REDFOR advantages

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 » Sun 18 May 2014 01:52

terror51247 wrote:Current advantages of redfor
Spoiler : :
USSR:
Large number of avaliable high end planes with mraam
2800m atgm
Spetsnaz
igla n
Buratino
Bmp1 d
Konkurs m inf
Has ground exceptional optics

China:
Good aviability bonus
2800m atgm
Napalm rocket arty
Good tank line
excellent aa chopper
excellent vehicle line
wz551
j7 h nuke bomber
ztq 62g
lin jian 90
qw1

DPRK:
Great aviability bonua
ats 103
su100
f6c

Weaknesses of redfor
Spoiler : :
USSR:
No reservists
No dedicated aa helo
Horrible tank line
Horrible transports
Overpriced line and shock infantry(motostrelki,VDV,morskaya pekhota)
Horrible arty
Horrible HE bombers
Atgm have lower ap and accuracy compared to its bluefor equivalents
Hinds are overpriced

China:
No atgm inf
No super heavy tank
Horrible arty
Horrible AA vs planes
Horrible fighters
No high end atgm helo
No atgm planes
No exceptional stealth recon

DPRK:
Glorious DPRK has no weakness

No comments about nswp because they werent updated yet.
No comments about navy units because i think that the naval part of this game is awful and cant be fixed.



I think you should have been serious with DPRK weakness than another NK joke
and also expand their strength

Great avail. bonus
they have pretty decent economical tanks,
lots of rocket
one of the best reservist
Neva is still amazing
Great airborne infantry at killing infantry
grenade launcher helo
at130 is ridiculous, ww2 gun = abram's 105mm
plenty of unicorn units...


weakness
terrible howitzers
koksan is terrible
Bad asf, mig29 with four terrible missiles
crap atgm plane
mediocre helo selection with no good atgm
no cheap recon infantry
lack good ground atgm




In addition to china weakness
Lack of SF recon
Image
Of Salt

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

Re: REDFOR advantages

Postby xthetenth » Sun 18 May 2014 02:01

RedDevilCG wrote:
Uncle_Joe wrote:For example, if you have 54% NATO/BLUE Wins and say, 6-8% Draws, that only leave 38-40% as PACT/RED wins. And that is a HUGE statistical variance.
Pretty sure MadMat mentioned that draws are not included, as they looked at victories only.
Uncle_Joe wrote:Even if Draws are already accounted for in that calculation, it's still 54 to 46 which again, is bigger than it seems.
Not sure what you mean by bigger than it seems. Are you saying 54 to 46 isn't actually 54 to 46, but somehow larger?


I think he's saying that it's a big deal. How many games are just ridiculous mismatches from the word go, with premades vs. pubbies and the like? If the sides aren't so imbalanced that those matches are in question the number of blufor wins in games that are close starts looking considerably more lopsided. If only 30% of matches are in question enough that deck imbalance has a significant impact (this number is higher for a worse balanced game, lower for a better balanced one), then of those 30%, blufor is winning 19% of that 30%, or a whopping 63% of games that are close enough to be decided by deck strength.
Image

Wolke
Chief Warrant Officer
Posts: 534
Joined: Wed 12 Jun 2013 17:15
Contact:

Re: REDFOR advantages

Postby Wolke » Sun 18 May 2014 02:03

I think he simply means that a at least 8% difference is quite substantial, something often overlooked when you only see half of the statistic (54% Bluefor wins)

terror51247
Major
Posts: 1851
Joined: Thu 27 Sep 2012 12:55
Contact:

Re: REDFOR advantages

Postby terror51247 » Sun 18 May 2014 03:30

I made a dprk joke because i think that their weaknesses are quite obvious.
BTW lack of SF recon for china is in the weakness list(lack of exceptional stealth recon).
How can anyone play to a faction's strength if the major flavour of that faction is overpriced units in every category?

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

Re: REDFOR advantages

Postby Mot » Sun 18 May 2014 06:30

Kraxis wrote:
Mot wrote:
[EUG]MadMat wrote:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dz25N72cQxs#t=168

I didn't even understand the connection... maybe someone could be kind enough to explain me.

"Nono, you are not evil biased warmongers that want to ruin my nation/deck/game, you are just incompetent idiots."

Being biased isn't being incompetent... I thought that was quite understandable in my post. Guess I didn't factor in the interpretation incompetence.
"I suck at Wargame" or "I have to wait 30 minutes to pubstomp people" are not solid arguments to criticize the game... just saying.

frostie
Sergeant First-Class
Posts: 116
Joined: Thu 23 May 2013 02:57
Contact:

Re: REDFOR advantages

Postby frostie » Sun 18 May 2014 20:22

GodofHellfire wrote:^ uhh wat ? ( the unit comparison post)
Some of these comparisons dont match up or are out of context

1. Aim 9 is 2 while igla is 4
2. Ka 52 missiles are sead and outrange spaags, while the longbow is the most micro intensive tank killer ingame
3 strlela 1 M wgile having worse missiles is an armored vehicle while mistral truck has no armor
4. Amx 30 roland has pitiful anti plane range of 2275 while osa has 3500
5 tunguska should be compared to a similar system like gepard a2 where the tunguska is better for the higher price you pay

The others are fine but these are just not fitting

1. Ka could have 100 missiles, it doesn't matter when you're outranged by 400m.
2. Longbow blitzes whilst Ka has one kill, two if lucky.
3. What use is armour when your shooting choppers out of the sky at will.
4. AMX Roland 3 has the same range as OSA yet cheaper, more accurate and more missiles.
5. Why? Chapparal kills choppers like nothing else, add a cheap Vulcan and you have better suppression than Tung gun at a similar joint price.
EuroFighter = Rafale make it so in game

User avatar
vitmerc
Warrant Officer
Posts: 499
Joined: Wed 15 May 2013 08:19
Location: Russia
Contact:

Re: REDFOR advantages

Postby vitmerc » Sun 18 May 2014 21:00

marecek05 wrote:1. Burratino is good at setting towns on fire so the defender has to relocated his infantry in the town
You are right. But, it is ridiculously expensive, has low availability and is easy food for any anti-tank measure.
3500 range is not enough when you consider it is supposed to fire on towns, heavily entreched in infantry.

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.
Sure, and you can get what, 8 of them? at a rather high price? and they are a prototype? So you are saying that a dedicated anti-infantry vehicle and is good at just, well, killing infantry is an unfair advantage?
3. Spetznas/Li Jian are very good at killing unsupported infantry in close ranges.
I have nothing to say in my defence. They are good, but not "unfair" good.
Not when you can field 5 times as much assault engineers.
Or, you know, just troll them with APCs/IFVs that have autocannons. Or AVRE. Or both.

4. SU 27M is without the doubt the best airplane in its class, i.e. multirole.
Su-27M is an overpriced ATGM carrier. Is good. Is prototype (if im not mistaken). Has its utility. But, you only get 1. Per deck.
5. SU 27PU has most MRAAMS of any airplane.
And Rafale has most SRAAMS of any airplane. Your point? sure, MRAAMS are good, but its SRAAMS that you spend the most of in A2A environment. It also is a prototype.
6. Chinese HJ-8a has 2950m of range that is unprecedented for land vehicle.
Is a prototype. Is a flavour unit. Is of low availability.
7. Akulas Vikhr has 2950m of range that is unprecedented.
It is an advantage. But it is only available on a expensive helicopter and you only get 3 of them max. It is also a prototype.



So, 5 out of 7 "unfair advantages" you list are prototypes, out of which one is a proto for a major-minor.
4 out of 7 of them are very hard to use to great effect without wasting them (low avail) (HJ-8a, Su-27M, Su-27PU, TOS-1)
3 of them are dedicated anti-infantry options that die to anything else that isnt a low-armored APC or a RR car.
Two of them are airplanes, the area where NATO generally has an advantage already as per dev's vision of the game.
And only one, the Ka-50, is a actual useful unit, despite overpriced.

Do you have anything to say in your defence? or maybe you wish to post replays where atleast one of the above made a clear difference?
Image
Feel free to copy above signature to yours; Support map ports and the trabant revolution!

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

Re: REDFOR advantages

Postby xthetenth » Sun 18 May 2014 21:32

The Chinese HJ-9 is a 25 AP missile with three vehicles to carry it total in a deck that is basically there to sub in for the entire compliment of Blufor counters to superheavy tanks. It's the only thing that can four shot or better a Chally 2 in a Red Dragon deck (assuming the MiG-21 misses its target like it always does). It's the Red Dragon counter to superheavies besides massive scratch damage volleys of Fagots.
Image

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

Re: REDFOR advantages

Postby Seer7 » Mon 19 May 2014 13:58

vitmerc wrote:
marecek05 wrote:1. Burratino is good at setting towns on fire so the defender has to relocated his infantry in the town
You are right. But, it is ridiculously expensive, has low availability and is easy food for any anti-tank measure.
3500 range is not enough when you consider it is supposed to fire on towns, heavily entreched in infantry.

3500m range is the upper level of what it has IRL, there's a modernised version (TOS-1A) that can fire up to 9000m but it only entered service in 2001 (and was first seen publically in 1999). I haven't been able to find anything else. I might ask BTR out of curiosity.
Image
Image

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

Re: REDFOR advantages

Postby icehawk308 » Mon 19 May 2014 15:12

xthetenth wrote:The Chinese HJ-9 is a 25 AP missile with three vehicles to carry it total in a deck that is basically there to sub in for the entire compliment of Blufor counters to superheavy tanks. It's the only thing that can four shot or better a Chally 2 in a Red Dragon deck (assuming the MiG-21 misses its target like it always does). It's the Red Dragon counter to superheavies besides massive scratch damage volleys of Fagots.


Thats why in the Chicom thread we were begging for a variant of the Q-5 with the C-701 EO AGM. Madmat refused cause they only rolled it as a light anti shipping missile although evidence for air to ground variants was numerous. :roll: Eugen loves being contrarian (interestingly had it been deployed since one of the C-701 agm uses was to take out landing barges - it would have been available in the marine airwing. Would have been pretty helpful).

RedDevilCG wrote:
Uncle_Joe wrote:For example, if you have 54% NATO/BLUE Wins and say, 6-8% Draws, that only leave 38-40% as PACT/RED wins. And that is a HUGE statistical variance.
Pretty sure MadMat mentioned that draws are not included, as they looked at victories only.
Uncle_Joe wrote:Even if Draws are already accounted for in that calculation, it's still 54 to 46 which again, is bigger than it seems.
Not sure what you mean by bigger than it seems. Are you saying 54 to 46 isn't actually 54 to 46, but somehow larger?


Thats about right in my experience. in many many 10v10 matches ive played, NATO routinely has on avg 70% win rate while REDFOR manages maybe 45%. Makes for interesting battles as well; on that note. :|

Return to “Wargame : Red Dragon”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 53 guests