Eryx range

User avatar
Bougnas
Major-General
Posts: 3652
Joined: Sat 26 Apr 2014 18:24
Contact:

Re: Eryx range

Postby Bougnas » Fri 19 May 2017 21:11

HrcAk47 wrote:
Bougnas wrote:

You're talking about SD: Fulda 89 then.

Just imagine Wargame with all (but the phase system that might be too complicted to adapt) features from SD, including the new units types (infntry mortars and mgs, towed weapons).

Just think about the new memes: "2A29 Rapira OP", "Swedish recoiless rifles 2 stronk", "Rapiers towed by landrovers ruin everything"

Oh, and if we stick to the European theater only (Asia can be a standalone to prevent the mess from RD with Polish units in Korea), Italy will unleash havoc with the Aspide Skyguard system.


What you describe is my dream game :D


Mine as well. Just for fun I made a fully historical (no proto) canadian battlegroup from 1980-1989 (most modern unit variants before 1980).
The result was interesting, not a huge improvement when going through the timeframe (except from ADATS and Javelin and some stuff) but it holds it's ground when you compare it to other minors: pretty modern Leopard C1, TOW 2 units, cheap units that get the job done (Lynx, Grizzly) and the Cougar Recce becomes an IFV for a 2-man recon squad.


Also, Sweden becomes a meme. And even without protos Yugoslavia would still be pretty good with towed weapons.
Image

User avatar
nuke92
Lieutenant
Posts: 1089
Joined: Tue 14 Jun 2016 21:51
Contact:

Re: Eryx range

Postby nuke92 » Sat 20 May 2017 00:34

Agreed on the 91 limit, the cold war didn't end in 89.

We could start making threads about next gen WG battlegroups, but I'm not sure if I like this idea, most don't want a dumbed down WG :?
And certainly not confined maps where each arty unit would be off map, strip away 80% of available nations... etc.

Hell SD allready has meme units.

I guess sekrit dokuments as in best ATGM in the game that is CAT B and was sekrit for the last 3 decades until 2011... along with it's spawn :roll:
Image
"Spike MR is more accurate I'll give you that but Konkurs has more range and isn't prototype" - Warchat™ July 2017
"ALB added planes, RD added ships, WG4 will add Ekranoplans" - Warchat™ August 2017

User avatar
HrcAk47
Colonel
Posts: 2744
Joined: Sat 3 May 2014 18:00
Contact:

Re: Eryx range

Postby HrcAk47 » Sat 20 May 2017 02:26

Let me just mention this little thing that would... nicely... replace the lack of Bumbar in a 1989/1991 scenario.

M-87 Topaz - take a D-30J carriage, add to it a barrel from MT-12 Rapira, fully digital FCS with laser rangefinder and meteosensor, and a ridiculous autoloader - et voila, another meme machine that spews warcrimes 360° is made. :mrgreen:
The SEAD never bothered me anyway.

SMB Yugoslavia Retexture Mod, now released, v.1.0

User avatar
Fade2Gray
General
Posts: 8395
Joined: Wed 1 May 2013 23:30
Location: IED proof in Iraq
Contact:

Re: Eryx range

Postby Fade2Gray » Sat 20 May 2017 04:31

If we go Steel Division: Fulda Gap then we need to keep the alternate time line that Red Dragon is using. If not, then you will have a lot of nations go back to what they were in EE/ALB, ie useless as anything other than novelty or gimmicks.
Image
Image
Think you have what it takes to enlist into the military? You sure about that?

throwaway
Lieutenant
Posts: 1251
Joined: Fri 27 Feb 2015 21:23
Contact:

Re: Eryx range

Postby throwaway » Sat 20 May 2017 05:25

What about changes that don't overhaul the entire game, for speed of implementation reasons? Maybe a velocity nerf, to make sideshots and ambushes from max-range harder? This way it will get some atgm-like traits and not be just a souped-up vampyr.

The current stats are 1200 speed 1000 acceleration. A random pre-scandi version I opened (430000302) has 750 speed 500 acceleration. It was apparently useless back in those days, so it's probably not good to use those values exactly.

User avatar
HrcAk47
Colonel
Posts: 2744
Joined: Sat 3 May 2014 18:00
Contact:

Re: Eryx range

Postby HrcAk47 » Sat 20 May 2017 09:55

Fade2Gray wrote:If we go Steel Division: Fulda Gap then we need to keep the alternate time line that Red Dragon is using. If not, then you will have a lot of nations go back to what they were in EE/ALB, ie useless as anything other than novelty or gimmicks.


"Divisional" (or rather, brigade) approach can do wonders, IMO - i am a big proponent of dividing US and USSR to Armored/VDV/Marine/Mech/Moto - each can be fleshed out to standalonability - just think, US Marine... VDV...

Then, we have second order powers (Israel, Yugoslavia, UK, WGer, France, Sweden, Finland, Poland, DDR, Italy, Czechoslovakia, Romania) where 3 or 4 "divisions" can be made (I see little need for Czech marines ;) )

And later, we have gimmick nations (Denmark, Norway, Belgium, Hungary, Bulgaria...) that can realistically provide one or two "divisions".

Reversing the timeframe a bit levels the playing field significantly in the field of MRAAMs, superheavies (T-80U glory, woo), while adding towed weapons... and I believe that minors can benefit a lot from it.
The SEAD never bothered me anyway.

SMB Yugoslavia Retexture Mod, now released, v.1.0

User avatar
Bougnas
Major-General
Posts: 3652
Joined: Sat 26 Apr 2014 18:24
Contact:

Re: Eryx range

Postby Bougnas » Sat 20 May 2017 10:47

Not sure if we need to go as far as to divide everything into divisions, but realistic battlegroups would be quite nice.

Going for a 1980-1989/91 timeline wouldn't necessarily mean that minors would be useless (especially if it's 1991) because the capability gap between minors and majors would be smaller.

If we have no HP for vehicles then ATGMs would allow minors to engage heavy tanks, heavy tanks in general are less common (WP has T-72M1s and T-55AMs, most NATO members have Leopard 1 variants or AMX 30s), most ASF use SRAAMS and/or SARH missiles (but the USAF with the AMRAAM), towed weapons give minors decent artillary, AA and even sometimes AT options...
Last edited by Bougnas on Sat 20 May 2017 11:09, edited 1 time in total.
Image

User avatar
FrangibleCover
Lieutenant
Posts: 1387
Joined: Mon 14 Nov 2016 21:34
Contact:

Re: Eryx range

Postby FrangibleCover » Sat 20 May 2017 11:02

A strict brigade system would be too limited but if we use a Steel Division type system and a bit of imagination we can attach whatever units are necessary to buff the brigade up into usability. For example, the Belgian Armoured unit will have no helicopters except scout Alouette IIs. That sucks so we attach a unit of West German Bo-105s from the squadron that was near their AO, much like the 6th Airborne get Challengers without having to wedge them into a glider.
[Non-included Nation] Belgium - Spreadsheet
[Non-included Nation] Hungary - Spreadsheet
[Non-included Nation] Pakistan

User avatar
Bougnas
Major-General
Posts: 3652
Joined: Sat 26 Apr 2014 18:24
Contact:

Re: Eryx range

Postby Bougnas » Sat 20 May 2017 11:12

FrangibleCover wrote:A strict brigade system would be too limited but if we use a Steel Division type system and a bit of imagination we can attach whatever units are necessary to buff the brigade up into usability. For example, the Belgian Armoured unit will have no helicopters except scout Alouette IIs. That sucks so we attach a unit of West German Bo-105s from the squadron that was near their AO, much like the 6th Airborne get Challengers without having to wedge them into a glider.



Indeed attachments could be very interesting in Wargame, especially since we know what they would be historically speaking.

For example the canadian forces in Europe were supposed to be supported by M48 Chapparals and M163 as well as AH-1 Cobras, and Norway had quite a lot of attachments.
Image

User avatar
Fade2Gray
General
Posts: 8395
Joined: Wed 1 May 2013 23:30
Location: IED proof in Iraq
Contact:

Re: Eryx range

Postby Fade2Gray » Sat 20 May 2017 12:07

HrcAk47 wrote:Reversing the timeframe a bit levels the playing field significantly in the field of MRAAMs, superheavies (T-80U glory, woo), while adding towed weapons... and I believe that minors can benefit a lot from it.


Towed weapons are not going to even come close to matching the raw power that USA, USSR, and Germany can put onto the field. You gotta come up with a lot more than that to make the minors competitive. Don't even get me started on my favorite, ie Juche. Sadly the time line needs to be stretched even more to help them out, unless you want to go crazy with the SDN method (that I find suspect as hell) of tweaking prices of units per division. Also, considering how MRAAMs are "covered" by things like AMRAAMs for all BLUFOR minors as an example, this isn't an issue, at all, for the WG:RD time line.

We need to keep the WG:RD time line, along with coalitions, because anything less is going to doom the majority of minors to being just mere gimmicks. WG:RD comes pretty close to making all coalitions viable (even if I don't agree with the flavor that EUGEN decided on for some), and I love it that way. Unless you have a really good and detailed plan on what you can add to keep all nations viable to the general level that WG:RD has, going back to a 89-91 time line is going to do a lot of harm to balance.

FrangibleCover wrote:A strict brigade system would be too limited but if we use a Steel Division type system and a bit of imagination we can attach whatever units are necessary to buff the brigade up into usability. For example, the Belgian Armoured unit will have no helicopters except scout Alouette IIs. That sucks so we attach a unit of West German Bo-105s from the squadron that was near their AO, much like the 6th Airborne get Challengers without having to wedge them into a glider.


Sounds like a good argument for keeping the general "coalition" setup going.
Image
Image
Think you have what it takes to enlist into the military? You sure about that?

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Majestic-12 [Bot] and 8 guests