Is CSAT really that Over Powered?

[dragon01 902]

In The East Wind, it kind of made sense, actually. CSAT was quite committed on Altis, NATO wasn't. Remember, both the Hunter and Marshall were supposed to be cheaper to scrap than to bring back, which implies they were old and probably have been replaced by then. At least as far as they go, we're seeing old, 2nd line NATO equipment put up against 1st line CSAT equipment. No wonder they're not balanced (though Merkava-based armored vehicles do level this out a bit). What we saw in The East Wind isn't, for most part, the kind of equipment they're supposed to be using in the Pacific (several characters comment on it, too).

 

That said, with the Apex out it seems that this was neglected. NATO should have gotten a new APC to replace the Marshall, as well as a new MRAP more on par with the other factions. They should have also gotten some hi-tech gear on par with CSAT (helmets with better protection and integrated cooling, armored uniforms, stuff like that). This wasn't the case, though. All they got was a (nifty, I admit) VTOL. Apex seems to be all about CTRG, with NATO reskins added just so that they people have something to use when playing as BLUFOR.

 

As for AAF, well, they're AFF. :) They were never intended to be a match even for the outdated NATO units. They're stuck with a 5.56mm plinker which can't get through advanced armor, an underpowered MG, no real gunship nor arty. The only good thing they have is the up-armored Fennek (which is pretty great, actually, as long as it's mobile).

[das attorney 858]

No bi-pod on Katiba iirc but you can mount them on most MXs

[lugiahua 26]

 

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)

 

I think it's the other way around, MX actually has better accuracy in setting.

Bullpup makes a rifle shorter in total length, but doesn't necessary means longer barrel or accuracy.

[lugiahua 26]

In The East Wind, it kind of made sense, actually. CSAT was quite committed on Altis, NATO wasn't. Remember, both the Hunter and Marshall were supposed to be cheaper to scrap than to bring back, which implies they were old and probably have been replaced by then. At least as far as they go, we're seeing old, 2nd line NATO equipment put up against 1st line CSAT equipment. No wonder they're not balanced (though Merkava-based armored vehicles do level this out a bit). What we saw in The East Wind isn't, for most part, the kind of equipment they're supposed to be using in the Pacific (several characters comment on it, too).

 

One thing that troubles me much in the East Wind is that how US SpecOps have no armor at all.

I was assuming that special forces would have some kind more advanced armor or a lighter plate carrier.

 

Also how US ammo bearers don't wear armors either in a standard infantry squad, which is contrary to real life.

They should at least war plate carrier lite in my opinion.

[BL4DE 91]

By the way in East Wind it's mentioned that NATO and western allies are no longer the superpowers they used to be. It was mentioned that CSAT has stronger economy and are more powerful than NATO in general so it makes sense that CSAT is better equipped. And it's mission makers job to balance the mission not Bohemia's. Arma being  the sandbox it is it's entirely up to the mission maker to provide balanced assets and numbers to both sides, been like that since the series started.

I absolutely can't stand requests from King of the Hill players asking BIS to nerf weapons in a milsim game.

 

BIS gives you toys to make mission with so you decide which toys to use.

[drebin052 324]

One thing that troubles me much in the East Wind is that how US SpecOps have no armor at all.

I was assuming that special forces would have some kind more advanced armor or a lighter plate carrier.

 

They're reconnaissance units akin to U.S. Army Pathfinders, not true special forces. Not being burdened by heavy gear does make some sense since their main job is just scouting and designating targets, and fighting only when needed (hence the suppressors).

 

Though I agree it does look a bit odd at times when an entire NATO Recon squad only wears MOLLE chest rigs and has basically zero protection in comparison to CSAT recon units who still have their armoured uniforms to fall back on at least.

 

Also how US ammo bearers don't wear armors either in a standard infantry squad, which is contrary to real life.

They should at least war plate carrier lite in my opinion.

 

 

You mean the Assistant gunners don't wear a plate carrier. The regular Ammo Bearer class still wears the CAGE Plate Carrier-lookalike.

 

And it's mission makers job to balance the mission not Bohemia's. Arma being  the sandbox it is it's entirely up to the mission maker to provide balanced assets and numbers to both sides, been like that since the series started.

I absolutely can't stand requests from King of the Hill players asking BIS to nerf weapons in a milsim game.

 

BIS gives you toys to make mission with so you decide which toys to use.

 

Pretty much this.

 

The complaints about one faction being more OP than the other is rather silly at the end of the day when you can choose to equip BLUFOR/INDEP units with OPFOR gear if you wanted to. With EDEN and the built-in Arsenal, there's no longer an excuse for not bothering to "balance" the sides in your own mission.

[peegee 118]

On a side note, all Opfor infantry are armored, even snipers, spotters and pilots

[angel24marin 34]

On a side note, all Opfor infantry are armored, even snipers, spotters and pilots

Understanable lorewise. CSAT use a bulletproof uniform but dont use armored chest (instead use ammo carriers with 0 protection). So as Snipers and pilots use modified uniforms they keep this protection

[rasa_be 17]

Isn't the real question whether it matters? I don't think it's really necessary that ArmA is designed with complete balance between the factions in mind, that would make for a pretty dull game.

[fareast 20]

csat supposed to be better than allied faction and im fine with that

[arziben 23]

From the (2014) armor OPREP:

NATO

NATO possess the most advanced plate carriers, which offer the best protection levels in-game, but are also the heaviest and only with moderate capacity for equipment. They come in several variants, diverse in their weight, capacity and protection level:

_Tactical Vest offers limited capacity and only the most basic bullet protection, but is quite light.

_Light Rig has medium capacity, offers mediocre bullet protection and is moderately heavy.

_Rig offers slightly better bullet protection at the cost of lesser capacity and more weight.

_GL Rig is grenadier variant with improved explosive protection, but only with mediocre bullet protection, lesser capacity and more weight.

_Spec Rig is a heavy variant simulating additional ceramic plates, with even more limited capacity and very high weight, which do offers the best bullet protection available.

CSAT

CSAT generally sacrifice solid chest protection for lesser weight and thus higher mobility. For protection they rely mostly on more advanced uniforms, which offer better protection to their extremities, such as more advanced helmets.

_Their harnesses provide the best ratio between weight and capacity in-game.

_GL variant of harness provides certain degree of protection against explosives, but is quite heavy.

_Tactical Vest used by few units offers limited capacity and only the most basic bullet protection, but is quite light and in concordance with their advanced uniforms it actually offers reasonably mediocre protection level.

AAF

The AAF's greatest advantage is that their vests offer a balance between protection, weight and capacity. The obvious drawback is that their equipment does not excel in any particular area.

By simulating this aspect more accurately - differences in protection stemming from different gear - we hope to offer players more interesting choices and more authentic gameplay. With the help of the community reporting issues and providing direct feedback, we're trying to address all remaining discrepancies between this design, fluent gameplay and our focus on authenticity. Keeping the game playable and enjoyable is, of course, our first and foremost priority.

Source: https://dev.arma3.com/post/oprep-soldier-protection

I don't know how relevant this is more than two years later but I think it's still a good reference.

[peegee 118]

Playing against CSAT infantry can be counter-intuitive. Especially in PvP the CSAT starts to shine.
OPFOR that I use now simply has AAF uniform, black carriers/AAF own carriers, black Viper harnesses, black stealth balaclavas, traditional helmets etc. Not perfect, but at least they are not bullet sponge bugs anymore. :D
Weight and armor are now around same the level as other factions, but they get to keep their vanilla weapons and vehicles.