BLUFOR TOW Infantry

User avatar
Delicious RBKs
Chief Warrant Officer
Posts: 596
Joined: Mon 10 Feb 2014 20:31
Location: Land of the Scots
Contact:

Re: US TOW Infantry

Postby Delicious RBKs » Tue 14 Oct 2014 22:33

Admittedly I don't play the US as much as I used to, but they don't need them. No other faction (or coalition) can boast the anti-tank potential of the US. Infantry carried weapons are their only weakness in that area. They get plenty of scouts armed with TOWs and Hellfires, IFVs armed with TOWs, a broad selection of ATGM carriers and helicopters, the only helicopter with F&F missiles, great missile-armed CAS and probably the best tank line up in the game. The US can make itself pretty resistant to tanks with only a few cards as is.
And that's not saying anything about how I-TOW and TOW 2 are in a different league compared to the current infantry-carried ATGMs.
MadMat explanation of 90s protos; viewtopic.php?f=155&t=43932&start=40#p542783

User avatar
Bullfrog
General
Posts: 5308
Joined: Sat 11 Aug 2012 23:48
Contact:

Re: US TOW Infantry

Postby Bullfrog » Tue 14 Oct 2014 22:51

It's not really a mater of rather US needs them or not, and it hasn't been since RD released. If you set back and look at the US deck as a whole, then they don't.

The issue is the deck creation system that we have, according to Eugen, is design that way to encourage categories decks by discouraging 'open deck'. Currently many categories are pretty useless and IMO the main reason is because they lack capabilities that they would have in real life.

For example, US Airborne lacks all artillery, and the real world, they have artillery in the form of the M-102.

US doesn't, and will probably never have the M-102 in game, artificially gimping the category.

Marines and ASF is another example..

If Eugen wants categorize to be a actual thing, then they need the capabilities available to them to make those decks feasible, regardless to if it's redundant because "US has ATGM, SPAAG, Artillery, available in 'open' deck" etc.

Things like Crew served weapons would help bring those capabilities to those categories.

As I said, it's not really a US issue at all.


It's really the core issue with the current deck creation. Less flexibility in Open decks, and lack of capabilities in category decks. If TOW infantry is redundant, that isn't a bad thing at all :lol:
Does not affiliate with members who post in #MakeAmericaGreatAgain
Image

User avatar
Chosimba
First Sergeant
Posts: 205
Joined: Fri 26 Jul 2013 05:57
Contact:

Re: US TOW Infantry

Postby Chosimba » Tue 14 Oct 2014 23:14

Grabbed_by_the_Spets wrote:
Mako wrote:It's entirely reasonable to make them a five man squad with 15kph speed, and only give them I-TOW or even just basic TOW and give them to ANZAC, USA, Norway and Canada and then give the HJ-8 to China... but it's been denied and won't happen, for whatever reasons.


Then you get the problem of the original Wargame and ALB, where alot of the times tanks will fail a battle which they should have one because they got the upper hand. There's also the problem where 5 man ATGM teams make the 2 man teams completely irrelevent. Which is why Eugen got rid of 5 man Milan and Konkurs teams.


Just be happy we got the patriot instead.


u f00kin' w0t m8?

Chosimba wrote:
Bullfrog wrote:Weight seems like a pretty irrelevant factor in rather it should be implemented or not.


It is but it's the excuse that seems to be spouted the most. Kind of like how people think the Javelin atgm shouldn't be in because it's top attack, meanwhile the RBS 56 bill already does that.

If you want to argue whether it's balanced or not, go for it, I could care less. But when your reasons for not including it are hypocritical based on stuff that's already in game (javelin example fits this) then it's a problem.



The Javlin wasn't added due to it being 3-4 years OOTF, not because it was top attack. Going by you're logic US shouldn't have and Hellfire missiles either...


Except the Javelin is not OOTF, and Eugen has responded with excuses like 'flavor' and 'top attack' which are both hypocritical based on the units in game.

There's simply no reason a Javelin or TOW shouldn't be in game aside from the balance of an open USA deck. And if we're talking about what units are OP or coalitions, then I don't care because the balance is already as is so I just steer clear of those discussions.
Last edited by OpusTheFowl on Wed 15 Oct 2014 03:41, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: Language

Sharkey Ward
Sergeant First-Class
Posts: 109
Joined: Wed 5 Feb 2014 20:25
Contact:

Re: US TOW Infantry

Postby Sharkey Ward » Tue 14 Oct 2014 23:22

Clearly OOTF

I mean, it's not like we have things like the Mica in game, which is clearly OOTF. If we did have the Mica, the Javelin would also need to be included.

User avatar
Bullfrog
General
Posts: 5308
Joined: Sat 11 Aug 2012 23:48
Contact:

Re: US TOW Infantry

Postby Bullfrog » Tue 14 Oct 2014 23:25

Sharkey Ward wrote:Clearly OOTF

I mean, it's not like we have things like the Mica in game, which is clearly OOTF. If we did have the Mica, the Javelin would also need to be included.


96 isn't really OOTF to be fair
Does not affiliate with members who post in #MakeAmericaGreatAgain
Image

User avatar
Grabbed_by_the_Spets
General
Posts: 6605
Joined: Fri 16 Mar 2012 11:40
Contact:

Re: US TOW Infantry

Postby Grabbed_by_the_Spets » Tue 14 Oct 2014 23:26

Bullfrog wrote:
Sharkey Ward wrote:Clearly OOTF

I mean, it's not like we have things like the Mica in game, which is clearly OOTF. If we did have the Mica, the Javelin would also need to be included.


96 isn't really OOTF to be fair


Some nations missed out on units because they were months OOTF.
Image

User avatar
Chosimba
First Sergeant
Posts: 205
Joined: Fri 26 Jul 2013 05:57
Contact:

Re: US TOW Infantry

Postby Chosimba » Tue 14 Oct 2014 23:28

:(
Last edited by OpusTheFowl on Tue 14 Oct 2014 23:39, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: TOS

Sharkey Ward
Sergeant First-Class
Posts: 109
Joined: Wed 5 Feb 2014 20:25
Contact:

Re: US TOW Infantry

Postby Sharkey Ward » Tue 14 Oct 2014 23:29

Bullfrog wrote:
Sharkey Ward wrote:Clearly OOTF

I mean, it's not like we have things like the Mica in game, which is clearly OOTF. If we did have the Mica, the Javelin would also need to be included.


96 isn't really OOTF to be fair


Did you NOT get my sarcasm? We have the Mica IR from 2000 in game and the Mica EM from 1996. And yet people say the Javelin, which was working since 1994 and got put into service in 1996 is OOTF.
Last edited by OpusTheFowl on Tue 14 Oct 2014 23:39, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: Language

User avatar
Bullfrog
General
Posts: 5308
Joined: Sat 11 Aug 2012 23:48
Contact:

Re: US TOW Infantry

Postby Bullfrog » Tue 14 Oct 2014 23:31

Grabbed_by_the_Spets wrote:
Bullfrog wrote:
Sharkey Ward wrote:Clearly OOTF

I mean, it's not like we have things like the Mica in game, which is clearly OOTF. If we did have the Mica, the Javelin would also need to be included.


96 isn't really OOTF to be fair


Some nations missed out on units because they were months OOTF.


And some did get units that are OOTF.

What is OOTF...

What is life...

Sharkey Ward wrote:
Did you NOT get my sarcasm? We have the Mica IR from 2000 in game and the Mica EM from 1996. And yet people say the Javelin, which was working since 1994 and got put into service in 1996 is OOTF.


I did, but it was to late and I all ready hit submit :lol:
Does not affiliate with members who post in #MakeAmericaGreatAgain
Image

User avatar
Solo
Brigadier
Posts: 3429
Joined: Thu 20 Mar 2014 19:45
Location: Washington D.C.
Contact:

Re: US TOW Infantry

Postby Solo » Tue 14 Oct 2014 23:35

Since when do prototype units get in or out based on IOC? Javelin was successfully tested from '91-93 and began production in '94.

Let's look at some IOCs
Rafale 2006
Typhoon 2006
Su-27PU never
DDR Mig-29S never
Nork T-90 never
Eurocopter Tigre 2008
Last edited by Solo on Tue 14 Oct 2014 23:40, edited 1 time in total.

Return to “Wargame : Red Dragon”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 57 guests