Lengthy Thoughts on PAC vs. EU

[Serizhor]

Been seeing a lot of discussion on the PAC and EU and wanted to pitch my thoughts in.

Stock Weapons - In terms of sheer satisfaction the EU weapons seem to be far beyond the PAC standard weapon sets. I'd say the one exception to this is the sniper rifle. The PAC sniper rifle is downright attractive - a sleek, black and modern looking rifle with an emerald eye lense equipped by a ninja-esque soldier seems too cool to me. The EU sniper rifle, on the other hand, has you looking through a box for the lens. Something about four sides on a lens strikes me as blasphemous. On all the other weapon sets I'm far more comfortable playing the EU. The Scar-11 especially. I've never done well with the Krylov, and the Scar is one of my best scoring weapons. The PAC Engineer gun works...but you never feel the impact of your work. All I know is a light blue ball that reminds me of Navi from Ocarina of Time rushes out and smashes into a piece of armor. The EU weapon, though, sends out a fusillade of missiles, racing each other to explode into a hostile combatant. The cool factor is higher. I won't comment on the Support machine guns, though, because I haven't really had time to tinker with them.

Costuming - Most maps, especially the "Orange" maps don't facilitate a difference in the costuming, but a few do. I think in Berlin and Sidi Power Plant the jet black PAC wear is more effective than the snow leopard EU outfits. Also, heavy armor EU suits with the orange pads stick out like a sore thumb to snipers such as myself. As a EU sniper I have a harder time plucking out PAC guys, especially if their running through shadows or next to distant crates. Conversely, on maps like Cerbere Landing or even Shuhia Taiba the snowy EU suits do a much better job, though the PAC suit can still be used well for shadow stalking. All in all I'd say they're even, but I'm more comfortable in a PAC suit most of the time. That and as an EU player I hardly wear heavy armor so I don't have giant citrus colored targets on my torso all the time.

Jeeps - Can't really tell the difference from the outside, nor the inside.

APC - Although the PAC APC looks like it could ford rivers and carry two of each animal in it, it's too noticeable. The EU APC has the advantage of looking like a standard hunk of metal on wheels, and certainly not as flamboyant. The PAC one has a strange looking front, gigantic wheels and for whatever reason seems taller. All this makes it more attention getting so that the Engineer with too many targets would probably hit you. EU seems to be superior here (plus the turrents move on the EU APC when occupied. Sweet.)

Tank - Granted, strafing in a tank is pretty amazing, and if you're good you can sneak behind EU tanks and walkers. But I think for an expert player and a competent driver (especially someone who can remember the road ahead) the EU tank has a greater advantage. In my Tank vs. Walker battles, I've always had much better success driving past a walker and turning my turrent around then strafing around a walker in a circle. Same goes for Tank vs. Tank battles. I've only been outdone once and barely. I was in an EU tank driving at a guy who was in an EU tank. As soon as I passed him he pointed his turret and me and started driving backwards so that we were side by side with inches spacing us, racing at full speed, turrets pointed at each other. The problem was, we were too close to hit each other. Suddenly he shot out of my view: he hit a rock going backwards and I had kept going forward. He was the quicker and turned his turrent to me and took the shot. Anyway, both are good, and the PAC driving noise is pretty darn soothing, but above all the EU tank is still the real tank man's way to go, I think.

Walker - Win goes to the PAC for having harder to hit vents. That's all there is to that.

Fighter Hover Copter - There doesn't seem to be much difference between the two, even in coloration. I notice the gray copter as well as the black copter. But I do have a question, and this applies to the transport copters as well - why do the sleek black PAC soldiers drive gray copters while gray EU soldiers drive sleek black copters?

Transport Copter - Only conceivable difference here is the gun, and I think the difference is big. Assuming no one on the map is occupying an AA gun you might get some copter gun time in. The EU copter has the minigun which is amazingly fun to play with, and seems to fire more shots per second than the PAC plasma gun. This may mean that it's better for "spray and pray" tactics or trying to get those partial hits on someone who's sticking out ever so slightly from behind that box. The PAC copter gun, while firing fast, requires more precision and may be better for open targets.

Besides all that, the most important consideration to me is communication. While I probably won't switch to all English, I have a much easier time receiving and processing information as a European Union soldier than I do as a PAC soldier. I've memorized a few Russian blurbs (Doctor! Medic! Frag out!) but the rest of the time I'm just hearing Russian nonsense on the radio. It's not necessarily bad, but I really, really enjoy a well coordinated tactical team which means being aware all the time. And to get that it comes down to effective communication.

So for me, EU is more fun to play, even if being a sniper means looking down an empty Pez canister.

[grifterec]

You seriously have to be joking? You think the EU stuff is by far better? Hover tanks are only good for the novice? The pac engineer weapons are worse? First off the Hover tank > the Eu tank. maybe NOT for the beginner but for the expert yeah really it is. Better for strafing vs other tanks and mechs, better for all around maneuverability, and MUCH more of a pain in the *** to kill as an Engineer. Most "Good" engineers know that if you hit a tank in the bottom back its basically insta kill. If you hit it in the front it takes many shots. So "good" tank drivers wont let you see their back, this is MUCH easier and more effective with the PAC tank. The PAC stock rocket launcher is by far better then the stock EU rocket launcher, although i use neither anymore. The EU one even tho it is more powerful, is much harder to hit anything at a distance and almost impossible to hit moving targets. The PAC one with its optically guided missile is much easier to hit moving stuff, AND hit the soft spots in vehicles. Even the PAC SMG that the engineer gets is more accurate and has less recoil then the EU one. Now, i have not played any other kit as much as Engineer but i have almost 2,000 Kills already with the Engineer kit, so i know a LITTLE about it.

[Serizhor]

You seriously have to be joking? You think the EU stuff is by far better? Hover tanks are only good for the novice? The pac engineer weapons are worse? First off the Hover tank > the Eu tank. maybe NOT for the beginner but for the expert yeah really it is. Better for strafing vs other tanks and mechs, better for all around maneuverability, and MUCH more of a pain in the *** to kill as an Engineer. Most "Good" engineers know that if you hit a tank in the bottom back its basically insta kill. If you hit it in the front it takes many shots. So "good" tank drivers wont let you see their back, this is MUCH easier and more effective with the PAC tank. The PAC stock rocket launcher is by far better then the stock EU rocket launcher, although i use neither anymore. The EU one even tho it is more powerful, is much harder to hit anything at a distance and almost impossible to hit moving targets. The PAC one with its optically guided missile is much easier to hit moving stuff, AND hit the soft spots in vehicles. Even the PAC SMG that the engineer gets is more accurate and has less recoil then the EU one. Now, i have not played any other kit as much as Engineer but i have almost 2,000 Kills already with the Engineer kit, so i know a LITTLE about it.

I'm pretty sure I never said the Hover tank should be relegated to novices, but my focus was on vehicle to vehicle combat. I will conceded that its easier for a PAC tank to "wobble" left and right to throw off engineers, but a good tank driver in either tank should never be caught stationary (I know, the RDX kills on these drivers are all too easy) and that means, ideally, an engineer should never have the opportunity to see a tank from the back in close quarters. But it still happens. So if we assume an engineer is playing tactically (not taking long distance Hail Mary shots) then the power of the EU still comes into play as a superior weapon. Chances are a hover tank that's capping isn't erratically spinning in circles to shake off an engineer that he shouldn't be able to spot anyway. What I'm saying is for the close quarter engagements, common around any strategic objective, the PAC loses it's advantage with the tank and with their guidance missiles.

I will then argue that for long distances, then, the PAC Tank has the meanuverable terrain in which to dodge shots from other tanks or engineers. But how about this: when it comes to obstacles and use of buildings the EU tank has the edge. A hover tank must present half of its front to fire a shot on someone and can then strafe back in. An EU tank can turn its turrent and expose about a tenth of its front/side for the long distance shot and then reverses. I've always found the EU tank to be better for weaving in between buildings to take out other vehicles. In this respect, then, I will continue to argue for EU tank superiority.

[Willee]

EU weapons are far better? My opinion:

Krylov > Every other assault gun in the game (yes, its ******** that it's better than unlocks).

Shuko LMG > Every other support gun in the game, and like I said about the krylov, these default guns shouldn't be better than the unlocks.

Haven't tried the sniper rifles (don't snipe) and I personally don't have an opinion about the engy default weapons.

[MrChris_CJ]

the pac assault (krylov) is one of the best guns in theg ame imo

[Shadowace]

i dont think any 1 weapon is better then the other all have there own purpose and just because one weapon you have no use for dosn't mean its not as good of a weapon

[WH4R90uLl666]

The thing about the PAC Hovertank is if you get hit from the back or the side it's harder to turn around and shoot back without having to slide all over the place. Maneuverability means nothing if you can't get the first shot and the placement right. It goes on by what Tank you feel is the best. I personally prefer the Tiger due to I can place shots easier on the target without have to move the whole tank into place.

[Daz]

First statements I totally disagree, the PAC sniper is WAY worse, and all the other PAC default weapons are amazing, I hate the EU weapons.

the Krylov is the single most insane peice of weaponry, it just takes down anything you shoot at, the shuko lmg looks abit crappy but it sounds really nice and I much prefer it even over the ganz hmg.

And the main reason I love PAC, is because their pistol is actually useable in zoomed mode. I ****ing hate that ****ty revolver. Not to mention they are russians in black, ftw.

But the PAC vehicles seem abit crappy looking and more on the shabby side, where as the EU vehicles seem more high tech.


But I love PAC, and am still abit supprised there isnt a 3rd army.

[DrJambo]

Like the other esteemed people before me, the krylov = excellence.

[Zargon]

the revolver is f-ing useless compared to the other gun :<

[grifterec]

I'm pretty sure I never said the Hover tank should be relegated to novices, but my focus was on vehicle to vehicle combat. I will conceded that its easier for a PAC tank to "wobble" left and right to throw off engineers, but a good tank driver in either tank should never be caught stationary (I know, the RDX kills on these drivers are all too easy) and that means, ideally, an engineer should never have the opportunity to see a tank from the back in close quarters. But it still happens. So if we assume an engineer is playing tactically (not taking long distance Hail Mary shots) then the power of the EU still comes into play as a superior weapon. Chances are a hover tank that's capping isn't erratically spinning in circles to shake off an engineer that he shouldn't be able to spot anyway. What I'm saying is for the close quarter engagements, common around any strategic objective, the PAC loses it's advantage with the tank and with their guidance missiles.

I will then argue that for long distances, then, the PAC Tank has the meanuverable terrain in which to dodge shots from other tanks or engineers. But how about this: when it comes to obstacles and use of buildings the EU tank has the edge. A hover tank must present half of its front to fire a shot on someone and can then strafe back in. An EU tank can turn its turrent and expose about a tenth of its front/side for the long distance shot and then reverses. I've always found the EU tank to be better for weaving in between buildings to take out other vehicles. In this respect, then, I will continue to argue for EU tank superiority.

This is what you said that i based the tank comment on " But I think for an expert player and a competent driver (especially someone who can remember the road ahead) the EU tank has a greater advantage." Which is completely backwards. An engineer should never be able to see the back of a tank? LOL. Join a server i am on and tell me that again after i one shot your tank 5 times in the round. Hell i can't even count the times i have ran and jumped on top of the EU tank ran over it and blown it from the back. The PAC tank? Any competent driver can stay way from me, keep their back from me. The pac tank is more maneuverable, hits harder, and is able to shoot higher vertically then the EU tank. The only shining light for the EU tank is the ability to turn your turret around and shoot behind you probably quicker then the PAC tank can turn all the way around.

[CarbonFire]

First statements I totally disagree, the PAC sniper is WAY worse, and all the other PAC default weapons are amazing, I hate the EU weapons.

the Krylov is the single most insane peice of weaponry, it just takes down anything you shoot at, the shuko lmg looks abit crappy but it sounds really nice and I much prefer it even over the ganz hmg.

And the main reason I love PAC, is because their pistol is actually useable in zoomed mode. I ****ing hate that ****ty revolver. Not to mention they are russians in black, ftw.

But the PAC vehicles seem abit crappy looking and more on the shabby side, where as the EU vehicles seem more high tech.


But I love PAC, and am still abit supprised there isnt a 3rd army.
Agreed, I'm a fan of the PAC weapons far more than the EU ones. The pistol is the most annoying weapon in the EU arsenal. I don't mind the Scar11 as much, although the Krylov is just all around the best gun for almost any job (but you won't take my Baur away from me ;) ).

I actually prefer the Doragon to the Talon. The 'Dragon' doesn't have the buggy landing gear like the Talon, so you have a better chance of recovering if you make a hard landing from an EMP hit. Plus I always feel like I have a big hump on my back flying the Talon - the Dragon feels a lot more sleek. The Talon DOES look better though ;)

Nekomata > Tiger in almost every case except for maybe on the long range Tank sniping on Verdun.

I prefer the L5 to the 'Bogart', although the PAC walker is harder to one-shot having a smaller vent to aim at.

The APC's and Transports seem to be fairly similar, enough that any differences are inconsequential.

And a THIRD FACTION? I appreciate your optimism, but this is EA we are talking about. I'm surprised we even got TWO factions :rolleyes:

[FIN]

I like the head on the EU sniper though, although the scope is gay, it looks very smart.
Their vehicles are smarter too though.

[Lemsip]

Besides all that, the most important consideration to me is communication. While I probably won't switch to all English, I have a much easier time receiving and processing information as a European Union soldier than I do as a PAC soldier. I've memorized a few Russian blurbs (Doctor! Medic! Frag out!) but the rest of the time I'm just hearing Russian nonsense on the radio. It's not necessarily bad, but I really, really enjoy a well coordinated tactical team which means being aware all the time. And to get that it comes down to effective communication.

Don't know if you realised this, but you can disable the PAC speech and change it to the EU one in the audio settings.

EDIT: Ah, didnt read closely, sorry :D

[Serizhor]

An engineer should never be able to see the back of a tank? LOL. Join a server i am on and tell me that again after i one shot your tank 5 times in the round. Hell i can't even count the times i have ran and jumped on top of the EU tank ran over it and blown it from the back. The PAC tank? Any competent driver can stay way from me, keep their back from me. The pac tank is more maneuverable, hits harder, and is able to shoot higher vertically then the EU tank. The only shining light for the EU tank is the ability to turn your turret around and shoot behind you probably quicker then the PAC tank can turn all the way around.

Again, I think there's been a misinterpretation of what I said. A good tank driver should never show his rear to an engineer, or any player for that matter. As a recon guy I always run at the tank when I either see half or the full rear of the tank because I know he probably can't see me there, and 99% of the time that's true (the 1% is to account for that someday when a tank operator is in the middle of a fight and turns in his rear view camera). So yeah, you can one shot a tank however many times it takes to make you feel good, but when someone discusses strategy its hard to implement those who are fortunate enough to stare down a tank driver that will tolerate an infantry man running at him and jumping over his tank. If we descend to a more common level of tactics and strategy I still don't see the advantages listed here. First, I've never heard that the PAC tank hit harder than the EU tank. Second, I'm also dubious about the vertical access of the PAC tank. And third, I hardly ever see a PAC tank actually swerving around to purposefully dodge or retreat from an engineer. Usually they're skittering across an area in a freak-out session to keep whatever infantry it just saw away. Furthermore, I can pretty much DEPEND on a PAC tank with its rear to me being dead. If I can approach it from behind, I can continue to run behind it until I get the RDX on there. I can't do the same for an EU tank. In some instances an EU tank will see me with its turrent, and any movement in any direction (one of the two it can accelerate in immediately) will make enough of a gap that it can shoot me. If you want to bring in so much empirical evidence then fine: I have never EVER been thwarted by a PAC tank.

[Mr_canman87]

Don't know if you realised this, but you can disable the PAC speech and change it to the EU one in the audio settings.

EDIT: Ah, didnt read closely, sorry :D

Well, it's really not that hard to figure out what the PAC guys are saying. I don't know if it's accurate Russian, but it seems like EA dumbed it down a little bit since BF2. It goes something like this:

For any "enemy spotted" radio transmissions, it's usually something resembling "tank/robot/transport/etc. противник (which is Russian for enemy and what the word spoken after these words is)". For calling a medic, it's usually just "doctor". I'm not sure about all the rest, but it isn't too hard to hear what they are saying. There's always that key word that will register in your brain.

[steelfallenangel]

First statements I totally disagree, the PAC sniper is WAY worse, and all the other PAC default weapons are amazing, I hate the EU weapons.

the Krylov is the single most insane peice of weaponry, it just takes down anything you shoot at, the shuko lmg looks abit crappy but it sounds really nice and I much prefer it even over the ganz hmg.

And the main reason I love PAC, is because their pistol is actually useable in zoomed mode. I ****ing hate that ****ty revolver. Not to mention they are russians in black, ftw.

But the PAC vehicles seem abit crappy looking and more on the shabby side, where as the EU vehicles seem more high tech.


But I love PAC, and am still abit supprised there isnt a 3rd army.

Just thought that was kinda funny because plot wise the PAC side is suppose to be more technoligically advanced than the EU since they desinged the Titan and walker first

[zoidberg]

Well, it's really not that hard to figure out what the PAC guys are saying. I don't know if it's accurate Russian, but it seems like EA dumbed it down a little bit since BF2. It goes something like this:

For any "enemy spotted" radio transmissions, it's usually something resembling "tank/robot/transport/etc. противник (which is Russian for enemy and what the word spoken after these words is)". For calling a medic, it's usually just "doctor". I'm not sure about all the rest, but it isn't too hard to hear what they are saying. There's always that key word that will register in your brain.

I already got 1/2 of the radio transmissions familiarized in my head.
For me PAC all the way. Just love that tank.