US Changes: The Compiled and Proposed

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 00:51

C hornet deagle and to lesser extent thunderbolt are integral US units and I'd be really wary of changing them.

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 01:14

throwaway wrote:C hornet deagle and to lesser extent thunderbolt are integral US units and I'd be really wary of changing them.


I disagree with Deagle and Thunderbolt, C hornet is integral thou, but it could be replaced.

F-15D is the best turd from a sewage tank. It's the iron bomber that probably only Eurocorps would take over their current bomber. 40% ECM 1/card just kill the survivability of the F-15D, and when it dies, that's basically all the HE delivery from the US deck, because Paladins suck and 107mm mortars only. F-15D is an easy pick when the rest of the iron bomber lineup is F-111E and A-6A.

A-10 is flat out worthless. Too slow to respond and not enough TOT to loiter behind the lines. Not to mention, if you loiter it, it dies to ASF. Also way too expensive and low-vet @ 140 point 2 trained and only 40% acc missiles.

F-18C is the big important card, but I'm of the mind that's too powerful right now, and you can distribute that power to other parts of the US deck if you change it. I'm particular to F-16 block 52 or F-18A taking over the x4 30AP ATGM role if the F-18C gets an air superiority loadout.

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 01:20

Deagle is integral because its the one good bomber, maybe you don't like that it's the one good bomber but ruining it will have an effect. I'm mostly speaking from a 1v1 perspective, the multirole aspect of deagle is amazing there. Yes, aardvark and nighthawk could use buffs.

Hornet isn't too powerful, it's just right. I'd love for it to stay so.

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 01:45

from a 1v1 perspective the USA lacks effective infantry of any kind and affordable AA. nothing like osa, rapier, crotale, Flakpanzer, and so on.

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.

harrier buffs would be neat as well.
Mobile Units Operational :!:

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 01:54

throwaway wrote:Deagle is integral because its the one good bomber, maybe you don't like that it's the one good bomber but ruining it will have an effect. I'm mostly speaking from a 1v1 perspective, the multirole aspect of deagle is amazing there. Yes, aardvark and nighthawk could use buffs.

Hornet isn't too powerful, it's just right. I'd love for it to stay so.


I'm not saying "ruin the Deagle", I'm saying "What if we gave the F-16C Mk 84 x4 and a price hike to 150 points, then make the Strike Eagle (with the correct model) a x4 AMRAAM x4 GBU-12 MRAAM+LGB multirole"

Image
Image

That's a 1995 picture, well within timeframe for loadouts. The specific loadout was possible since 1992.

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 02:01

The issue with upping A-10 armament is it makes it more fragile. 140pt plane relying on 2 armor is used by a good number of people if only in 1v1, 200pt plane with 2 armor is..well I've only seen su-25t used seriously in the last tourny and that was just russians being odd.

Would be nice if its gun got more HE so it can strafe infantry squads effectively but it's really perfect price:performance currently IMO, it repairs and rearms nice and quick and you can take risks with it due to the price.

@Codextro
So fighting falcon basically becomes a cheaper deagle with a touch less ecm? Cool, I'm all for that. Fighting falcons are pointless with cluster, aardvark does the job way better. And if fighting falcon gets a loadout similar to deagle then deagle can become whatever, if its useless we still have falcon.

QUAD wrote:from a 1v1 perspective the USA lacks effective infantry of any kind and affordable AA. nothing like osa, rapier, crotale, Flakpanzer, and so on.


Actually the AA improved a lot with last patch, hawks are now very good at antiplane, and if you're not happy with pivads you can use low-end chap. Wolverine has always been good for the low-end too as NORAD. What hurts a lot more is the lack of ATGM, and fire support kinda but not really. Post-MG rebalance is mostly line meta, and riflemen 90 and canrifles aren't much worse than what other nations get, even if NORAD isn't quite as good as say BD seems to be in that respect.

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 02:46

QUAD wrote:from a 1v1 perspective the USA lacks effective infantry of any kind and affordable AA. nothing like osa, rapier, crotale, Flakpanzer, and so on.

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.

harrier buffs would be neat as well.

16 Mavericks, even on an A-10, would be the ultimate party trick. And as far as I know, carrying that many is a certain no-go.
APPLY TO THE GLORIOUS CULT OF THE WARHAWK! LIBERATING NAZIS SINCE 1939!
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 02:55

throwaway wrote:The issue with upping A-10 armament is it makes it more fragile. 140pt plane relying on 2 armor is used by a good number of people if only in 1v1, 200pt plane with 2 armor is..well I've only seen su-25t used seriously in the last tourny and that was just russians being odd.

Actually the AA improved a lot with last patch, hawks are now very good at antiplane, and if you're not happy with pivads you can use low-end chap. Wolverine has always been good for the low-end too as NORAD. What hurts a lot more is the lack of ATGM, and fire support kinda but not really. Post-MG rebalance is mostly line meta, and riflemen 90 and canrifles aren't much worse than what other nations get, even if NORAD isn't quite as good as say BD seems to be in that respect.


The problem is that the A-10 is a "win more unit", if you at the point where you can use an A-10 effectively, your opponent already lost because they have no ASF or good AA units left. A-10 is resistant to getting cheese killed by a pair of manpads, but it's not survivable in an environment with actual decent AA, since the same amount of suppression is needed to stun it and a stunned A-10 is useless.

You are better off bringing a plane that can win a game from a close match than one that can shut out a game you already won.

I dunno about the "line meta", mostly I've been seeing shock, since shock Minimi is very good and comes on a lot of units with good AT as well. 16 AP just doesn't cut it anymore and line infantry DPS mostly got nerfed.
Last edited by codextero on Sun 9 Oct 2016 03:08, edited 1 time in total.

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 02:58

Half the point of A-10 in 1v1 is that it cannot die to most meta ASF. Well, it can, but usually it will survive and then if you have ASF of your own the other guy is screwed..
Last edited by throwaway on Sun 9 Oct 2016 03:01, edited 1 time in total.

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 03:00

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.
Projectnordic in game! will likely see you on pact/red dragons/french!
Image

Return to “Wargame : Red Dragon”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Shifu and 59 guests