REDFOR advantages

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

Re: REDFOR advantages

Postby Mikeboy » Fri 16 May 2014 16:01

Tressa wrote:Edit: I think the reason for this are the HE damage changes in RD. It shows with mortars/light artillery vs 155mm arty as well. On paper they only have 1-2 HE less per shot, but in actual game-play the difference in killing power is huge.


I think that rather than being due to HE this is primarily due to blast radius. Large blast radius is what makes the French and British MLRS so good compared to the Uragan. If those you mentioned had their HE left the same but their blast radius increased I think they would become a great deal more useful.

User avatar
Tressa
Warrant Officer
Posts: 464
Joined: Tue 14 May 2013 12:56
Location: Austria
Contact:

Re: REDFOR advantages

Postby Tressa » Fri 16 May 2014 16:03

Mikeboy wrote:
Tressa wrote:Edit: I think the reason for this are the HE damage changes in RD. It shows with mortars/light artillery vs 155mm arty as well. On paper they only have 1-2 HE less per shot, but in actual game-play the difference in killing power is huge.


I think that rather than being due to HE this is primarily due to blast radius. Large blast radius is what makes the French and British MLRS so good compared to the Uragan. If those you mentioned had their HE left the same but their blast radius increased I think they would become a great deal more useful.


Makes sense, yes. :)
Tressa's AirLand Map Archive - All W:ALB maps as high-res images.
Guide to the Guides - Consolidated list of W:ALB Resources and Tutorials.

User avatar
icehawk308
Major
Posts: 1893
Joined: Mon 16 Apr 2012 20:32
Location: Cloud covered peaks of Toronto
Contact:

Re: A Balanced Look at the Soviets

Postby icehawk308 » Fri 16 May 2014 16:21

Mikeboy wrote:I

The SMERCH is the best MLRS in its class, however the BM-27 due to having half the blast radius (a hidden stat) of the MLRS is much worse than its armoury stats would imply. That needs to be fixed. Other MLRS systems are useful for stunning which is basically their role.



:shock: :o :? :evil: :twisted:

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

Re: REDFOR advantages

Postby wargamer1985 » Fri 16 May 2014 16:29

iwancoppa wrote:I think you're wrong.

1. Let's get an across the board artillery disadvantage for one supply hogging, point-blank range napalm MLRS.
2. AVRE
3.Fallschirmjager 90, SBS, SAS, Delta, Ghurkas, the list goes on
4. Rafale. Additionally, SU27M is bad anyway
5. Rafale.
6. 2950m range ATGM jeep, god the horror
7. I wonder what 3km+ IR missile is for


Lets make a list of all unfair redfor advantages for a change.

Lel

Ph yes Deltas and the ARVE are OBVIOUSLY OP, this thread thread is becoming a flame war
APPLY TO THE GLORIOUS CULT OF THE WARHAWK! LIBERATING NAZIS SINCE 1939!
Image

User avatar
another505
More than 10 000 messages. Soldier you are the leader of all armies!
Posts: 13128
Joined: Sun 21 Jul 2013 05:18
Location: Hiatus
Contact:

Re: REDFOR advantages

Postby another505 » Fri 16 May 2014 17:12

Yup they are good, but not a redeeming factor of their terrible overprice stuffs
marecek05 wrote:
1. Burratino is good at setting towns on fire so the defender has to relocated his infantry in the town
yes, i will give you that. even chinese napalm rockets are great, but hey 155mm arty as90 will destroy everything, not just in town
2. BMPT is good at killing infantry at ranges from 2450 to 875m if the infantry does have high ap LAW or even in short range if does not have one. And light vehicles.its good, but lost its former glory
3. Spetznas/Li Jian are very good at killing unsupported infantry in close ranges.
SAS? SEAL will beat spetsnaz in cqc fight,
4. SU 27M is without the doubt the best airplane in its class, i.e. multirole.
yup, but 1 per card in a overprice nation
5. SU 27PU has most MRAAMS of any airplane.
more mraam for a hefty cost, rafale has stealth and better accuracy missile by being cheaper
6. Chinese HJ-8a has 2950m of range that is unprecedented for land vehicle.
yes, cause RD need some anti tanking
7. Akulas Vikhr has 2950m of range that is unprecedented.
miss miss miss, lol
Those are all unfair advantages i was able to come up with. I am sure we can come with more that are able to counter all those arguments in redfor is UP threads. Or can we?

the thing is, they arent really UP but some sections are(like arty) but seriously redfor is overpriced
Image
Of Salt

The Chivalrous One
Staff Sergeant
Posts: 95
Joined: Tue 1 Apr 2014 03:05
Location: New York
Contact:

Re: REDFOR advantages

Postby The Chivalrous One » Fri 16 May 2014 17:30

Zone wrote:T-72BU and T-80UM for themselves are ok, but combined they are OP, because you face 5 x 23 AP which will cripple any NATO tank at once, leaving you, again, like in W:ALB with not really beeing capable to face a full developed mid/Late game PACT armored formation with any NATO coalition there is.

Also, Pact armored formations in all kinds are still superior to any NATO armored formation there is.

So, for the list:

(I agree with all your points)
- 5 Super Heavy Tanks
- Massive Spam of armored ATGM carriers (all Pact tanks)
- Chinese Recon Tanks with high AP
- a hell lot of 2,800 km range ATGMs of all kinds
- OP BTR-XX Autocannons... (really annoying)
- Ka-52 now with really good SEAD
- MST-A most underrated piece of artillery there is
- Elite MALKA is so much fun to use, it feels almost like a legal cheat :P
- 5 man sniper teams
- 10 man ATGM teams with 26 (!) AP (Gornos)
- Kommandosi Roflstompers
- its also OP that you can always play pact if you like :P
- better second hit capability in conquest (NATO grabs land first, but Pact is superior in grabbing it back)
- SMERCH > ATACMS

And yes, I think Pact is fine.

The problem with pact is a more simple one IMO:
It lacks diversity.
I see a lot of people playing china and NK, but only China is really at least a bit different from USSR. Same for NSWP, while NATO has really great individuality among the different nations.
More diversity for NSWP could solve this in the next DLC but due to the very design of Warsaw Pact itself I doubt there are many options...

PS: Su-27M in the right hands is a godlike weapon of massive roflstomp :P
Killing two NATO Super heavies in one run is more of a rule than the exception, if used right (and yes, in conquest games vs skilled enemies too).


Coming at this from someone with a near 50/50 RED to BLU games played, I have to agree that REDFOR is fine. They are mainly composed of more specialized troops that excel in one type of fight and cannot "hold their own" when used outside the role they specialize in.

Yes there is annoying things that RED has but all have a clear counter, just like BLU. Do I think things could be changed and for the better? Sure, but at current there is [a counter to every "annoying" thing red has (at least after 20 mins of thinking I couldn't think of anything that can't be countered).

In my attempt to show that the two faction are balanced, I'm going to run down the list you gave Tank and their BLU counterparts/counters. I'm adding my own thoughts in as well (you don't have to agree with me) but I have used these to counter such things over 350 plus games.

1) USSR's ability to bring five superheavy tanks:
Eurocorps ability to have four superheavy tanks plus 2A4s, Brennus, and the only wheeled tank in game. Along with Wiesel Tow 2s that cost only 50 points for 25 AP and the ILTIS MIlan 2 that cost 25 points for 24 AP. Etendard SEMs for 90 points that will one shot a RED tank on the side and you get three. Like most other (if not all) BLU superheavy tanks they have the same accuracy as stability and high speed and are thus are amazing on the move, while increasing survivability since a moving target is harder to hit. One Leclerc on the flank of a REDFOR armored push is disgustingly effective... and wait is that REDFOR calling the police to report a rape. :twisted:

2) Armored ATGM carrier spam, including tanks.
Walking ATGMS for carriers and a variety of well priced ATGM Planes to deal with tanks. 90 point SEM is calling again, he is till hungry, oh yeah and that quick reload after each run for having only one missile. Likewise Tigers with their stealth that can get in close to pick off a specific target, or a Lynx 3/Longbow in a defensive position behind your lines to deter an armored push.

3) Chinese recon tanks with high AP.
Any armored push/push in general, should be screened by cheap fodder units like empty APCs in front to see if you will take fire, if such is taken arty/bomb said position. Likewise recon is your friend and although they have stealth they are not impossible to spot.

4) 2,800 km ATGMs.
I'm going to role this into the ATGM spam for ground vehicles. When it comes to helicopters BLU has a variety of AA choppers and the crotales 3325 range is clutch.

5) BTR autocannons.
M2A2 for the same price and has two cards. 4 front armor, same range ATGM with two more AP and 20% more accuracy for the same price as a BTR-90 :o

6) KA-52 now with better SEAD than ever!
TBH with the SEAD accuracy buff increase I think it should still be 150 points but you should never be fully reliant on radar AA. The turn off all weapons button is your friend. Recon should be near enemy lines to spot such a unit, MANPADS in the fields near the front to shoot it down, If Eurocorps, a Crotale should always be on hand.

7) MSTA underrated.
So is a vetted up AuF1 that you cna get two cards of!

8) Elite Malka.
You only get one and it has slow ROF and is thus a easy target for counter arty. It's a sniper for light vehicles and infantry, due to the high HE damage but one shot is not always enough and thus if a followup shot is needed and if the unit did not move it will die to counter arty. Not to mention I rarely see these used in competitive play. More of I see the MSTA and Smerch combo.

9) Five man sniper teams
JSDF Ranger and now with two cards! Not to mention I like two men SF sniper teams better due to the better stealth and speed, but I would take a five man shock recon with a DMR/Sniper over any other five man team.

10) Ten men ATGM teams with 26 AP.
You have a tank within 1575 meters of a hostile building for what reason? You don't have AA in an advanced position? You don't have 150 speed AA off the start? You didn't have your SAS land to shoot the enemy helicopter down why? You didn't have a Ninja, Celtic, HAP, Pah-2, OH-58C on hand why? Your enemy was actually foolish enough to spend 45 points on a hind transport off the start and you didn't capitalize on his wasted 75 points by avoiding the unit if none of the other worked? You didn't feed him cheap transports to waste ammo or play the M18 dodge the ATGM game? I have a really hard time believing you if none of what was said worked.

11) Kommandosi making a certain point of your body sore.
Napalm planes, bombers, play the building dodge, etc. They are strongest when in CQC (same sector as a hostile unit) due to the same stabalizer as accuracy. Since CQC is based off Stabalizer and not base accuracy. If you keep dodging CQC they are weaker and can be whittled down. Likewise Fallschirmjager '90 have better stability and accuracy and although a smaller team the acc/stab superiority of the G11 will bring them in line with the Kommandosi. They suck in field fights, a place where Commando Marines excel.

12) RED whenever you want.
Eh can't complain but honestly most people are turned off by the more micro intensive units that RED has/want to use their countries military. I know you are guilty of such Tank. ;)

13) Red is better on the counter attack.
I agree and also disagree. USSR is very good at a slow constant armored push across a field, gradually building up more forces as you advance, and has good ways to remove enemy heavy armor (even if it is sometimes suicidal). Eurocorps is very simillar though plus most of their tanks are very fast. Eurocorps has the advantage of the speed and mobility of Fra. and the staying power of WGer. USSR is a mainly all in on staying power and tank removal, outside of this role it does okay but IMO excels at a constant slow push and tank removal services.

14) Smerch is better than ATACMS.
Ugh IDk, Smerch is fine for stunning and damaging heavy armor before a large scale attack, ATACMS on the other hand will kill any tank in game with one rocket, so it can kill two super heavies before it needs to reload. Plus ATACMS pays for itself in one shot in comparison to a Smerch that needs to fire all 12 rockets and most of the time you need two to actually be effective in killing a heavy tank let alone a super heavy tank. With a Smerch you have the chance to move out of the way while the rockets are incoming where you have no real chance against avoiding an ATACMS unless you are for some reason staring at at launch site of the ATACMs and not microing your troops.

quasi 15) SU-27M
Even with the veterancy each missile has only a 62% chance to hit and both need to hit in order to kill a heavy and above. The chances of actually killing two super heavies in one run is very low, it can happen just isn't as likely as you seem to say. If anything I would say the SU-25T is better. Not because of pure killing potential but because it has a long TOT, meaning you can deny an entire armor push on a sector for over one minute. Not to mention you can have two. So if you have both bought (whats not that likely, but can happen) you can deny an entire sector continually, or deny two different sectors for over one minute at a time.
Last edited by The Chivalrous One on Fri 16 May 2014 18:05, edited 1 time in total.
Image

Mot
Second-Lieutenant
Posts: 955
Joined: Mon 21 Jan 2013 17:00
Contact:

Re: REDFOR advantages

Postby Mot » Fri 16 May 2014 17:36

marecek05 wrote:I am tired of all the threads on why the REDFOR is UP.
Lets make a list of all unfair redfor advantages for a change. I will start you all of:

1. Burratino is good at setting towns on fire so the defender has to relocated his infantry in the town
2. BMPT is good at killing infantry at ranges from 2450 to 875m if the infantry does have high ap LAW or even in short range if does not have one. And light vehicles.
3. Spetznas/Li Jian are very good at killing unsupported infantry in close ranges.
4. SU 27M is without the doubt the best airplane in its class, i.e. multirole.
5. SU 27PU has most MRAAMS of any airplane.
6. Chinese HJ-8a has 2950m of range that is unprecedented for land vehicle.
7. Akulas Vikhr has 2950m of range that is unprecedented.

Those are all unfair advantages i was able to come up with. I am sure we can come with more that are able to counter all those arguments in redfor is UP threads. Or can we?

1. Burratino is indeed an advantage.
2. BMPT? Sorry but just no, its an ok unit, it brings absolutely no advantage at all, Bluefor has plenty of solid units, the Blue Dragon tank with AGS and Cannon, the awesome 15p LVTP7A1, as examples.
3. Spetnaz and LiJan are indeed amazing units, but NATO has lots of support infantry with RPO's, so unfair advantage? No.
4. Su27m being the best airplane in its class is an unfair advantage how? Do you want me to list all units Bluefor has it better on a class? Its a long list. Unfair advantage would be the Su27m being almost immortal or being priced at 150p...
5. Su27PU, another cherry picking without any unfair advantage, specially considering that Bluefor has planes as good and cheaper.
6. +175m range... wow... wow... the OPness omg! omg!
7. +175m range... wow... wow... because 2950m isn't severely out ranged by pretty much all bluefor infrared AA and even some radar...

All in all, your post is just failed cherry picking. So I'll make Basil_pup's words my own:

Basil_pup wrote:Just share your replays how you beat top ranked players with this awesome stuff.

:lol:
"I suck at Wargame" or "I have to wait 30 minutes to pubstomp people" are not solid arguments to criticize the game... just saying.

Seer7
Warrant Officer
Posts: 485
Joined: Tue 4 Jun 2013 07:26
Contact:

Re: A Balanced Look at the Soviets

Postby Seer7 » Fri 16 May 2014 17:52

icehawk308 wrote:
Mikeboy wrote:I

The SMERCH is the best MLRS in its class, however the BM-27 due to having half the blast radius (a hidden stat) of the MLRS is much worse than its armoury stats would imply. That needs to be fixed. Other MLRS systems are useful for stunning which is basically their role.



:shock: :o :? :evil: :twisted:

Check out this thread concerning blast radius for an example of its impact. Hidden stats suck.
Image
Image

User avatar
CornProducts
Colonel
Posts: 2959
Joined: Mon 7 Apr 2014 06:48
Contact:

Re: REDFOR advantages

Postby CornProducts » Fri 16 May 2014 18:12

:::Sees thread about REDFOR advantages:::

:::Scans first 4 pages and see mostly talk of USSR units and the occasional Chinese unit:::

I know REDFOR has less nations than BLUFOR, but there are certainly more than two...
Image

Seraphlord
Master Sergeant
Posts: 165
Joined: Wed 19 Mar 2014 12:12
Location: Seattle, WA, USA
Contact:

Re: REDFOR advantages

Postby Seraphlord » Fri 16 May 2014 18:20

:::Sees thread about REDFOR advantages:::

:::Scans first 4 pages and see mostly talk of USSR units and the occasional Chinese units that are mostly fine or actually have better NATO counterparts with the rare somewhat feasible answer.:::

I fixed that for you, but since my post isn't from one of the NATO members in here crying I expect to get moderated because clearly days of Li Jian threads and other crap was fine, but this thread that started out as a PACT rant (joking or not) is clearly showing that "Soviet Fanboys" are the worst.

Return to “Wargame : Red Dragon”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 87 guests