US Changes: The Compiled and Proposed

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

Re: US Changes: The Compiled and Proposed

Postby QUAD » Sun 9 Oct 2016 03:01

I seriously disagree that non motorized Norad infantry is anygood. Yes, you get the TH-145... but thats it. Meanwhile CW gets that, plus the Fusilier 90/Warrior, and of course Commandos. Eurocorps and Scandinavia are a given, and the BD debatably have better cheap IFV combo via the KAFV 25 and friends. USSR is roughly equal to NORAD in options, with USSR having better AT inf. and ATGM IFVs imo. (And ATGM infantry period. :( )

Rifles 90 as a rough Fusilier 90 equivalent would greatly help the coalition, and they would have worse AT even if they magically got the L86.

AA situation has gotten a bit better but you know what I mean generally.

On the A-10: 16 is probally way too much but I think it should be able to do more damage. What about 8 mavericks and rocket pods? (As far as I know it could mount rocket pods?)
Mobile Units Operational :!:

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

Re: US Changes: The Compiled and Proposed

Postby throwaway » Sun 9 Oct 2016 03:07

QUAD wrote:On the A-10: 16 is probally way too much but I think it should be able to do more damage. What about 8 mavericks and rocket pods? (As far as I know it could mount rocket pods?)


Again, I ask: How is a 160pt A-10 with 8 mavericks and rocket pods better than the current 140pter? You're just risking more points and making it harder to bring in when the opportunity presents itself.

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

Re: US Changes: The Compiled and Proposed

Postby codextero » Sun 9 Oct 2016 03:09

hansbroger wrote:Half of the US air tab is USN/USMC airframes, of those many are of dubious usefulness. While A-6, A-4 and AV-8 are indeed flavorful the fact remains that these limited performance airframes clutter up the US air tab with slow, low ecm obsolete junk. Damn close to half of the airframes in the US deck exist to service one spec deck, USMC. It's an amount of dead wood comparable to the glut of PVO/unicorn/naval aviation stuff in the USSR airtab and in both cases it prevented the modernization and implementation of both as respectably capable air tabs in RD.


The USSR airtab was very respectable, it was the best in the game before the PD and Mig-27 nerfs.

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

Re: US Changes: The Compiled and Proposed

Postby QUAD » Sun 9 Oct 2016 03:11

throwaway wrote:
QUAD wrote:On the A-10: 16 is probally way too much but I think it should be able to do more damage. What about 8 mavericks and rocket pods? (As far as I know it could mount rocket pods?)


Again, I ask: How is a 160pt A-10 with 8 mavericks and rocket pods better than the current 140pter? You're just risking more points and making it harder to bring in when the opportunity presents itself.


you could fire pos with it and take out inf with it, plus 2 extra mavericks is potentially the difference between a dead superheavy and an alive superheavy because its accuracy is trash. a gun HE buff and rocket pods do the same thing really, only the rocket pods have more range. If you wanted to make the main gun function like rocket pods with no evac winchester... that would be a cool feature for the SU-25 as well.
Mobile Units Operational :!:

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

Re: US Changes: The Compiled and Proposed

Postby wargamer1985 » Sun 9 Oct 2016 03:23

QUAD wrote:I seriously disagree that non motorized Norad infantry is anygood. Yes, you get the TH-145... but thats it. Meanwhile CW gets that, plus the Fusilier 90/Warrior, and of course Commandos. Eurocorps and Scandinavia are a given, and the BD debatably have better cheap IFV combo via the KAFV 25 and friends. USSR is roughly equal to NORAD in options, with USSR having better AT inf. and ATGM IFVs imo. (And ATGM infantry period. :( )

Rifles 90 as a rough Fusilier 90 equivalent would greatly help the coalition, and they would have worse AT even if they magically got the L86.

AA situation has gotten a bit better but you know what I mean generally.

On the A-10: 16 is probally way too much but I think it should be able to do more damage. What about 8 mavericks and rocket pods? (As far as I know it could mount rocket pods?)

Just give it AGM-65Ds, maybe 30% ECM and call it quits. It would be plenty viable then.
APPLY TO THE GLORIOUS CULT OF THE WARHAWK! LIBERATING NAZIS SINCE 1939!
Image

User avatar
hansbroger
Lieutenant General
Posts: 4428
Joined: Sun 28 Jul 2013 03:45
Contact:

Re: US Changes: The Compiled and Proposed

Postby hansbroger » Sun 9 Oct 2016 03:30

codextero wrote:
hansbroger wrote:Half of the US air tab is USN/USMC airframes, of those many are of dubious usefulness. While A-6, A-4 and AV-8 are indeed flavorful the fact remains that these limited performance airframes clutter up the US air tab with slow, low ecm obsolete junk. Damn close to half of the airframes in the US deck exist to service one spec deck, USMC. It's an amount of dead wood comparable to the glut of PVO/unicorn/naval aviation stuff in the USSR airtab and in both cases it prevented the modernization and implementation of both as respectably capable air tabs in RD.


The USSR airtab was very respectable, it was the best in the game before the PD and Mig-27 nerfs.


Yeah but it's still hardly realistic. It doesn't get a good high speed, high ECM bomber because it has Il-102 (a low tech Sturmovik that should be a rocket carrier). The Yak-38s are as abominable as the low ECM AV-8/A-4 bomber and the MiG-31s are as uncomfortable a fit as F-102/F-106 would be for US. I mean it functions passably but it could work better and more flavourfully with a more VVS+ITF airframes orientation.

USA has a very limited number of modern USAF airframes to actually carry anything on, there's only two non proto F-15s and three F-16s which is quite frankly absurd for a 1980-1995+ USAF and it could really use a facelift.
Projectnordic in game! will likely see you on pact/red dragons/french!
Image

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

Re: US Changes: The Compiled and Proposed

Postby codextero » Sun 9 Oct 2016 03:40

hansbroger wrote:Yeah but it's still hardly realistic. It doesn't get a good high speed, high ECM bomber because it has Il-102 (a low tech Sturmovik that should be a rocket carrier). The Yak-38s are as abominable as the low ECM AV-8/A-4 bomber and the MiG-31s are as uncomfortable a fit as F-102/F-106 would be for US. I mean it functions passably but it could work better and more flavourfully with a more VVS+ITF airframes orientation.

USA has a very limited number of modern USAF airframes to actually carry anything on, there's only two non proto F-15s and three F-16s which is quite frankly absurd for a 1980-1995+ USAF and it could really use a facelift.


Just look at the service dates of the US air tab

16 pre 1980
5 1981 to 1985
4 1986 to 1990
0 1991+

Soviet Air tab

10 pre 1980
8 1981-1985
5 1986-1990
2 1991+, and this number really should be 5 since the dates on late Soviet aircraft are for first flight and not when the first squadron was declared ready for combat.

These planes can't be modeled much better because they are simply too old. The best that could be done is drop their price, and then you get the US as a faction that zergs cheap aircraft into superior numbers of Soviet aircraft, and that just strikes me as wrong.

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

Re: US Changes: The Compiled and Proposed

Postby Xeno426 » Sun 9 Oct 2016 03:45

QUAD wrote:price hike Deagle to 175-180 and give 50 ecm, give A-10 16 mavericks (could it mount that many? *cough Xeno*) with price increase, leave Charlie hornet alone. optional ECM increase on F111 series. F16s losing clusters is a must.

Only two pylons on the A-10 could use the AGM-65, and the LAU-88 could only be used on the AGM-65A/B/D/H Mavericks. This means a max of six Mavericks.

hansbroger wrote:Half of the US air tab is USN/USMC airframes, of those many are of dubious usefulness. While A-6, A-4 and AV-8 are indeed flavorful the fact remains that these limited performance airframes clutter up the US air tab with slow, low ecm obsolete junk. Damn close to half of the airframes in the US deck exist to service one spec deck, USMC. It's an amount of dead wood comparable to the glut of PVO/unicorn/naval aviation stuff in the USSR airtab and in both cases it prevented the modernization and implementation of both as respectably capable air tabs in RD.

To be fair, the A-6 and A-7 should not be obsolete in the game. By the early 70s, the old A-6A would basically be gone, replaced by the A-6E and later the 1979 A-6E TRAM (which had self-designation capability, among other things). The A-7E could easily have use with six Mk-83s, providing a good medium bomber for the US as a whole and the Marines in particular.

As for the A-10, I'd really like to see it have another 30 to 40 seconds loiter time.

codextero wrote:10 pre 1980
8 1981-1985
5 1986-1990
2 1991+, and this number really should be 5 since the dates on late Soviet aircraft are for first flight and not when the first squadron was declared ready for combat.

Somewhat misleading, though. The first flight of the MiG_29 9.13S (MiG-29S in the game) was 1988, with the second prototype flying a few months later in 1989. As you point out as well, aircraft like the MiG-29M, Su-27PU, Su-27M and so on would never have seen operation before 1992.
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
Desty
Warrant Officer
Posts: 452
Joined: Wed 23 Jul 2014 16:22
Location: Austria
Contact:

Re: US Changes: The Compiled and Proposed

Postby Desty » Sun 9 Oct 2016 09:24

US Plane loadouts...hopefully the next big rework hits the planes :lol:

Super Hornet rots slowly in naval, while CF18 pretty much does the same...

Super Hornet could be the US 200 Points ASF with AIM120B, maybe AIM9R and 50% ECM.
Also all Hornets deserve 350 turn rate. Would also give the Marines an ASF that is not an obsolete F4...

D Eagle should be a real F15E with GBUs. I would give it AIM120 too but that would probably bring the price up to much.
On the other side F111s could do the job too.

With F18E as ASF, F15C could be nerfed to 40% ECM and would take F16C Block 52s role.

For A10...i would bring it up to LASTE standard, just because the BRRRRT would be even more devastating :lol:
Image

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

Re: US Changes: The Compiled and Proposed

Postby Bullfrog » Sun 9 Oct 2016 19:07

The Aim-9 turrets cone of fire for the Hornet should be larger to represent that juicy juicy alpha.
Does not affiliate with members who post in #MakeAmericaGreatAgain
Image

Return to “Wargame : Red Dragon”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 36 guests