Marine Air Superiority in the Two Alliances

Bluecewe
Sergeant Major
Posts: 261
Joined: Sat 11 Feb 2012 13:29
Contact:

Re: Marine Air Superiority in the Two Alliances

Postby Bluecewe » Thu 10 Sep 2015 19:42

Woozle wrote:
Bluecewe wrote:
nande wrote:BLUFOR Marine's quite viable, if lacking decent ASF. Not top-tier, but like a poor man's moto.

In the absence of a compelling argument to the contrary, if REDFOR marines have access to high quality ASFs, then so too should BLUFOR.

For the same reason US has a strategic SAM and TBMs but USSR does not. "Not everyone can have everything"


That could be true if we were discussing why a type of unit, such as a tactical ballistic missile (TBM) or a Suppression of Enemy Air Defences (SEAD) helicopter, is accessible for one alliance but not another. However, we are not.

We are discussing why high quality units, of a type widely available to both alliances, is available for one alliance in Marine specialisation, but not for the other alliance. In fact, most high quality BLUFOR air superiority fighters (ASFs) are available for all deck specialisations, except Marine and Naval. For REDFOR, a range of high quality ASFs are available for all deck specialisations, including Marine, except Naval.

This does not appear to be a matter of asymmetrical balance, but rather seems to be little more than an omission on Eugen's part.

samba_0891
Corporal
Posts: 46
Joined: Thu 17 Apr 2014 20:24
Contact:

Re: Marine Air Superiority in the Two Alliances

Postby samba_0891 » Fri 11 Sep 2015 01:44

This is not an omission, bluefor marine decks not having quality asf's is to balance naval play on maps like strait

Blue's strength to defeat redfor's ships is mainly through its many planes equipped with antiship missles

Redfor's ships mostly have poor aa, even sov has such a slow reload rate it doesnt have much of a chance of shooting down an attacking plane, let alone 4 or 6 or 8

So Redfor has a fair number of decent asf's to defend its ships with and create an important relationship between planes and ships

Giving top tier asf's to blue marine decks, which already have the tomcat, would completely upset this balance

captaincarnage
Major
Posts: 1915
Joined: Sat 29 Mar 2014 23:50
Contact:

Re: Marine Air Superiority in the Two Alliances

Postby captaincarnage » Fri 11 Sep 2015 01:47

Does anyone actually play the mixed land/naval maps outside of 10v10 clusterf***s?
I hope your buratino's die screaming.

User avatar
DoktorvonWer
General
Posts: 5883
Joined: Sun 12 Feb 2012 11:24
Location: Yorkshire, UK
Contact:

Re: Marine Air Superiority in the Two Alliances

Postby DoktorvonWer » Fri 11 Sep 2015 03:19

Also Sea Harrier FA.2 is mysteriously set up for SEAD instead of air superiority :(
Image

User avatar
wargamer1985
Brigadier
Posts: 3305
Joined: Sat 4 May 2013 00:36
Contact:

Re: Marine Air Superiority in the Two Alliances

Postby wargamer1985 » Fri 11 Sep 2015 04:03

F/A-18E for USMC
x6 AIM-120As and x6 AIM-9M and one M61 Vulcan
300-325 turn rate
50% ECM
Cost: 175-180 (or 170 cost if other ASFs get a deserved buff)

So many tears :twisted:
APPLY TO THE GLORIOUS CULT OF THE WARHAWK! LIBERATING NAZIS SINCE 1939!
Image

User avatar
wargamer1985
Brigadier
Posts: 3305
Joined: Sat 4 May 2013 00:36
Contact:

Re: Marine Air Superiority in the Two Alliances

Postby wargamer1985 » Fri 11 Sep 2015 04:05

DoktorvonWer wrote:Also Sea Harrier FA.2 is mysteriously set up for SEAD instead of air superiority :(

Hey! You asked for a SEAD plane and you got one! Don't whine now, boy! :D (Beware, FLX may take away the Sea Harrier if we don't worship thy daily).
APPLY TO THE GLORIOUS CULT OF THE WARHAWK! LIBERATING NAZIS SINCE 1939!
Image

Trimen
Second-Lieutenant
Posts: 908
Joined: Wed 5 Jun 2013 02:30
Contact:

Re: Marine Air Superiority in the Two Alliances

Postby Trimen » Fri 11 Sep 2015 04:20

The main problem is the 3 weapon rule.

To the best of my knowledge, USMC fighters do not perform CAP as a primary function, USN and USAF fighters do that. USMC hornets, while equipped with MRAAM, mainly were loaded for Air to Ground. If the 3 weapon limit were raised to 4, the F-18C which the USMC used, would have 2 waist mounted Sparrows to go with the 4 Mavericks. USMC never adopted the F-18E since they were saving for F-35.

I propose that the best solution for all is to give all Marine factions full access to all Non-Prototype aircraft in their Nation/Coalition.

Bluecewe
Sergeant Major
Posts: 261
Joined: Sat 11 Feb 2012 13:29
Contact:

Re: Marine Air Superiority in the Two Alliances

Postby Bluecewe » Fri 11 Sep 2015 14:28

samba_0891 wrote:This is not an omission, bluefor marine decks not having quality asf's is to balance naval play on maps like strait

The trouble is that many maps have no naval component. In these maps, naval balance is irrelevant, as the NAVAL tab is inaccessible.

If what you say did drive Eugen's decision on this matter, this appears to be another unfortunate consequence of Eugen's very poor design of naval gameplay in Red Dragon.

User avatar
molnibalage
General
Posts: 6694
Joined: Thu 1 Aug 2013 22:54
Location: Hungary
Contact:

Re: Marine Air Superiority in the Two Alliances

Postby molnibalage » Fri 11 Sep 2015 15:43

Bluecewe wrote:The Situation
In a BLUFOR marine deck, players have access to a range of low to medium quality air superiority fighters (ASFs).

In a REDFOR marine deck, players have access to a range of high quality ASFs. This includes the MiG-29 9-13S, the SU-27SK, the SU-27PU, and the YAK-141.

The Question
Could someone please explain to me why this is the case? Either I must be missing something, or this is a highly conspicuous case of imbalance.

It's quite possible that the nature of this post will lead to unproductive tribal disagreements. Nonetheless, I hope some will be able to make positive contributions to the discussion.

Because who set AIR and NAV tab simply had no idea what should be done and how...

Bluecewe
Sergeant Major
Posts: 261
Joined: Sat 11 Feb 2012 13:29
Contact:

Re: Marine Air Superiority in the Two Alliances

Postby Bluecewe » Fri 11 Sep 2015 17:41

molnibalage wrote:
Bluecewe wrote:Could someone please explain to me why this is the case? Either I must be missing something, or this is a highly conspicuous case of imbalance.

Because who set AIR and NAV tab simply had no idea what should be done and how...


Indeed. I was surprised when they first announced the contents of NAVAL. You would have imagined that it would simply be naval vessels.

Instead, it is comprised of any unit related to naval activities and those that can be transported by naval transports. It would be like having a GROUND tab containing tanks, infantry, helicopters, jets, and anti-aircraft. The NAVAL tab was a complete departure from the manner in which Eugen had designed the deck system up until that point. It's really quite puzzling how they designed NAVAL so poorly.

Return to “Wargame : Red Dragon”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 43 guests