The Dragons - Changes and Additions

User avatar
Sweedish_Gunner
Brigadier
Posts: 3105
Joined: Thu 25 Apr 2013 20:23
Contact:

Re: The Dragons - Changes and Additions

Postby Sweedish_Gunner » Tue 2 Sep 2014 01:59

another505 wrote:
Shrike wrote:Well at least we have our own strategic asset. The HQ-64 would have been more favorable though.

HQ 12!!! stop asking for the 64
the 12 doesnt need a need model, and it is in timeline of 1989 , export sale for 1991


We will ask for both dangnabit! The 4 missiles of the HQ-64 are a huge asset, 100% more ammo.

Also what is everyone thinking about the DPRK Il-28? Personally, I think it's a waste of a unit. Surely the 300kg bomb could've been carried on a better, more modern airframe???
Image

User avatar
QUAD
Colonel
Posts: 2766
Joined: Sun 10 Nov 2013 21:17
Contact:

Re: The Dragons - Changes and Additions

Postby QUAD » Tue 2 Sep 2014 04:27

Can you add JSDF Combat Engineer troops to OP? Japan operates flamethrowers IRL and they would certainly add to the coalition.

Check the Japanese units thread for proper citations.
Mobile Units Operational :!:

User avatar
Shrike
Lieutenant General
Posts: 4515
Joined: Sun 22 Sep 2013 04:30
Location: Central California, US
Contact:

Re: The Dragons - Changes and Additions

Postby Shrike » Tue 2 Sep 2014 05:02

Sweedish_Gunner wrote:
another505 wrote:
Shrike wrote:Well at least we have our own strategic asset. The HQ-64 would have been more favorable though.

HQ 12!!! stop asking for the 64
the 12 doesnt need a need model, and it is in timeline of 1989 , export sale for 1991


We will ask for both dangnabit! The 4 missiles of the HQ-64 are a huge asset, 100% more ammo.

Also what is everyone thinking about the DPRK Il-28? Personally, I think it's a waste of a unit. Surely the 300kg bomb could've been carried on a better, more modern airframe???

HQ-64 would be nice improvement over the HQ-61 because of its 4 missiles. The HQ-12 would be a nice addition if eugen decides its worth adding more patriot counterparts.

User avatar
k0m1ssar
Chief Warrant Officer
Posts: 553
Joined: Sun 11 Aug 2013 18:01
Contact:

Re: The Dragons - Changes and Additions

Postby k0m1ssar » Tue 2 Sep 2014 05:24

Sweedish_Gunner wrote:
another505 wrote:
Shrike wrote:Well at least we have our own strategic asset. The HQ-64 would have been more favorable though.

HQ 12!!! stop asking for the 64
the 12 doesnt need a need model, and it is in timeline of 1989 , export sale for 1991


We will ask for both dangnabit! The 4 missiles of the HQ-64 are a huge asset, 100% more ammo.

Also what is everyone thinking about the DPRK Il-28? Personally, I think it's a waste of a unit. Surely the 300kg bomb could've been carried on a better, more modern airframe???


HQ-12 and HQ-64 have different roles.

HQ-12 should be extremely hard-hitting (HE 9-10) sniper (similar to Neva but with a bigger warhead and more modern guidance).

HQ-64 should be a medium-weight fast-firing mid-range anti-saturation measure (similar to Tor but with less ammo and armor).


I haven't seen anything else currently in-game capable of handling a 3000 kg bomb. IL-28 was a dedicated bomber that had a specialized bomb bay.

User avatar
Shrike
Lieutenant General
Posts: 4515
Joined: Sun 22 Sep 2013 04:30
Location: Central California, US
Contact:

Re: The Dragons - Changes and Additions

Postby Shrike » Tue 2 Sep 2014 05:44

Perhaps Red Dragons true purpose now is to drop nukes onto OTAN city fortresses with J-7H and IL-28.

User avatar
Darasuum
Second-Lieutenant
Posts: 846
Joined: Fri 3 May 2013 23:01
Contact:

Re: The Dragons - Changes and Additions

Postby Darasuum » Tue 2 Sep 2014 14:13

So the APC was indeed for Japan with the Type 96 apc. However, why is it called the "Ryo Roku WAPC"? What does Ryo mean in this case? (Should it be Kyuu Roku to indicate the names as they have done with all the other Japanese units...?)

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: The Dragons - Changes and Additions

Postby another505 » Tue 2 Sep 2014 14:15

BOMBS AHOY!

q-5d, h-5, j 7h!

sadly, H-5 is a bit disappointing in tank busting department

they do like 4 damage to high end mbt,
Image
Of Salt

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

Re: The Dragons - Changes and Additions

Postby icehawk308 » Tue 2 Sep 2014 14:25

Thats what the new Su-25 & JH-7 AT are for :arrow:

Overall a solid bump for the Red & Blue Dragon coalitions

User avatar
Xeno426
Carbon 13
Posts: 11965
Joined: Tue 13 Mar 2012 21:27
Location: Acheron, Hadley's Hope
Contact:

Re: The Dragons - Changes and Additions

Postby Xeno426 » Tue 2 Sep 2014 16:55

icehawk308 wrote:Thats what the new Su-25 & JH-7 AT are for :arrow:

Overall a solid bump for the Red & Blue Dragon coalitions

Hopefully it will be better; the Su-25 could not use the Kh-23M, it could only use the Kh-29L and Kh-25ML.
Image
CloakandDagger wrote:And you're one of the people with the shiny colored name. No wonder the game is in the state it's in.

User avatar
47andrej
Lieutenant
Posts: 1335
Joined: Sun 12 Feb 2012 19:22
Contact:

Re: The Dragons - Changes and Additions

Postby 47andrej » Tue 2 Sep 2014 17:40

Overall good bump, bit of shame MiG-29 dont got 9.13 reroll. That and the absence of SEAD forces to play coalition. Which is not that bad on itself, still NK could use ok'ish ASF. Only ANZAC is nearly as bad.

Return to “Wargame : Red Dragon”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Shifu and 16 guests