REDFOR advantages

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

Re: REDFOR advantages

Postby CornProducts » Fri 16 May 2014 18:28

Seraphlord wrote:Words.


I believe you missed my point. My point was that to only mention Chinese and USSR advantages in a thread supposedly about REDFOR advantages seems a little silly.

I hope you aren't mistaking me for a BLUFOR player. :)
Image

dzimmu
Second-Lieutenant
Posts: 827
Joined: Sat 15 Sep 2012 13:00
Contact:

Re: REDFOR advantages

Postby dzimmu » Fri 16 May 2014 19:34

Il-102, the Su-24M, the MiG-23. Nobody wants to use these.
Migs23ml and mig23mld fine. Really.
panzersaurkrautwefer wrote:Nor has there been a decent explanation why US debt is relevant to the fact the panzersaurkrautwefer are unable to focus on his own problems. Mental exercise: total Russia collapse. Like literally. Customs union falls into a black hole..

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 19:39

CornProducts wrote:
Seraphlord wrote:Words.


I believe you missed my point. My point was that to only mention Chinese and USSR advantages in a thread supposedly about REDFOR advantages seems a little silly.

I hope you aren't mistaking me for a BLUFOR player. :)


I wasn't really making a jab at you, just pointing out how funny I find the "moderation" in this thread.

I would bet money if this thread started out the same way, only "BLUFOR Advantages", instead of all the Pact players who's posts got deleted on the second page and the biased warning coming up, it simply would've been locked, but instead it's allowed to continue, likely for at least several more pages like every Spetznaz/Li Jian whine thread.

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 20:09

Seraphlord wrote:I wasn't really making a jab at you, just pointing out how funny I find the "moderation" in this thread.

I would bet money if this thread started out the same way, only "BLUFOR Advantages", instead of all the Pact players who's posts got deleted on the second page and the biased warning coming up, it simply would've been locked, but instead it's allowed to continue, likely for at least several more pages like every Spetznaz/Li Jian whine thread.


This is getting a little paranoid. :roll: (And rather insulting towards MadMat.)
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
homerfcb
Lieutenant
Posts: 1199
Joined: Mon 24 Sep 2012 16:33
Contact:

Re: A Balanced Look at the Soviets

Postby homerfcb » Fri 16 May 2014 20:13

Mikeboy wrote:I'm getting somewhat tired of how the Soviets are being treated by these forums. It's generally either fanboys claiming they're useless, get nerfed constantly, spouting crap like the win rate is only even because of Red Dragons, or it's people who get resentful and claim nothing's wrong, and Pact players are just whiners. As is often the case the reality is somewhere between these two extremes. I consider myself quite an unbiased player, I'm 60-40 percent NATO-Pact, and when playing Pact I'm generally either China or one of my Soviet decks (normal, VDV, marine).

Logistics
You have so many options in logistics it's hard to really complain about trucks or CVs, however having only very large supply helicopters is something of a pain.

Infantry
Line infantry's underwhelming. However the Soviets get great ATGMs and MANPADS. Spetz are still very powerful. Their shock options are good, though somewhat hampered by low availability (and Marines need the RPG-27), a reservists unit would be nice, but it's not essential. The main problems with infantry arise from their transports, which I'll come back to.

Support
As far as tube artillery (not including mortars) goes, the MSTA-S is good. Everything else (as has been shown by Shan and Vasily) under performs compared to their peers. The 2S1, 2S3 and 2S3M are particularly crappy. Mortars are fine.

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.

For AA the BUK and Tunguska-1M are as good as you'd expect, the OSA line is under performing quite drastically. The TOR is anti-everything for no apparent reason. SPAAGs are nothing exceptional.

Tank
This is where the Soviets really suffer. They have the same medium tank problem as everyone else. Yet their high end tanks are also overpriced. They lack accuracy, they cost 25 or more points than comparable NATO tanks. The T-72B series has a rubbish RoF for their price. The only tank over 100 points that I think is cost effective is the T-64BV1, and they have nothing that can properly compare to the likes of the Challenger 1 mk.3 and the M1A1HC. This needs to be fixed.

Recon
Not much to say here, all their bases are covered. Can't get cheap helibourne Razvedka though, which is a point I'll return to.

Vehicle
Most things here are fine. ATGM carriers are overpriced as they are everywhere. The Burratino needs to be moved to support, when the Chinese flame MLRS are in support there's no justification for them staying here.

Helicopter
Holy redundancy batman! Mi-28 is pointless so long as the Ka-50 is so good. Why the Mi-24P was removed as a transport to become practically a clone of 2 other helis I have no idea.

Transports
The 5 point increase of APCs hurt the Soviets particularly badly. 15 + 20 points for Motostrelki '90 in BTR-80s is prohibitively unjustifiably expensive. Just why? It must be fixed.

As far as helicopters go the usefulness of the Mi-8T is understated often. They have 6 health, a lot of rockets, and usable speed. I wouldn't make them cheaper. However it makes helibourne infantry for the Soviets very expensive, it would be useful to have a rocketless Mi-8 or maybe a Mi-4 to serve as a cheaper heli transport. The Mi-24A & D are fine. But I want my Mi-24P transport back. :evil:

They have probably the best IFV selection in the game. Have a general buff of IFV per card availability and the Soviet's mechanised infantry will become perhaps the nation's strongest point.

Aircraft
The USSR's aircraft are mixed. Their ASF's (bar the Yak-141) are overpriced. The Su-27PU should not be 10 points more than the Rafale, whoever made that decision needs to get their eyes and/or brain checked. They have real strengths with the MiG-29S & M and the Su-27M, the MiG-27K's not bad either, the Yak-38's about as good as it could be and it does have a role. However there are some real stinkers: the Il-102, the Su-24M, the MiG-23. Nobody wants to use these.

Anyway, overall the Soviets are a mixed bag, but they definitely need some work. However it's certainly not the case that they're useless.

Great post! I support this opinion.
The big nerf whiners thread, much controversal stuff, some suggestions and some more stuff, also with a big Patriot range explanation Just klick me, or go here viewtopic.php?f=155&t=48184

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 20:14

Tressa wrote:
Seraphlord wrote:I wasn't really making a jab at you, just pointing out how funny I find the "moderation" in this thread.

I would bet money if this thread started out the same way, only "BLUFOR Advantages", instead of all the Pact players who's posts got deleted on the second page and the biased warning coming up, it simply would've been locked, but instead it's allowed to continue, likely for at least several more pages like every Spetznaz/Li Jian whine thread.


This is getting a little paranoid. :roll: (And rather insulting towards MadMat.)


I don't hate madmat, but I do think he made a mistake by simply not locking the thread if he felt that way, instead of going off and saying how soviet fanboys are "number one" in a thread whining about pact and deleting those jabbing at the op.

I stand by it, this thread would've been locked if it was on the other foot.

lemonsquid
Sergeant First-Class
Posts: 105
Joined: Fri 17 Feb 2012 19:39
Contact:

Re: REDFOR advantages

Postby lemonsquid » Fri 16 May 2014 20:18

Oh I forgot that both sides were supposed to be fair and even across the board.

Image
BMP VERY IMPORTANT CAPSLOCK MANDATORY

User avatar
homerfcb
Lieutenant
Posts: 1199
Joined: Mon 24 Sep 2012 16:33
Contact:

Re: REDFOR advantages

Postby homerfcb » Fri 16 May 2014 21:36

Seraphlord wrote:
Tressa wrote:
Seraphlord wrote:I wasn't really making a jab at you, just pointing out how funny I find the "moderation" in this thread.

I would bet money if this thread started out the same way, only "BLUFOR Advantages", instead of all the Pact players who's posts got deleted on the second page and the biased warning coming up, it simply would've been locked, but instead it's allowed to continue, likely for at least several more pages like every Spetznaz/Li Jian whine thread.


This is getting a little paranoid. :roll: (And rather insulting towards MadMat.)


I don't hate madmat, but I do think he made a mistake by simply not locking the thread if he felt that way, instead of going off and saying how soviet fanboys are "number one" in a thread whining about pact and deleting those jabbing at the op.

I stand by it, this thread would've been locked if it was on the other foot.

This is just not true. He also deleted posts of pro nato posters. I don't know what this persons have written. But I never saw any post beeing deleted without a good reason.
The big nerf whiners thread, much controversal stuff, some suggestions and some more stuff, also with a big Patriot range explanation Just klick me, or go here viewtopic.php?f=155&t=48184

xthetenth
First Sergeant
Posts: 234
Joined: Thu 21 Feb 2013 04:56
Contact:

Re: REDFOR advantages

Postby xthetenth » Sat 17 May 2014 01:34

How many missiles does Redfor get that can do more than 1 or 2 points of damage (or heck even 2 points of damage) to top end Blufor heavies and how expensive are they to get compared to Blufor missiles like the Milan F3, RBS 56, TOW 2, HOT 2, Hellfire, or ADATS? Blufor can straight up compel an airborne response from Redfor to deal with their heavy tanks, while Redfor's heavies don't have that advantage and pretty much lose any fight with a Blufor heavy because their vaunted ATGMs are dealing scratch damage and they can either have commensurate firepower or armor with Blufor heavies but not both.
Image

User avatar
[EUG]MadMat
More than 10 000 messages. Soldier you are the leader of all armies!
Posts: 15486
Joined: Thu 30 Jun 2011 13:31
Location: Paris, France.
Contact:

Re: REDFOR advantages

Postby [EUG]MadMat » Sat 17 May 2014 01:53

lemonsquid wrote:Oh I forgot that both sides were supposed to be fair and even across the board.

Indeed, they've won pretty much as many games since release.

And to refine that, the overall ratio which was 50,93% in favor of NATO was calculated as 54% since the last stats (about a week). That's still a long way from the "70%" to "90%" NATO win I keep reading.

I also keep reading that nobody plays "REDFOR" (reading "USSR", for people complaining the most about "REDFOR" usually means USSR instead). Over the last week, the most played decks were:
#1 ... USSR! (22%)
#2 ... USA! (16%)
#3 ... mixed decks, either PACT or NATO (I don't have the breaking).
Strangely the two "UP/underdog/no one ever plays them because Eurocorps OP/..." and the mixed decks, supposedly dead.

Seraphlord wrote:I don't hate madmat, but I do think he made a mistake by simply not locking the thread if he felt that way, instead of going off and saying how soviet fanboys are "number one" in a thread whining about pact and deleting those jabbing at the op.

I stand by it, this thread would've been locked if it was on the other foot.

And I hate being called bias. Myself personally or Eugen.
And we've already stated that, and establish the consequence of such accusation ...

For, who here in our position would think wise on a professionaly or even commercialy-wise to favor one side? Do you think favoring a nation, alliance, ... for political or personnal reasons would bring you customer, or on the contrary, piss most off?
So, calling us bias is basically calling us stupid, dumb or unprofessional in our face, on this privately owned forum.
We're open to critics, not accusation. If one comes in our garden to throw insults at us, we're kicking him out ...

Return to “Wargame : Red Dragon”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 39 guests