US Changes: The Compiled and Proposed

User avatar
Mike
More than 10 000 messages. Soldier you are the leader of all armies!
Posts: 12409
Joined: Thu 20 Feb 2014 01:09
Location: Virginia, United States of America
Contact:

Re: Compilation of Proposed US Changes

Postby Mike » Mon 19 Sep 2016 19:01

Sgt._Pepper wrote:Is there any difference between the HUMVEE and the Israeli Hamer? It seems to have 10 HP in the stream, so maybe HUMVEE and HMV will also get buffs.


I don't think so, but I can't say for sure. I don't like seeing Israel in a vacuum though.
Image
Courtesy of KattiValk

User avatar
Werewolf
Sergeant Major
Posts: 292
Joined: Mon 25 Feb 2013 22:34
Contact:

Re: Compilation of Proposed US Changes

Postby Werewolf » Mon 19 Sep 2016 22:41

Image

at 30 points? Maybe with Hawk for ease of modification?

codextero's picture from http://forums.eugensystems.com/viewtopic.php?f=155&t=58233&start=80

Random
Captain
Posts: 1509
Joined: Thu 31 Jan 2013 19:05
Contact:

Re: Compilation of Proposed US Changes

Postby Random » Mon 19 Sep 2016 22:57

Razzmann wrote:
Random wrote:2. Well, what is the alternative, all units should have the same availability if they have the same price and have their prices acording to their stats, so that they are balanced 1:1? That would make WRD a different game, with less diversity and


I don't think it would mean less diversity at all. Unit should be belanced around their capabilities, but I don't want every deck to have the (near) exact same tank. E.g. take a look at the 85pt-ish tanks of the current coalitions. Norad & CMW has the Mexas which is a good tanks, EC has the Leo 2 which is subpar but could be exchanged for a price buffed 2A1, Scandi has the Strv-103D also a good tank, BD has the K1 (which could possibly go down back to 85pts I admit), USSR has the T-72B1 - also decent, EB the M1 Wilk - very good and RD has the ZTZ-85-IIA which is fairly bad but could get a price buff or a RoF buff, which is also realistic.


Random wrote:4. I do not see how this works with the rest of your post at all, since this will, much like my suggestion create units which are in a higher strenght-category with lower price/higher availability. Also people who care about realism would veto such changes, most of the time.


For one, see the new post I made above.
Also you can look at threads like the RD fine tuning thread. There are tons of proposed changes that could buff RD and would not create copy cat units of others. On top of that all of them are realistic.


Fair enough, decent method, but I still do not understand your exact issue with my aproach.

But that is not very important in the end.

User avatar
Mike
More than 10 000 messages. Soldier you are the leader of all armies!
Posts: 12409
Joined: Thu 20 Feb 2014 01:09
Location: Virginia, United States of America
Contact:

Re: Compilation of Proposed US Changes

Postby Mike » Tue 20 Sep 2016 00:04

Werewolf wrote:Image

at 30 points? Maybe with Hawk for ease of modification?

codextero's picture from http://forums.eugensystems.com/viewtopic.php?f=155&t=58233&start=80


Waste of points IMO. Way too situational.
Image
Courtesy of KattiValk

User avatar
Razzmann
General
Posts: 7497
Joined: Fri 7 Mar 2014 15:29
Location: The land of flowing beer and Sauerkraut.
Contact:

Re: Compilation of Proposed US Changes

Postby Razzmann » Tue 20 Sep 2016 00:08

The Israeli Hamer is a Humvee, right? Because it had 10HP during Eugens stream.

Image

User avatar
KattiValk
General
Posts: 6320
Joined: Tue 19 Nov 2013 03:39
Location: Houston, Texas (CST)
Contact:

Re: Compilation of Proposed US Changes

Postby KattiValk » Tue 20 Sep 2016 00:24

Well, the stream was one hell of a ride of mixed emotions (disbelief and outrage). Still, it looks like we're getting an MG rebalance, that or arguing for the M249 just got a lot more palatable. So many of the stats are just...wrong, but the ROFs show a possibly brighter look to the future (even with 600 RPM Negev.........).

Razzmann wrote:The Israeli Hamer is a Humvee, right? Because it had 10HP during Eugens stream.
Pretty much. So the Humvee is almost certainly getting that HP buff, and if not, Eugen has literally no ground on which to stand on.

User avatar
Mike
More than 10 000 messages. Soldier you are the leader of all armies!
Posts: 12409
Joined: Thu 20 Feb 2014 01:09
Location: Virginia, United States of America
Contact:

Re: Compilation of Proposed US Changes

Postby Mike » Tue 20 Sep 2016 00:50

kkiheerSEDMAN wrote:
Razzmann wrote:The Israeli Hamer is a Humvee, right? Because it had 10HP during Eugens stream.
Pretty much. So the Humvee is almost certainly getting that HP buff, and if not, Eugen has literally no ground on which to stand on.


You mean when they said they wouldn't change the M72A4 LAW to the AT4 on Marines '90 since it would require a model change but it was already on their backs? Or when they pointed out the CG is on Delta's back but they won't change it? :lol:
Image
Courtesy of KattiValk

User avatar
KattiValk
General
Posts: 6320
Joined: Tue 19 Nov 2013 03:39
Location: Houston, Texas (CST)
Contact:

Re: Compilation of Proposed US Changes

Postby KattiValk » Tue 20 Sep 2016 00:55

Mike wrote:You mean when they said they wouldn't change the M72A4 LAW to the AT4 on Marines '90 since it would require a model change but it was already on their backs? Or when they pointed out the CG is on Delta's back but they won't change it? :lol:
Just because they have no ground to stand on doesn't mean they can't stand on the tears it causes, it has some remarkable surface tension, you could probably park a Merkava III on it if you really think about it.

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: Compilation of Proposed US Changes

Postby another505 » Tue 20 Sep 2016 00:56

kiheerSEDMAN wrote:It proves that the US did not expect the current AA systems to effectively eliminate all fixed wing assets in the operational theatre. This includes Patriot and ASFs. See the post I made before this.\

Precisely what I said. What accuracy it would have is up to Eugen. It can be anything from 60-70%, depends on what Eugen wants to price it at essentially. The Stinger buffs will help out the nations that operate the Stinger as it would become a more tangible threat against rocket helos. I'm fairly sure the Type 91 is based off the Stinger A and would not receive the range buff.
DAPs would receive a nerf with this change. While they will be able to fire sooner, they will now cost (especially if we gave them 8 HP) significantly more, thus making them less viable due to being more expensive. Red will not have to worry about not being cost effective against them anymore if they are more expensive (80-90 points). The change helps a lot of nations. It is not just for Avengers, it's because the Stinger is just terrible for helicopter killing in general, which should be its strong suit. Being the one MANPAD that is eh at anything but cheesing planes out of the sky makes no sense.

The Eyeball doesn't do the seeking.

.


It proves nothing other than the Operational theater is a bunch of middle east nation since CW has ended. USSR is no longer there, no need to develop any new AA.


What "a lot of " nation actually really needs the Stinger to threaten rocket helo? All of them have units already to do so. None of them have problems to deal with helo.

DAPS with 8 HP and stinger range buff to 2625(same as ty90) , even at 90pts is insanely good. You know the only reason why Ty90 beats DAPS is because it can one shot it, right? You defectively turn into the 2nd Ty90 with just less missiles, more speed, medium optics, higher HP and some anti ground ability that is not bad when they are done after the opening, so they can defend the flanks.


the eyeball doesnt, but your eyeball better see a damn plane/helo flying across the horizon at 8km through the smokes and clouds in the first place. Heck, i hope your eyes can even identify if its foe or friendly at that range....


again, i dont see a reason to buff when no one needs it to be better, and it affects soooo much units, and now we are getting israel that also has stinger C in its AA and a2a helo cobra. Unless we are getting a manpad change like the IFV patch
Image
Of Salt

User avatar
KattiValk
General
Posts: 6320
Joined: Tue 19 Nov 2013 03:39
Location: Houston, Texas (CST)
Contact:

Re: Compilation of Proposed US Changes

Postby KattiValk » Tue 20 Sep 2016 01:36

another505 wrote:It proves nothing other than the Operational theater is a bunch of middle east nation since CW has ended. USSR is no longer there, no need to develop any new AA.


What "a lot of " nation actually really needs the Stinger to threaten rocket helo? All of them have units already to do so. None of them have problems to deal with helo.

DAPS with 8 HP and stinger range buff to 2625(same as ty90) , even at 90pts is insanely good. You know the only reason why Ty90 beats DAPS is because it can one shot it, right? You defectively turn into the 2nd Ty90 with just less missiles, more speed, medium optics, higher HP and some anti ground ability that is not bad when they are done after the opening, so they can defend the flanks.


the eyeball doesnt, but your eyeball better see a damn plane/helo flying across the horizon at 8km through the smokes and clouds in the first place. Heck, i hope your eyes can even identify if its foe or friendly at that range....


again, i dont see a reason to buff when no one needs it to be better, and it affects soooo much units, and now we are getting israel that also has stinger C in its AA and a2a helo cobra. Unless we are getting a manpad change like the IFV patch
Precisely why the ADATS was discontinued. The fixed wing threat is basically non-existent as no other country or coalition could feasibly challenge US air superiority directly and no country with an ADN strong enough to shoot it down is planning on fighting the US. That does not mean things like Hinds or Hips are not expected to be a threat, and the Stinger is currently laughably incapable of seriously deterring them. The US did not go into Desert Storm expecting ground forces to go, "well shit" if there wasn't a Chaparral nearby and a Hind taking pot shots at them from across the Iraqi desert. The rule of thumb for Stinger teams is if the helicopter can shoot you, you can shoot it, and you can shoot much sooner if the enemy doesn't have long range missiles. This massive gap in the US ADN is unrealistic and dumb.

They may not need it, but it would help out countries that could use a MANPAD with decent range (Germany for instance, yes it's in EC, but they themselves would appreciate a 2625m Stinger).

You seem to be implying they'd be better than TY-90s...and more expensive...maybe even with less per card. You know what that sounds like? Not as cost effective as the TY-90. I don't really see what you're complaining about. It essentially brings the bane of USSR helo play closer to their level in price so it is now less useful to blindly suicide them into Ka-52s.

You say this like integrated air defense doesn't exist. One of the Avenger's big capabilities not really modeled (or necessary) in-game is slew to cue which basically negates this concern. As for Stinger teams, spotting aircraft from only a few miles away isn't that hard to do with binoculars and training, especially as the current ranges are a lot less than advertised.

You say this like that's an end all be all reason. By this logic, we should never touch the Vz. 58 because NSWP doesn't need any more good infantry.
Seriously, if you're this terrified of an effective Stinger A2A platform, the Tigre must terrify you to no end.

Return to “Wargame : Red Dragon”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 42 guests