that CSAT tears through the opposition. 

 

-k