Things you DO NOT want to see in WG:RD

[solaris]

I don't want to see cheese destroying the ranked ladder from day one.

[shomu1]

To heck with the Super Hornet! I just want to see the F-16XL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Mr0Buggy]

Strv 121 & 122 aka Swedish Leo 2.

Har? First time I head some one say no thank you to a good unit. Are you actually sure you are posting in the right thread?
Its like T-80U saying no thanks to a DDR T-80UG.....

Yeah, let's just reduce all the fans of NSWP decks to one individual, why don't-cha ?

[Mikeboy]

Rafale, Eurofighter, YF-22 etc.

And the Tiger.

[GBNATO]

Rafale, Eurofighter, YF-22 etc.

And the Tiger.

You just made alot of french people very angry.

[Mikeboy]

Rafale, Eurofighter, YF-22 etc.

And the Tiger.

You just made alot of french people very angry.

It wasn't specific to the French. I don't like ridiculously OOTF prototypes, WAH-64 or Tiger's the same to me.

[Xeno426]

Post and discuss what you do not want to see in Red Dragon. Features or units or game modes or maps...anything related.

I will start off....
INTERCEPTORS
And associated weaponry.
I do not want to see MiG-31s, MiG-25s and AIM-54 Phoenixes in the game.
The scale is simply not there and would suit the MRAAMs better. Also many nations do not posses such weaponry and would be better suited and even if MRAAMs were the longest ranged killers.

So you don't want the Tornado ADV either?

F-117 Nighthawk or any stealth bomber
They are not used in shallow Close Air Support roles as Wargame depicts but rather large strategically oriented strike packages along with many other aircraft. They also cause unnecessary harm towards gameplay and minor nations, some of which do not have the capacity to sustain its damage or counter it effectively.

While I'm against more stealth aircraft, particularly the YF-23 and F-22, I don't see a problem with the F-117, at least gameplay wise.

SEAD aircraft
Like the Nighthawk, they usually do not participate in shallow close air support strikes. Using an AGM88 HARM on a Shilka is a complete waste of resources and also completely unauthentic as SEAD is usually used against radars and stationary radars and point defence AAs.

You seem to not understand what "point defense" means. That typically means <10km range, so pretty much all AAA is point defense, as would be the Tunguska and Tor systems. Systems like the S-75 and S-125 get classified as medium-range SAM systems, like the HAWK.
Additionally, the Soviet doctrine was that each squadron had its own SEAD aircraft that would fly with a strike package, using jammers, chaff rockets and SEAD missiles to create a safe operation corridor. This is in contrast to the West, which typically had squadrons whose entire purpose was SEAD operations. In fact, missiles like the Kh-25MP were designed with self-defense in mind, to be used against enemy radar and SAM sites engaging the strike package.

I would prefer if the current SEAD aircraft were removed of anti-radiation missiles and repurposed into Electronic Warfare aircraft that decreases the accuracy of the air defence systems like usually performed using the 'exceptional ECM' except covering a wider area.
I.e.
EF-111
SU-24
EA-6
Jaguar

While this would work for the EF-111, EA-6B and Su-24MP, it would not work for the Jaguar A, as it never had that capability.

It wasn't specific to the French. I don't like ridiculously OOTF prototypes, WAH-64 or Tiger's the same to me.

Rafale first flew in 1986. That's not "ridiculously OOTF".

[Mikeboy]

It wasn't specific to the French. I don't like ridiculously OOTF prototypes, WAH-64 or Tiger's the same to me.

Rafale first flew in 1986. That's not "ridiculously OOTF".

But didn't enter service until 2001, the EAP flew in 1986 but that doesn't mean the step between both of those and a combat capable aircraft isn't a massive one.

It seems the most reasonable one is actually the YF-22, seeing as that IIRC fired an AMRAAM in timeframe.

[Xeno426]

It wasn't specific to the French. I don't like ridiculously OOTF prototypes, WAH-64 or Tiger's the same to me.

Rafale first flew in 1986. That's not "ridiculously OOTF".

But didn't enter service until 2001, the EAP flew in 1986 but that doesn't mean the step between both of those and a combat capable aircraft isn't a massive one.

It seems the most reasonable one is actually the YF-22, seeing as that IIRC fired an AMRAAM in timeframe.

But that would be an even worse choice, gameplay wise.

[Mikeboy]

But that would be an even worse choice, gameplay wise.

Aye, and I did say it shouldn't be in either.

They should focus on making sure all the air forces are fleshed out and capable with what they actually operated in timeframe or at most a couple of years afterwards. Rather than going through the trouble of making new models and stuff for aircraft that would be more at home in a modern game.