US Anti Tank Infantry

Mazz
Second-Lieutenant
Posts: 751
Joined: Thu 8 Mar 2012 05:31
Contact:

Re: US Anti Tank Infantry

Postby Mazz » Mon 6 Jan 2014 02:40

The point for area-denial ATGMs comes from a regular idea while playing on the attack. If I'm say, the USSR, I can push your Bradleys/I-TOWs back with my own PACT ATGM tanks or ATGM infantry, then drive a bunch of cheap 1925/2100m armor into the 700m gap between the 1575m Dragon and my tanks cannons. I can then slowly expose your infantry without really being at risk of return fire, unless your willing to advance your ATGM vehicles or helos into very unfavorable conditions just to stop my 30-55 point tanks from mulching your infantry.

This is a problem for any deck without these traits, but in RD those problems can be wholy fixed for literally everyone but the US by taking a coalition group.

This becomes a problem because this leaves a giant hole in the US deck that everyone else has now filled, and now can do the area-denial thing to your vehicles just as well as you were doing it back. NSWP CO will have Igla access, Kub-M2/M3, early Buk access, Strop 2s to keep your helos at bay, and Metis-M, Fagot and Konkurs to push your vehicles back. The Nord CO will have the NOAH and all of Swedens excellent infantry together. Etc, etc.

This is a gap that smart players can and do exploit, I know this because I've done it multiple times while playing my Soviet or Czech deck, or even my mixed NATO in ranked when I see a US deck show up. It seriously means that if I set my units correctly, I can do area-denial better then the US while attacking into a US player.

This is why I want to see some sort of 1925/2100m option for the US, it doesn't need to be even very good at it (hence my request for a 1925/2100, 15 AP Super D). Just something to fill that hole in a world where everyone else will have a lot of their capability gaps filled by either new units or deck merging.

If you want to fix this problem without adding anything unecessary to the US, then add the US to a coalition with a decent ATGM squad. Until then, and as long as the US is considered major enough to stand alone, it needs the hole filled by something.
Image

User avatar
Graphic
More than 10 000 messages. Soldier you are the leader of all armies!
Posts: 10588
Joined: Mon 30 Apr 2012 10:18
Location: Battle Born
Contact:

Re: US Anti Tank Infantry

Postby Graphic » Mon 6 Jan 2014 02:50

Thourq wrote:I never said it was confirmed. I could have worded it better, but I was merely stating what kind of unit it would be, if it were ever in.


Just want to make sure no one's getting their hopes up over misunderstandings :)
k

Guggy
General
Posts: 8645
Joined: Thu 17 Nov 2011 02:53
Location: peaceful skeleton realm
Contact:

Re: US Anti Tank Infantry

Postby Guggy » Mon 6 Jan 2014 03:02

Honestly, I expect the US in RD to be given the Soviet Cat A treatment; Powerful, but hindered alot by constraints for game-play purposes that otherwise wouldnt exist.

Mortabis
Sergeant Major
Posts: 267
Joined: Sun 5 Jan 2014 06:34
Location: The Commonwealth of Virginia
Contact:

Re: US Anti Tank Infantry

Postby Mortabis » Mon 6 Jan 2014 03:03

Guggy wrote:Honestly, I expect the US in RD to be given the Soviet Cat A treatment; Powerful, but hindered alot by constraints for game-play purposes that otherwise wouldnt exist.


Please explain how Soviet Cat A is hindered at all. It has more variety of units than any other deck, except perhaps NATO Cat A. Its only downside in my experience is that its units are expensive.

Guggy
General
Posts: 8645
Joined: Thu 17 Nov 2011 02:53
Location: peaceful skeleton realm
Contact:

Re: US Anti Tank Infantry

Postby Guggy » Mon 6 Jan 2014 03:23

I mean from a realism standpoint. People shouldnt get excited about seeing cheap TOW-2 platforms everywhere, etc. Units will still be adjusted for game play availability wise.

If the Cat A Soviets in ALB were modelled "realistically", NATO would be in tears. If the US is modelled in full potential in RD, the Soviets will be in tears. They've already been in tears once in 1991, it isnt fair to do it another timeline as well :(

Gopblin
Major-General
Posts: 3620
Joined: Thu 24 May 2012 19:10
Contact:

Re: US Anti Tank Infantry

Postby Gopblin » Mon 6 Jan 2014 04:03

Mortabis wrote:
Guggy wrote:Honestly, I expect the US in RD to be given the Soviet Cat A treatment; Powerful, but hindered alot by constraints for game-play purposes that otherwise wouldnt exist.


Please explain how Soviet Cat A is hindered at all. It has more variety of units than any other deck, except perhaps NATO Cat A. Its only downside in my experience is that its units are expensive.


Low availability. Four TungM, three T80U, etc. Plus many are only available in weird deck types (e.g. SVK).

Best wishes,
Daniel.
Nationality? - Russian.
Occupation? - No, no, just visiting.

MoralCoral
Master Sergeant
Posts: 171
Joined: Mon 14 May 2012 16:47
Contact:

Re: US Anti Tank Infantry

Postby MoralCoral » Mon 6 Jan 2014 04:18

Mortabis wrote:
Guggy wrote:Honestly, I expect the US in RD to be given the Soviet Cat A treatment; Powerful, but hindered alot by constraints for game-play purposes that otherwise wouldnt exist.


Please explain how Soviet Cat A is hindered at all. It has more variety of units than any other deck, except perhaps NATO Cat A. Its only downside in my experience is that its units are expensive.


Considering that cost literally decides whether or not you can bring a unit onto the battlefield, expensive units is a pretty big downside. The T-80U for example, is really powerful but at 170 points for a tank that dies to one run of an ATGM plane, is it really a "strength"? BMP-3, BMPT are also very effective, but very costly and vulnerable, as well. USA is balanced with USSR right now, considering that it gets more activation points, Nighthawks, TOW-2 Bradleys, Apaches, and light infantry, and USA will be even more powerful in RD. I really don't think USA is getting gimped, at all.
also known as the caulktopus

Nerdfish
Major
Posts: 1902
Joined: Thu 26 Jan 2012 22:12
Contact:

Re: US Anti Tank Infantry

Postby Nerdfish » Mon 6 Jan 2014 05:37

US could get FGM-148 Teams as a prototype.
The weakness should be large resupply cost. $78,000 missiles should not come cheap in game. You should not be using these to kill 5pt trucks.
The strength should be ability to hit top armor as well as overall good performance for a top of the line ATGM.

Mandolin
Warrant Officer
Posts: 448
Joined: Sat 12 Oct 2013 23:13
Contact:

Re: US Anti Tank Infantry

Postby Mandolin » Mon 6 Jan 2014 06:04

Nerdfish wrote:US could get FGM-148 Teams as a prototype.
The weakness should be large resupply cost. $78,000 missiles should not come cheap in game. You should not be using these to kill 5pt trucks.
The strength should be ability to hit top armor as well as overall good performance for a top of the line ATGM.

Not happening. Ever. At all. This has been stated many, many times. Can everyone just drop the subject? It's getting old. Yes, it would be nice. No, we don't get it.

cplfernandez
Sergeant First-Class
Posts: 122
Joined: Thu 19 Jan 2012 03:20
Contact:

Re: US Anti Tank Infantry

Postby cplfernandez » Mon 6 Jan 2014 06:16

It is kind of amazing how hostile people get to this thread. You really don't have to read it.

Return to “Wargame : Red Dragon”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 89 guests