The Commonwealth AA dilemma

Deltario
Sergeant
Posts: 67
Joined: Sun 3 Nov 2013 19:20
Contact:

Re: The Commonwealth AA dilemma

Postby Deltario » Wed 15 Oct 2014 12:37

I am afraid lot of you are simply choosing to ignore BOAR tactical doctrine for a third world war in Europe that was to use our tanks and well trained infantry to fight from defensive positions and fallback when those were threatened giving enough time for America to mobilize its armed forces and cross the Atlantic. This is the main reason that British AA systems have poor mobility is that they are meant to be used in a defensive manner rather than an offensive one the British AA net would fall back in parts to new position followed by front line combat units thus our AA does not need to be as fast as them as they were behind the lines and were not needed to move forwards with ground forces. If British units wanted to commence a counter attack the would do so under the cover of the RAF not with slow and un-maneuverable ground based AA. I find that when using my British deck played properly with the consideration of British tactical doctrine with layered defense in dept I can prevent loses to my own forces whilst maximizing losses for OPFOR units. As for counter attacks I only do so when the opposition has over extended themselves allowing me to push forward under the cover of jets that allow me to stop loses to my attacking units that are leap frogging over each other to new positions to fight from when I halt my advance as to not overextend my AA has been following along to be set up in new positions allowing me to defend the new ground I have captured.

What the commonwealth doesn't need is a buff for its present AA what it needs is players to consider how the nits were designed to fight in real life and thus use them as such in game which was defensive operations using our well armored tanks with limited offenses covered by fighters and attack planes.

I do find that offense can be a bit tricky into areas saturated by an overabundance of AA units due to an inability to operate JETS or HELOS but in that case I use the UK's AS-90 to remove with pinpoint accuracy offending AA pieces which is not really within the UK's tactical doctrine but if you want to attack you have to ignore that and find a way around the capability gap of British decks.

User avatar
molnibalage
General
Posts: 6706
Joined: Thu 1 Aug 2013 22:54
Location: Hungary
Contact:

Re: The Commonwealth AA dilemma

Postby molnibalage » Wed 15 Oct 2014 12:44

The main reason why I do not play UK/COMW deck is the very weak air defense against AC. Marskmans are good against infantry, helos and APCs but somehow they have very long aim time after you turn their weapons ON (preventing beeing killed by SEAD).

I can have as strong tanks as I wish but I cannot protect them against USSR uberbrutal AGM capable strike AC. :(

keebs63
Brigadier
Posts: 3091
Joined: Mon 3 Mar 2014 08:33
Contact:

Re: The Commonwealth AA dilemma

Postby keebs63 » Wed 15 Oct 2014 12:55

Guys... this is getting out of hand.... i am not here to discuss the effectiveness of their RL ADN... I only want more availability and an upgraded Rapier (like FSB or FSB2)
Image
"arguing on the internet is like being in the special olympics, even if you win, you're still retarted" -Someone, somewhere in Wargame Chat 2015

Majorpain
Master Sergeant
Posts: 189
Joined: Sun 26 May 2013 17:59
Contact:

Re: The Commonwealth AA dilemma

Postby Majorpain » Wed 15 Oct 2014 20:41

Not having Rapier FSB was particularly harsh IMO, particularly when stuff like Patriot, SU27PU, Buk M1 and Tungusta M1 are now floating around. Norway might be getting that AMRAAM SAM as well... FSA isnt bad for killing stuff in range, but its nothing more than SEAD fodder if you dont look after it of course!

Commonwealth hasnt got weaker, its just that others have got much stronger with game changes and the advantages no longer outweigh the disadvantages.

User avatar
RedDevilCG
Colonel
Posts: 2687
Joined: Thu 30 May 2013 20:58
Contact:

Re: The Commonwealth AA dilemma

Postby RedDevilCG » Wed 15 Oct 2014 21:19

keebs63 wrote:Guys... this is getting out of hand.... i am not here to discuss the effectiveness of their RL ADN... I only want more availability and an upgraded Rapier (like FSB or FSB2)
Hey! When did this become about U.K. only? The title says Commonwealth :evil:

The ADATS could be turned into a fearsome AA unit for the Commonwealth.
Image

Object199
Warrant Officer
Posts: 428
Joined: Thu 7 Aug 2014 21:12
Contact:

Re: The Commonwealth AA dilemma

Postby Object199 » Wed 15 Oct 2014 22:02

keebs63 wrote:Guys... this is getting out of hand.... i am not here to discuss the effectiveness of their RL ADN... I only want more availability and an upgraded Rapier (like FSB or FSB2)


You want it, but there is a little problem:
[EUG]MadMat wrote:Cry me a river ... :lol:

It´s very unlikey that we´ll ever see FSB in WG:RD. Can´t see a way you´ll get a FSB aginst Eugen´s will.





RedDevilCG wrote:Hey! When did this become about U.K. only? The title says Commonwealth :evil:

The ADATS could be turned into a fearsome AA unit for the Commonwealth.

This.

Could we stop discussing a unit that will never make into the game and instead lobby for a better ADATS?!
Image

User avatar
BeyondNight
Lieutenant Colonel
Posts: 2064
Joined: Fri 7 Jun 2013 20:33
Location: The Depths
Contact:

Re: The Commonwealth AA dilemma

Postby BeyondNight » Wed 15 Oct 2014 22:19

Object199 wrote:
keebs63 wrote:Guys... this is getting out of hand.... i am not here to discuss the effectiveness of their RL ADN... I only want more availability and an upgraded Rapier (like FSB or FSB2)


You want it, but there is a little problem:
[EUG]MadMat wrote:Cry me a river ... :lol:

It´s very unlikey that we´ll ever see FSB in WG:RD. Can´t see a way you´ll get a FSB aginst Eugen´s will.





RedDevilCG wrote:Hey! When did this become about U.K. only? The title says Commonwealth :evil:

The ADATS could be turned into a fearsome AA unit for the Commonwealth.

This.

Could we stop discussing a unit that will never make into the game and instead lobby for a better ADATS?!



I have been lobbying for ADATS to get good stats since ALB

Consensus seems to be accuracy to 60-70% and a anti-plane range boost to 2625-2800M
Spoiler : :
Image

tjkoshy686
Sergeant
Posts: 75
Joined: Mon 28 Jul 2014 22:32
Contact:

Re: The Commonwealth AA dilemma

Postby tjkoshy686 » Wed 15 Oct 2014 22:45

BeyondNight wrote: - stet -

Consensus seems to be accuracy to 60-70% and a anti-plane range boost to 2625-2800M


Amen to this. It would finally justify the ADATS high cost

smyljr
Chief Warrant Officer
Posts: 729
Joined: Tue 3 Dec 2013 13:59
Contact:

Re: The Commonwealth AA dilemma

Postby smyljr » Thu 16 Oct 2014 02:07

tjkoshy686 wrote:
BeyondNight wrote: - stet -

Consensus seems to be accuracy to 60-70% and a anti-plane range boost to 2625-2800M


Amen to this. It would finally justify the ADATS high cost


inb4 price goes to tunguska m levels

honestly, i'd pay anything for an aa piece with 3500m anti-plane range
:mid-match connecting(matchmaking), LoS bubble(Ruse), interchangeable loadouts, moving in formations different ranges for altitudes, 1$ price increments, tank/copter ecm, 5/6 weapon slots, and 10 player deathmatch nukemode

User avatar
Custer85
Second-Lieutenant
Posts: 797
Joined: Thu 2 Aug 2012 13:36
Contact:

Re: The Commonwealth AA dilemma

Postby Custer85 » Thu 16 Oct 2014 19:36

Mitchverr wrote:...
A word i think you need to remember more is "context", in the "context" of the post manpads are obviously the subject.


Your statement remains to be false. There are 7 out of 17 nations in the game with 1986+ anti-air infantry units and only 4 of them are 1990+. So having updated late 1980s or 90s AA infantry is not the norm. GB not having 1986+ AA infantry is nothing out of the ordinary among all the nations in the game.

The Commonwealth, the coalition in question has 2 of those units, just like the NSWP coalition (they actually might have 3, because the LStR-40 appear to be also using the Igla 1, though its called Igla). Skandinavia has 1, like Blue Dragon and the USA. Eurocorps, USSR and Red Dragon do not have any 1986+ AA infantry.

Return to “Wargame : Red Dragon”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 88 guests