The British Army (Circa 1995)

Majorpain
Master Sergeant
Posts: 189
Joined: Sun 26 May 2013 17:59
Contact:

Re: The British Army (Circa 1995)

Postby Majorpain » Tue 2 Sep 2014 20:09

DoktorvonWer wrote:
Majorpain wrote:7RPM and a good punch is better than it was, cheiftain has that at least!

Surprised about Sead harrier losing at card, must have been too many flying round for Eugens liking.


This annoys me somewhat, but let's be cereal. Get them re-configured to marine ASFs and let's get a Tornado reconfigured as a GR.4 - just one card of GR.4s would be entirely fair.


Agree, a British flavoured Tornado ECR would have been better. I wasnt aware Harrier was even cleared for ALARM, only ever seen it on Tornado's, so it possibly has a historical element to it!

User avatar
DoktorvonWer
General
Posts: 5883
Joined: Sun 12 Feb 2012 11:24
Location: Yorkshire, UK
Contact:

Re: The British Army (Circa 1995)

Postby DoktorvonWer » Tue 2 Sep 2014 20:21

Majorpain wrote:
DoktorvonWer wrote:
Majorpain wrote:7RPM and a good punch is better than it was, cheiftain has that at least!

Surprised about Sead harrier losing at card, must have been too many flying round for Eugens liking.


This annoys me somewhat, but let's be cereal. Get them re-configured to marine ASFs and let's get a Tornado reconfigured as a GR.4 - just one card of GR.4s would be entirely fair.


Agree, a British flavoured Tornado ECR would have been better. I wasnt aware Harrier was even cleared for ALARM, only ever seen it on Tornado's, so it possibly has a historical element to it!


Tornado GR.4 wouldn't have 40% ECM instead of the 50% ECM of the ECR, but would be capable of carrying 4-6 ALARM as well as 2xAIM-9L, if I recall Xeno's information correctly.

The F.2 is a redundant unit that is wasting a slot - it's post-1980 like F.3 yet with worse stats; its only use currently is a totally inauthentic availability/veterancy boost. It never entered real service in any serious capacity; it had a concrete counterweight instead of a radar while the F.3 was awaited. The current F.3 in-game is using the model for a IDS ('GR') series Tornado. The current F.2 in-game is using the correct Tornado ADV model. Solution?

Firstly, take the current F.3 model, re-role as GR.4. 40% ECM, Prototype of 1 card, 2-AIM-9L, plenty of ALARMs on its underbelly.
Secondly, take the current F.2 model, re-role as F.3 with the same stats as before; essentially just transferring the F.3 to the correct airframe model.
Thirdly, take the Sea Harrier FA.2, and give it's correct and realistic role as a naval ASF. AIM-9L + AIM-120 AMRAAM, same stats otherwise as currently.

Optionally, take the ANZAC F-4E Phantom II model, re-role to UK deck as Phantom FGR.2. 1978 unit, 800 or 850km/h due to Rolls Royce engines being slower but with more T.O.T. 4x AIM-9L, 4x Skyflash. 20% ECM. Appropriate availability/veterancy options, remembering that these were in widespread service in the RAF and serve a useful purpose in the deck as a pre-1980 ASF. Hell, the Phantom model iseless to ANZAC right now as a 1969 junkbucket with AIM-9Bs...
Image

User avatar
Mikeboy
General
Posts: 5354
Joined: Sat 27 Apr 2013 21:59
Location: Democratic People's Republic of Yorkshire
Contact:

Re: The British Army (Circa 1995)

Postby Mikeboy » Tue 2 Sep 2014 21:01

Nice little change, the Pearl of the Orient campaign now has an Invincible class model for the Illustrious group rather than a Nimitz class.

User avatar
Xeno426
Carbon 13
Posts: 11965
Joined: Tue 13 Mar 2012 21:27
Location: Acheron, Hadley's Hope
Contact:

Re: The British Army (Circa 1995)

Postby Xeno426 » Tue 2 Sep 2014 21:10

DoktorvonWer wrote:Tornado GR.4 wouldn't have 40% ECM instead of the 50% ECM of the ECR

The ECR has actual dedicated ELINT equipment, so the GR.4 would likely still be 40%.

DoktorvonWer wrote:but would be capable of carrying 4-6 ALARM as well as 2xAIM-9L, if I recall Xeno's information correctly.

3 or 5; they would be in odd numbers because of the three on the belly (one centerline, two fuselage). Giving it five missile would make it different from the ECR: more missiles, but less ECM. Realistic flavour FTW!

Alternatively, just go for three missiles to make the aircraft cheaper. Having a cheap SEAD aircraft is a pretty good boon (though perhaps not necessary with the EF-101B also being cheap).
Image
CloakandDagger wrote:And you're one of the people with the shiny colored name. No wonder the game is in the state it's in.

User avatar
DoktorvonWer
General
Posts: 5883
Joined: Sun 12 Feb 2012 11:24
Location: Yorkshire, UK
Contact:

Re: The British Army (Circa 1995)

Postby DoktorvonWer » Tue 2 Sep 2014 21:18

Xeno426 wrote:
DoktorvonWer wrote:Tornado GR.4 wouldn't have 40% ECM instead of the 50% ECM of the ECR

The ECR has actual dedicated ELINT equipment, so the GR.4 would likely still be 40%.
.


This was a typo, Xeno. My initial sentence read 'Tornado GR.4 wouldn't have the 50% ECM of the ECR', but I forgot to change the 'wouldn't' to 'would' when I added the bit about 40%.
Image

User avatar
Brutoni
Colonel
Posts: 2916
Joined: Wed 27 Mar 2013 19:44
Contact:

Re: The British Army (Circa 1995)

Postby Brutoni » Tue 2 Sep 2014 21:44

Drang wrote:
Xeno426 wrote:
jonas165 wrote:So your problem is that the Chieftain is not one of the best medium tanks, eventhough it's comparedly good now? :?

It's not comparably good to the tanks it faces in the same price range, that's the problem. Nor is it comparably good to the other tanks in the same price bracket within the same coalition.


I'm confused why a Chieftain Mk10 from 1980 has 2100m range, but a T-80 from 1976 has 2275 range. This makes absolutely zero sense.


"Flavour"

Mk.2 2100m range
Mk.5 2275m range
Mk.10 2275m range
Mk.11 -5 points.

Line sorted. And authentically
ImageImage

User avatar
Drang
Major-General
Posts: 3725
Joined: Sun 3 Feb 2013 04:20
Location: Fighting on the edge of the world
Contact:

Re: The British Army (Circa 1995)

Postby Drang » Wed 3 Sep 2014 22:39

'^You forgot 8RPM, to bring it in line with other NATO tanks using their ready-rack load rates.

Malakin
First Sergeant
Posts: 221
Joined: Fri 24 Feb 2012 14:33
Contact:

Re: The British Army (Circa 1995)

Postby Malakin » Wed 3 Sep 2014 23:11

Or with the latest patch, apparently 10RPM.

User avatar
DoktorvonWer
General
Posts: 5883
Joined: Sun 12 Feb 2012 11:24
Location: Yorkshire, UK
Contact:

Re: The British Army (Circa 1995)

Postby DoktorvonWer » Wed 3 Sep 2014 23:31

Malakin wrote:Or with the latest patch, apparently 10RPM.


Indeed. This RoF inequality is the very worst piece of 'flavour' in the game, is totally inauthentic and generally just a ridiculous pain in the ass.
Image

Malakin
First Sergeant
Posts: 221
Joined: Fri 24 Feb 2012 14:33
Contact:

Re: The British Army (Circa 1995)

Postby Malakin » Wed 3 Sep 2014 23:48

It seems to be that certain units the UK has access to are being thrown under the bus to make the ANZAC and Canadian units more apealing.

Striker being an effective 'unique unit' would take away from the ATGM units that ANZAC/Canada provide, Chieftain over shadows the Leo1's and the RAF would not need much from either if it was brought up to spec.

And on top of all that you ofc have the 'Major-Minor' bull which means that certain nations have to be deliberately made worse than IRL to ensure we dont step on Russia/'Mericuh's toes.

When you look at it like that, suddenly all the short falls of the british deck seem to make sense.
Last edited by OpusTheFowl on Sat 6 Sep 2014 03:22, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: Language

Return to “Wargame : Red Dragon”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 50 guests