No C-300 ?

ilias
Staff Sergeant
Posts: 91
Joined: Mon 11 Jul 2016 04:07
Contact:

No C-300 ?

Postby ilias » Mon 4 Sep 2017 08:33

Why in the game is no C-300 with some acceptable ranges missile ?
missiles (HAWK's Operational range: 45–50km)

ilias wrote:
molnibalage wrote:..

sure what you will not state against that preciseness of comparative equipment count in Wargame is pretty far from real (even not counting things like: TOS-1 which's count even now ~15 (according to your data C-300 count in that time period ~20 or more) (yes i understand what S-300 most possible would stay on country's defence); Patriots which then should be 4+;..),
according to ~ scaling of Russian armed forces certain vehicles count comparative to US's, in the game could present ~0.4-2.1 S-300, adding 1(max count in desk) to USSR for fairness, with 7000 range(more than Patriot) wouldn't hurt anything, S-300 is even some kind of national symbol, it would be pretty move, liked by Red side players, which wouldn't brake the game

GARGEAN wrote:
ilias wrote:5V55R was produced, which have range of 90km

missile for S-300P, which fit game even worse that Patrion or S-300V.

ilias wrote:on battlefield would be logically to see Antey, but i'm not sure about their production, while S-300P versions definitely were produced in enough counts

It does fits the game:
If you mean because of it's main application (country's air defence) then it depends, as example: who knows how it could be used also, in the wartime (especially by russians :) )
otherwise: for example i had no problems with 7000 range patriots playing for Red

And if antey--then 5km, what is the big deal ?
Last edited by ilias on Mon 4 Sep 2017 17:58, edited 4 times in total.

GARGEAN
Brigadier
Posts: 3496
Joined: Wed 9 Apr 2014 14:19
Contact:

Re: No C-300 ?

Postby GARGEAN » Mon 4 Sep 2017 09:11

Cause first: this is S-300, not C-300. Second: it is in every iteration blatantly superior to HAWK, and third - we don't need S-300V, we need Buk-M2. But everyone knows that Soviet works on AA stopped in 80s, cause who need those modern SAMs?

ilias
Staff Sergeant
Posts: 91
Joined: Mon 11 Jul 2016 04:07
Contact:

Re: No C-300 ?

Postby ilias » Mon 4 Sep 2017 09:30

GARGEAN wrote:Cause first: this is S-300, not C-300. Second: it is in every iteration blatantly superior to HAWK, and third - we don't need S-300V, we need Buk-M2. But everyone knows that Soviet works on AA stopped in 80s, cause who need those modern SAMs?

0. Russian SAMS not actively developing because no need in it, S-300 is one of superior AA systems in a world unlike Buk which banaly worse,
1. USA have patriots, thats point of S-300 presence in game (i wrote HAWK's range as example for explanation of S-300 in game presence accordance)
2. Why you think the "C" in first post not written in russian keyboard layout ? )
Last edited by ilias on Mon 4 Sep 2017 10:40, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
FrangibleCover
Lieutenant
Posts: 1376
Joined: Mon 14 Nov 2016 21:34
Contact:

Re: No C-300 ?

Postby FrangibleCover » Mon 4 Sep 2017 10:26

USSR should swap the Su-27PU, the Su-27M and possibly the Yak-141 for the S-300 with earlyish missiles. Then the US should swap the Patriot for a Super Hornet meme fighter and useful loadouts for at least some of its strike aircraft (F-16C and A-7E, I'm looking at you here). Then the Tomcats should be reroled into a multirole Bombcat and a Sparrow/Sidewinder fighter and the MiG-31s should be reroled into Su-17s. Now things look a little more sensible.

You could also kill the Su-27K and MiG-29K while you're at it but who gives a shit about Naval?
[Non-included Nation] Belgium - Spreadsheet
[Non-included Nation] Hungary - Spreadsheet
[Non-included Nation] Pakistan

ilias
Staff Sergeant
Posts: 91
Joined: Mon 11 Jul 2016 04:07
Contact:

Re: No C-300 ?

Postby ilias » Mon 4 Sep 2017 10:44

FrangibleCover wrote:USSR should swap the Su-27PU, the Su-27M and possibly the Yak-141 for the S-300 with earlyish missiles. Then the US should swap the Patriot for a Super Hornet meme fighter and useful loadouts for at least some of its strike aircraft (F-16C and A-7E, I'm looking at you here). Then the Tomcats should be reroled into a multirole Bombcat and a Sparrow/Sidewinder fighter and the MiG-31s should be reroled into Su-17s. Now things look a little more sensible.

You could also kill the Su-27K and MiG-29K while you're at it but who gives a shit about Naval?

(if i do not missing some sarcasm in the post (i'm used to ) ))
Do not think is any reason why US should loose Patriot in favor of anything, and tomcats probably should stay with phoenixs (counting the game's time)

GARGEAN
Brigadier
Posts: 3496
Joined: Wed 9 Apr 2014 14:19
Contact:

Re: No C-300 ?

Postby GARGEAN » Mon 4 Sep 2017 11:21

ilias wrote:0. Russian SAMS not actively developing because no need in it, S-300 is one of superior AA systems in a world unlike Buk which banaly worse,
1. USA have patriots, thats point of S-300 presence in game (i wrote HAWK's range as example for explanation of S-300 in game presence accordance)
2. Why you think the "C" in first post not written in russian keyboard layout ? )

0. Missed you. In game we have SAMs from at least mid-90s, when USSR struck with mid/late 80s stuff. This is stupid. And no, Buk is not worse, it's just system if different class. And Buk-M2 fits game much better that S-300V.
1. Patriot is stupid itself, no need in even more power-creeping out-of-scale gimmick.
2. Because this is english-languaged forum.

ilias
Staff Sergeant
Posts: 91
Joined: Mon 11 Jul 2016 04:07
Contact:

Re: No C-300 ?

Postby ilias » Mon 4 Sep 2017 11:26

GARGEAN wrote:
ilias wrote:0. Russian SAMS not actively developing because no need in it, S-300 is one of superior AA systems in a world unlike Buk which banaly worse,
1. USA have patriots, thats point of S-300 presence in game (i wrote HAWK's range as example for explanation of S-300 in game presence accordance)
2. Why you think the "C" in first post not written in russian keyboard layout ? )

0. Missed you. In game we have SAMs from at least mid-90s, when USSR struck with mid/late 80s stuff. This is stupid. And no, Buk is not worse, it's just system if different class. And Buk-M2 fits game much better that S-300V.
1. Patriot is stupid itself, no need in even more power-creeping out-of-scale gimmick.
2. Because this is english-languaged forum.

0. In game we have not things which been made in 90s, we have what was used in 90s
"worse" i meant (and one highly valuable thing you missing): is it's class it self, that type of AA systems was totaly deprecated by most (if not all) "serious" modern armies in favor to systems of Patriot and C-300 kinds

User avatar
Grabbed_by_the_Spets
General
Posts: 6306
Joined: Fri 16 Mar 2012 11:40
Contact:

Re: No C-300 ?

Postby Grabbed_by_the_Spets » Mon 4 Sep 2017 11:29

After the patriot drop I think it was universal opinion that ultra-long ranged modern SAM's were not the best idea...
Image

GARGEAN
Brigadier
Posts: 3496
Joined: Wed 9 Apr 2014 14:19
Contact:

Re: No C-300 ?

Postby GARGEAN » Mon 4 Sep 2017 11:30

ilias wrote:
GARGEAN wrote:
ilias wrote:0. Russian SAMS not actively developing because no need in it, S-300 is one of superior AA systems in a world unlike Buk which banaly worse,
1. USA have patriots, thats point of S-300 presence in game (i wrote HAWK's range as example for explanation of S-300 in game presence accordance)
2. Why you think the "C" in first post not written in russian keyboard layout ? )

0. Missed you. In game we have SAMs from at least mid-90s, when USSR struck with mid/late 80s stuff. This is stupid. And no, Buk is not worse, it's just system if different class. And Buk-M2 fits game much better that S-300V.
1. Patriot is stupid itself, no need in even more power-creeping out-of-scale gimmick.
2. Because this is english-languaged forum.

"worce" i meant (and one highly valuable thing you missing): is it's class it self, that type of AA systems was totaly deprecated by most (if not all) "serious" modern armies in favor to systems of Patriot and C-300 kinds

That's pretty lol. I can clearly see the man who know flat out nothing about real armies operational doctrine.

ilias
Staff Sergeant
Posts: 91
Joined: Mon 11 Jul 2016 04:07
Contact:

Re: No C-300 ?

Postby ilias » Mon 4 Sep 2017 11:41

Grabbed_by_the_Spets wrote:After the patriot drop I think it was universal opinion that ultra-long ranged modern SAM's were not the best idea...

if you mean in the game (from 7000 to 5000) i totally disagree with that ridiculousity cause it was made based of certain view on gameplay and totaly against realism, but what we have, desigions made by devs. (thanks for your work on creation of the game in any case [heart][heart][heart]), point is anyway stays: "same kind as patriot (if it is there, S-300 have to be too)"

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Nerdfish and 37 guests