Help me balance naval and anti-ship planes

Lord Helmchen
Major-General
Posts: 3887
Joined: Tue 5 Mar 2013 00:23
Location: Germany
Contact:

Re: Help me balance naval and anti-ship planes

Postby Lord Helmchen » Tue 8 Sep 2015 12:06

chainsaw wrote:In my humble opinion, i feel Redfor lacks capable AA ships. It only has single Sov to protect its fleet from anti-ship plane train while Blufor has Kongo, Lafayette, Bae-ku, Hatsuyuki..... More than enough to kill Redfor planes. Maybe we could buff Jianghu-III's HQ-7 or Nanushika's AA missiles.

Wait...
The Jianghu-III has the HQ-7 i.e. the Crotale?

Doesn't it have the same AA stats as the LaBaguette then? :? :roll:
Image

User avatar
DeckCheney
Colonel
Posts: 2732
Joined: Sun 16 Aug 2015 01:32
Location: The Feudal Kingdom of White Suburbia- Seattle
Contact:

Re: Help me balance naval and anti-ship planes

Postby DeckCheney » Wed 9 Sep 2015 04:13

Apperently a reverse engineered CIWS that china upgraded classifies as a downgrade in Eufen's eyes.
The USA is #1 exporter of freedom!
All other countries have inferior freedom!

User avatar
DeckCheney
Colonel
Posts: 2732
Joined: Sun 16 Aug 2015 01:32
Location: The Feudal Kingdom of White Suburbia- Seattle
Contact:

Re: Help me balance naval and anti-ship planes

Postby DeckCheney » Wed 9 Sep 2015 04:17

chainsaw wrote:In my humble opinion, i feel Redfor lacks capable AA ships. It only has single Sov to protect its fleet from anti-ship plane train while Blufor has Kongo, Lafayette, Bae-ku, Hatsuyuki..... More than enough to kill Redfor planes. Maybe we could buff Jianghu-III's HQ-7 or Nanushika's AA missiles.


Why does Bluefor even have long range AA to defend itself from terrible Redfor ASM planes? They can't kill anything without suiciding.
The USA is #1 exporter of freedom!
All other countries have inferior freedom!

User avatar
Mike
More than 10 000 messages. Soldier you are the leader of all armies!
Posts: 12406
Joined: Thu 20 Feb 2014 01:09
Location: Virginia, United States of America
Contact:

Re: Help me balance naval and anti-ship planes

Postby Mike » Wed 9 Sep 2015 04:57

DeckCheney wrote:
chainsaw wrote:In my humble opinion, i feel Redfor lacks capable AA ships. It only has single Sov to protect its fleet from anti-ship plane train while Blufor has Kongo, Lafayette, Bae-ku, Hatsuyuki..... More than enough to kill Redfor planes. Maybe we could buff Jianghu-III's HQ-7 or Nanushika's AA missiles.


Why does Bluefor even have long range AA to defend itself from terrible Redfor ASM planes? They can't kill anything without suiciding.


Because the ships were armed with long range missiles.
Image
Courtesy of KattiValk

User avatar
captain biggles
Warrant Officer
Posts: 433
Joined: Sun 15 Sep 2013 14:23
Location: Sea Base 005 Planet Neptune
Contact:

Re: Help me balance naval and anti-ship planes

Postby captain biggles » Wed 9 Sep 2015 22:32

Why were ships made multi-national anyway?

was there a reason or was it just a time-saving exercise?
Britain doesn't need better SEAD - it has the Challenger 2 for that.
Spoiler : :
Image
Image
Special thanks to kiheerSEDMAN for the sigs.

User avatar
Mike
More than 10 000 messages. Soldier you are the leader of all armies!
Posts: 12406
Joined: Thu 20 Feb 2014 01:09
Location: Virginia, United States of America
Contact:

Re: Help me balance naval and anti-ship planes

Postby Mike » Wed 9 Sep 2015 23:13

captain biggles wrote:Why were ships made multi-national anyway?

was there a reason or was it just a time-saving exercise?


Cheaper and quicker than making national navies.
Image
Courtesy of KattiValk

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

Re: Help me balance naval and anti-ship planes

Postby Xeno426 » Wed 9 Sep 2015 23:31

Mike wrote:
captain biggles wrote:Why were ships made multi-national anyway?

was there a reason or was it just a time-saving exercise?


Cheaper and quicker than making national navies.

It also gave countries with limited or non-existant navies an opportunity to do anything.
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
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: Help me balance naval and anti-ship planes

Postby another505 » Thu 10 Sep 2015 03:09

Ships took months to model, so we were expecting too much out of it base on our expectations of how many planes we go
Look at the old threads and check each national thread showing the loads of ships we expected....
Image
Of Salt

User avatar
rex88
Lieutenant
Posts: 1467
Joined: Sun 11 Jan 2015 12:18
Location: Land of Iced Cappuccino. Why buy a mattress anywhere else?
Contact:

Re: Help me balance naval and anti-ship planes

Postby rex88 » Fri 11 Sep 2015 03:22

Lord Helmchen wrote:
chainsaw wrote:In my humble opinion, i feel Redfor lacks capable AA ships. It only has single Sov to protect its fleet from anti-ship plane train while Blufor has Kongo, Lafayette, Bae-ku, Hatsuyuki..... More than enough to kill Redfor planes. Maybe we could buff Jianghu-III's HQ-7 or Nanushika's AA missiles.

Wait...
The Jianghu-III has the HQ-7 i.e. the Crotale?

Doesn't it have the same AA stats as the LaBaguette then? :? :roll:


I think so...? But the CIWS is still Russian I think. The 30mm one.

Historically, groping and peeping at La Fayette is what gave birth to the 054A today.

Gamewise they do seem to be intended for the same weight class, with om nom nom emphasizing a little more on electronics and hence more expensive.
Image
Thanks to kiheerSEDMAN for making this signature.

Return to “Wargame : Red Dragon”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 37 guests