US Changes: The Compiled and Proposed

Guggy
General
Posts: 8645
Joined: Thu 17 Nov 2011 02:53
Location: peaceful skeleton realm
Contact:

Re: US Changes: The Compiled and Proposed

Postby Guggy » Sat 8 Oct 2016 01:22

Bradley? More like... like... heh, more like BADLEY, am I right???

codextero
Lieutenant Colonel
Posts: 2334
Joined: Sat 13 Dec 2014 02:52
Contact:

Re: US Changes: The Compiled and Proposed

Postby codextero » Sat 8 Oct 2016 01:34

PzAz04Maus wrote:Instead, Pentagon Wars depicts the entire endeavor as a sleezy corruption case that shows the Generals just couldn't jam the 'right' features in, despite the fact that the SAIFV concept was found impractical. If the Pentagon Wars somehow had its way, the Bradley would've been nothing more than an M113 with an unstabilized Autocannon mount, bone-cutting compromises in the pursuit of 'common sense', an all out war on the edges of engineering science to 'do it right,'

Want an amphibious IFV with armor worth mentioning and ammo that didn't need to be stored on a man's hat? Build this to 40 tons with a boat engine on behalf of HBO, please.


I'm certain the troops in desert storm appreciated the fact that their IFV had thermal optics to spot the Iraqis first, and TOW missiles to kill the enemy tanks, instead of a dinky 20mm controlled by the mk1 eyeball.

Capability growth during weapons development is not a bad thing if properly managed. The JSAT started with a 40 million dollar price goal, but back then it was envisioned as a late F-16 equivalent that could do STOVL. The enhanced stealth and AESA radar were all requirements added later, which jacked up the price because stealth and AESA's are not cheap.

One of the F-35's defining features, the EODAS, started as nothing more than a high capability missile warning system. The designers later realized that if they improved the thermal cameras some more and wrote the software for it, it had the potential to be much more than just a missile warning system. But to best display the infomation from this wonderful new sensor, they needed to design a high definition helmet mounted display, which is a lot of new software.

The price of the plane ballooned, but it's also a much better plane than the austere 40 million origional specifications.

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

Re: US Changes: The Compiled and Proposed

Postby Bullfrog » Sat 8 Oct 2016 02:06

Boy it's a pain picking just 5 units for the US infantry tab now.
Does not affiliate with members who post in #MakeAmericaGreatAgain
Image

codextero
Lieutenant Colonel
Posts: 2334
Joined: Sat 13 Dec 2014 02:52
Contact:

Re: US Changes: The Compiled and Proposed

Postby codextero » Sat 8 Oct 2016 02:15

Bullfrog wrote:Boy it's a pain picking just 5 units for the US infantry tab now.


Easy, just fill it up with Canadians, like the NHL.

User avatar
QUAD
Colonel
Posts: 2766
Joined: Sun 10 Nov 2013 21:17
Contact:

Re: US Changes: The Compiled and Proposed

Postby QUAD » Sat 8 Oct 2016 05:06

Bullfrog wrote:Boy it's a pain picking just 5 units for the US infantry tab now.


m2a2
marine
SMAW in 5 point
maybe LR 90 in Humvee if you aren't expecting to play good people
Mobile Units Operational :!:

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

Re: US Changes: The Compiled and Proposed

Postby Trimen » Sat 8 Oct 2016 16:42

Riflemen <M2A2>
Stinger C <M113A3>
Marine 90 <LVPT-7>
SMAW <LVPT-7>
Delta <HUMVEE>

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

Re: US Changes: The Compiled and Proposed

Postby Yakhont » Sat 8 Oct 2016 16:44

Stingers are in Bradlys now

This is a pretty good change I like.
Having TOWS and MANPADs is useful.
Image

codextero
Lieutenant Colonel
Posts: 2334
Joined: Sat 13 Dec 2014 02:52
Contact:

Re: US Changes: The Compiled and Proposed

Postby codextero » Sat 8 Oct 2016 17:15

Trimen wrote:Riflemen <M2A2>
Stinger C <M113A3>
Marine 90 <LVPT-7>
SMAW <LVPT-7>
Delta <HUMVEE>


That's a pretty crappy tab all things considered. Very poor anti-infantry capability with no infantry killing IFV's.

throwaway
Lieutenant
Posts: 1262
Joined: Fri 27 Feb 2015 21:23
Contact:

Re: US Changes: The Compiled and Proposed

Postby throwaway » Sat 8 Oct 2016 19:08

LVTP7A1 is well worth the price premium to protect the SMAW, even if you're bitter about the price nerf.


I'm not sure there's a point in marines 90 with how good riflemen 90 are. SMAW are better at mobile forest AT, riflemen 90 are better at anti-inf. In pure US and maybe even in NORAD, just spam riflemen 90, ditch the combat shock.

codextero
Lieutenant Colonel
Posts: 2334
Joined: Sat 13 Dec 2014 02:52
Contact:

Re: US Changes: The Compiled and Proposed

Postby codextero » Sat 8 Oct 2016 19:46

throwaway wrote:LVTP7A1 is well worth the price premium to protect the SMAW, even if you're bitter about the price nerf.


I'm not sure there's a point in marines 90 with how good riflemen 90 are. SMAW are better at mobile forest AT, riflemen 90 are better at anti-inf. In pure US and maybe even in NORAD, just spam riflemen 90, ditch the combat shock.


Marines 90 more than doubles the DPS of rifleman 90, and come in a transport that can kill infantry. Only reason you bring rifleman 90 is for the M2A2. If you want AT escort for your delta farce, bring SMAW, they are still better.

Return to “Wargame : Red Dragon”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 38 guests

cron