The Truth about American Infantry

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

Re: The Truth about American Infantry

Postby Xeno426 » Thu 18 Dec 2014 20:34

Bougnas wrote:AA-12 Adder? He got adopted man.

Nope. It was accepted for service but then not bought. There are very few around, particularly in comparison to the R-27 family of missiles.

Compare that to the AIM-120, which by 1991 was underway to replace the AIM-7.
Last edited by Xeno426 on Thu 18 Dec 2014 20:42, edited 1 time in total.
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.

Leon026
Command Sergeant Major
Posts: 341
Joined: Sun 26 Feb 2012 09:36
Contact:

Re: The Truth about American Infantry

Postby Leon026 » Thu 18 Dec 2014 20:37

Bullfrog wrote:
Leon026 wrote:Since when you do you see special forces engage in conventional warfare?


When was the last war?


I don't really get this argument.


The last conventional war? 1991. Unless you want to include Chechnya, Georgia and the Crimea, in which neither of the cases were "special forces" ever used in any conventional capacity. You can even include the French intervention in Mali to the list, and French SF, such as TF Sabre certainly do not engage in conventional operations. The closest French operation to a Wargame: Red Dragon scenario in Mali would be the airborne assault of the 2e REP at Timbuktu.

The argument is that true Special Operations Forces, least of all "Delta", are ever used to replace infantry. Considering that they're either equipped the same, or lighter than conventional infantry, the idea of them doing "more damage" in-game is completely bogus and idiotic.

If you want SOF, they're either represented in-game as the two man super-stealth teams, or as 5-man commando teams (french Para-Commando). 10-man, let alone 15-man "SF" units in this game needs to be removed.


People are mixing up the roles of "shock" infantry like the 75th Rangers and the 2e REP with SOF.
Image

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

Re: The Truth about American Infantry

Postby Bullfrog » Thu 18 Dec 2014 20:56

Maybe not you but a lot of people use the "Since when you do you see special forces engage in conventional warfare?" argument to argue that SF shouldn't be in Wargames. Disappointing because I wanted to challenge that :lol:

but we pretty much have the same stance.

SF isn't there to play Army soldier, but they do fight on those battle fields. Conventional or unconventional doesn't mater, they have a right to be in the game. That said, you shouldn't be able to get SF at nearly the same avail as shock inf. They're not shock infantry.


I'm fine with 10 strong SF, 15 strong is to much though IMO. They're avail should be 1 card of 6, or 2 cards of 4 though and they should bring utility up the bum..
Does not affiliate with members who post in #MakeAmericaGreatAgain
Image

Leon026
Command Sergeant Major
Posts: 341
Joined: Sun 26 Feb 2012 09:36
Contact:

Re: The Truth about American Infantry

Postby Leon026 » Thu 18 Dec 2014 21:31

Sorry to have disappointed you then :lol:
Image

User avatar
Yakhont
Colonel
Posts: 2870
Joined: Sat 31 Mar 2012 04:33
Contact:

Re: The Truth about American Infantry

Postby Yakhont » Thu 18 Dec 2014 21:40

If US doesn't get better inf, I think they should get more of them, especially Bradelys which I have taken a shine to recently
Image

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

Re: The Truth about American Infantry

Postby Bullfrog » Thu 18 Dec 2014 21:42

Yakhont wrote:If US doesn't get better inf, I think they should get more of them, especially Bradelys which I have taken a shine to recently

Vet them and take 2 cards
Does not affiliate with members who post in #MakeAmericaGreatAgain
Image

User avatar
Yakhont
Colonel
Posts: 2870
Joined: Sat 31 Mar 2012 04:33
Contact:

Re: The Truth about American Infantry

Postby Yakhont » Thu 18 Dec 2014 21:47

But muh inf unit variety! Sometimes I wish there were more slots all round!
Image

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

Re: The Truth about American Infantry

Postby Bullfrog » Thu 18 Dec 2014 21:52

Yakhont wrote:But muh inf unit variety! Sometimes I wish there were more slots all round!


Suggestion:
Decrease units per card, increase cards, increase slots and stretch out the activation points across the slot.

Would let you build the exact same decks that you have now, or half a deck that has more units types in it. I.e. more flexibility!
Does not affiliate with members who post in #MakeAmericaGreatAgain
Image

Bukain
Private
Posts: 1
Joined: Thu 8 Oct 2020 06:22
Contact:

Re: The Truth about American Infantry

Postby Bukain » Sun 11 Oct 2020 11:47

Completely new to Wargame series here, and i have many things to express from my experience with this game.
So first of all i should start by saying no game in the game I've ever played has the much amount of biaism for particular ingame faction as much as Wargame: Red Dragon!

As for example damn Russians are operating su-24M from the pre-1980' when the thing ain't even come into service until 1983, and their fighters in game come equipped with r77s when in reality Soviets didn't even had a chance to use it!!!
Don't tell me "hey they had prototypes!", because you know how you treat in game US armed force. Your dear Muricans doesn't even had a portable guided missiles (don't you really know TOW?), and poor guys have to operate m270 mlrs and f117 as prototypes. And that's me only writing down what's come into my mind right at the moment, last night while i checking them out for whether or not the devs treat the countries equally(mostly via observing the initial service year of the equipment), i was shock! I just bought the game a couple weeks ago and now I'm regretting. The devs obviously tends to bring up the initial service year for the Eastern military equipment as much as possible while nip picking every tiny pieces and bits and errors for the West, oh i mean the US'. The amount of anti americanism and only anti americanism alone in this game is beyond unbelievable. I mean nearly every single Soviet military machines have got pull their initial service year to as early as possible. They usually choose the first production year for the Soviet(sometime even the first flight test for the aircraft) and the year of making of order for it's communist buddies, while they always make as much as possible that US stuffs are on point with the exact year they came into service! I mean why didn't you make all the military machines in the game like the later/like what you did to US', which is the way things should be in a game like this!? Now 1980' and 85' US, even post 90' doesn't make any sense to me at all and i bet every military geek with no nationalistic bias would feel the same

And btw what the literal f is "light rifleman" for the US? There ain't any so call light rifleman in whole of US armed force as of my knowledge, except if you mean army ranger by that, but you already put them as recon team, which also is bogus. I mean yes recon rangers exist, but the whole purpose of 75th regiment is being shock troops/or you might say light assault force. If you mean 101st and 82nd by light rifleman, then why didn't make them "shock", or at least alittle bit more useful if you can make vdv of Soviet shock team? Damn i can't accept the fact that they didn't give US army with the army ranger as a shock team. Damn Russian have two shock with Marines and vdv airborne! It's like they put light rifleman as an unavoidable way to satisfied people like us by giving US it's obviously there man portable guided missile system

Also, i never know, as a long time interestee of military machines myself, that T-72s are on par with m1a1, with ingame later models being even better! Remember the gulf war? If you tell me a T-72b3 is on par with an m1a1, so be it, I'll take it. But b3 come into the scene only in 2010 you know. Tank/armour vehicle experts classifed tanks with *generation* for a reason you know. If they say third generation mbt is better than the second generation one, then that's because it is really true

Also, like tank/armored vehicle experts having reason in classifying tanks with generations, there are solid reasons why 99% of military experts all around the world regard delta force as among the best, definitely top 3. Now in this game, poor delta guys doesn't even had a chance.

You know what if they've to add every possible/realistic contemporary military equipment for the US, just even a half of what they've invested for the communist, the US deck would be filled with much more items to be play with. We all know how much US defence industry boom during the later stage 1980-90 of the cold war. And unfortunately we don't see even a trace of it in this game

I wish every of my fellow homo sapiens having rid of thing called biaism, which can sometime brew from favoritism. Now a potentially exceptional game with unique gameplay had been compromised becuz of mare personal favors of some particular group of people with talents (devs) How good would we have been as players if they were the rationalists who stands in middle ground when it come to fact checking-in turn to presentations. Now what they've presented make me sick as someone who know stuffs (you don't have to be experts or war veteran to see mishaps. You just need an internet access and urge to play games realistic)

Mandolin
Warrant Officer
Posts: 460
Joined: Sat 12 Oct 2013 23:13
Contact:

Re: The Truth about American Infantry

Postby Mandolin » Tue 13 Oct 2020 19:16

Why did you revive a six-years-dead thread to complain?

And yes, American "light Rifleman" are fake. Pretty much the entire US infantry tab is wrong. Light Rifles didn't even exist until 1985 when the 10th Mountain came back. Even worse, Light Rifles don't have ATGMs. Not squad level. Not platoon level. Company level.

Roughly speaking the US should have Rifleman and Mechanize Rifleman. The US didn't issue M60s to regular rifle squads, only mech. They also both had M47s at the squad level until the 1990s, at which point rifle platoons got ATGM teams at platoon level. Mech infantry still have squad-level ATGMs.


As I figured it , Rifleman '75/80 would be M16A1/ M47/ M16A1 autorifle. '90 would be M16A2/ AT4/ M249


Mech Infantry '75/80 would be M16A1, M72A2, M60. The Dragon stays on the M113, so all Mech Inf ride M113 Dragons.

Mech '90 would be M249/ AAWS-M/ Dealer's Choice Yes, M249 primary. The 1993 organization had three M249s in a nine-man. Either AAWS-M (proto-Javelin) or Dragon II, the squad actually has two missile gunners. Third weapon could either be M203 or a M16A2 with the squad's PVS-4 scope as a marksman rifle (the 80s Mech squad actually has a Rifleman/Sniper who assumedly gets a PVS-4)


Then for a shock infantry squad, either Airborne or Rangers. '75/80 is Colt 653 carbine/ M67 RCL/ M60 (or M16 Autorifle, your choice)

'90 gets Colt 727 or M4 (depends on date)/ Gustav M3/ M249 or M249 Para

Return to “Wargame : Red Dragon”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 45 guests