US/USSR Infantry Changes (Wargame 4)

User avatar
wargamer1985
Brigadier
Posts: 3305
Joined: Sat 4 May 2013 00:36
Contact:

Re: US/USSR Infantry Changes (Wargame 4)

Postby wargamer1985 » Wed 21 Oct 2015 19:03

DeckCheney wrote:So now that it's been established- can we have SEALs and Fromoza with the Frag Launcher and RPG-7VR?

It hasn't been established at all, and you didn't address the points I made about why it would harm balance.
APPLY TO THE GLORIOUS CULT OF THE WARHAWK! LIBERATING NAZIS SINCE 1939!
Image

User avatar
DeckCheney
Colonel
Posts: 2732
Joined: Sun 16 Aug 2015 01:32
Location: The Feudal Kingdom of White Suburbia- Seattle
Contact:

Re: US/USSR Infantry Changes (Wargame 4)

Postby DeckCheney » Wed 21 Oct 2015 19:47

You've very selective reading... I spent a few paragraphs explaining why it wasn't a balance issue.
The USA is #1 exporter of freedom!
All other countries have inferior freedom!

User avatar
wargamer1985
Brigadier
Posts: 3305
Joined: Sat 4 May 2013 00:36
Contact:

Re: US/USSR Infantry Changes (Wargame 4)

Postby wargamer1985 » Wed 21 Oct 2015 21:02

DeckCheney wrote:
wargamer1985 wrote:1. It's unrealistic, the SEALs, who are using 70s equipment in W:RD (because they just came out of Vietnam according to Eugen) would not have access to a round that hasn't even begun development for the RPG-7.


2. It would seriously hurt balance, the SEALs are already good, you suggestion is simply a straight up buff to them, even at 35 points they would be a steal, being able to kill both infantry and tanks with ease and sufficient reliability.


If you want to restrict SEALs to CAT C then fine. We give them the regular RPG-7.
I am simply stating that they are CAT C in Wargame currently, and they would probably never of been seen using the RPG-7VR even if they did have access to it, it's simply too heavy/cumbersome and it was never necessary against the threat that they were facing.
SEALs aren't good. They're anti-infantry recon- which is completely useless for an SF team that is otherwise supposed to be dumped behind enemy lines to kill high priority targets.
SEALs are still very useful, although they should get the M727 instead of the AKM and should get a M79 instead of a MM1
Further, as I outlined in my original post; removing the LMGs from some SF teams in exchange for the Frag/RPO + RPG combo would create a counter balance to regular SF teams- both would be anti-tank and generally anti infantry capable- without having the extreme outliers like li Jian.
And as I said, Special Forces teams need no further buffs, and could actually use some Nerfs. It is completely unrealistic and bad for balance to have a SF team with a anti-infantry and anti-tank weapon at the same time.
The difference is that RPO/Frag Launchers are situtational- but will lose in the extended infantry duel compared to LMG equipped SF, but have other instances where their burst damage or AOE stats.

Do a direct comparison between Regular FSJ and my recommended change to Spetznaz '75; and explain the massive imbalance issues- outside if transport discrepancies between the FGR and USSR.
See above

FSJ are LMG3 infantry removers with a decent 700m range RPG.
Except they loose to dedicated anti-infantry teams most of the time.
Spetznaz with the RPG-18 (Disposable 575m range) and RPO would habe equally comparable AT, and better Burst infantry damage.
Yes they would, but Special Forces don't need buffs, line infantry and to a lesser extent shock infantry need buffs.
The price difference is arguble, though if ammo values were adjusted enough- say 4 RPO Rounds/5 RPG rounds you could price both @ 30pts.

EDIT: I just need to tell myself not to argue with Deck, it's going to go nowhere.
APPLY TO THE GLORIOUS CULT OF THE WARHAWK! LIBERATING NAZIS SINCE 1939!
Image

User avatar
raventhefuhrer
Colonel
Posts: 2949
Joined: Wed 15 May 2013 08:47
Contact:

Re: US/USSR Infantry Changes (Wargame 4)

Postby raventhefuhrer » Wed 21 Oct 2015 21:12

Yeah you'd just see more people using all-Special Forces compositions than you already do.

'1985 is right, Line Infantry are the ones who need the buffs, mostly just in terms of pricing. Shock Infantry is, at least in general, in a pretty good spot but also suffers from the odd overpricing of the transport or the infantry themselves. And many squads also suffer from having an at best mediocre AT weapon, which is the real problem.

Special Forces are in general in a pretty good place, with odd exceptions like the blatantly overpriced SASR/FKP, and the always-underwhelming Delta Force.
My YouTube Channel is Raven Wargaming. Message me to request videos on certain topics.

User avatar
Vulcan 607
Major-General
Posts: 3911
Joined: Mon 31 Mar 2014 20:40
Location: Malton
Contact:

Re: US/USSR Infantry Changes (Wargame 4)

Postby Vulcan 607 » Wed 21 Oct 2015 21:15

I would suggest the stoner 63 assault rifle or carbine for navy seals

User avatar
DeckCheney
Colonel
Posts: 2732
Joined: Sun 16 Aug 2015 01:32
Location: The Feudal Kingdom of White Suburbia- Seattle
Contact:

Re: US/USSR Infantry Changes (Wargame 4)

Postby DeckCheney » Wed 21 Oct 2015 21:42

Complains about Anti-Infantry SF. Rejects Changes to make anti-infantry SF like regular SF. Then proceeds to make a load of unsupported statements against my suggestion.

/Facepalm

Also lol @ the RPG-7VR being heavy. All it is a regular RPG-7 launcher with an upgraded warhead. Nowhere near RPG-29 territory in regards to weight.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/RPG-7
The USA is #1 exporter of freedom!
All other countries have inferior freedom!

User avatar
wargamer1985
Brigadier
Posts: 3305
Joined: Sat 4 May 2013 00:36
Contact:

Re: US/USSR Infantry Changes (Wargame 4)

Postby wargamer1985 » Wed 21 Oct 2015 21:51

DeckCheney wrote:Complains about Anti-Infantry SF. Rejects Changes to make anti-infantry SF like regular SF. Then proceeds to make a load of unsupported statements against my suggestion.

/Facepalm

Also lol @ the RPG-7VR being heavy. All it is a regular RPG-7 launcher with an upgraded warhead. Nowhere near RPG-29 territory in regards to weight.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/RPG-7

Have you ever seen a picture of the PG-7VR? That thing is massive. It is heavy and very hard to maneuver in close quarters, especially considering the SEALs could simply use a M72A4.
Also, Wikipedia still is, and never will be a credible source.
APPLY TO THE GLORIOUS CULT OF THE WARHAWK! LIBERATING NAZIS SINCE 1939!
Image

Elder Forest
Sergeant First-Class
Posts: 126
Joined: Sat 14 Apr 2012 23:36
Contact:

Re: US/USSR Infantry Changes (Wargame 4)

Postby Elder Forest » Wed 21 Oct 2015 22:31

The current Spec Ops fest is a bit ott - any future Wargame should consign special forces to low availability small (but effective) recon teams, limit shock infantry and reservist availability but offer more choices in line infantry (choice being differentiated by loadout and/or transport options and, maybe, by small increments of morale) with the aim of making line infantry the most prevalent and most infantry v infantry engagements less predictable.

User avatar
wargamer1985
Brigadier
Posts: 3305
Joined: Sat 4 May 2013 00:36
Contact:

Re: US/USSR Infantry Changes (Wargame 4)

Postby wargamer1985 » Wed 21 Oct 2015 22:35

Elder Forest wrote:The current Spec Ops fest is a bit ott - any future Wargame should consign special forces to low availability small (but effective) recon teams, limit shock infantry and reservist availability but offer more choices in line infantry (choice being differentiated by loadout and/or transport options and, maybe, by small increments of morale) with the aim of making line infantry the most prevalent and most infantry v infantry engagements less predictable.

Mostly agree.
APPLY TO THE GLORIOUS CULT OF THE WARHAWK! LIBERATING NAZIS SINCE 1939!
Image

User avatar
remilia019
Second-Lieutenant
Posts: 899
Joined: Tue 6 Jan 2015 09:04
Contact:

Re: US/USSR Infantry Changes (Wargame 4)

Postby remilia019 » Wed 21 Oct 2015 23:42

wargamer1985 wrote:#OP of thread. . .


I like all of these except:
Motostrlki in BTR-T and M2A1 getting Tow-2

Tow-2 and Konkurs-M <----- another exaggerated accuracy difference, Tow-2 is too good an ATGM.

Elder Forest wrote:The current Spec Ops fest is a bit ott - any future Wargame should consign special forces to low availability small (but effective) recon teams, limit shock infantry and reservist availability but offer more choices in line infantry (choice being differentiated by loadout and/or transport options and, maybe, by small increments of morale) with the aim of making line infantry the most prevalent and most infantry v infantry engagements less predictable.



Agree on these, I want to see more line infantry out there than Spec Ops
Image

Return to “Off-Topic”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 17 guests