US Changes: The Compiled and Proposed

[QUAD]

I wish light rifles could at least get the minimi.

And shock, but I would take just one of the above.

That would just inflate price of something you use as basically a fast and durable ATGM team.

TBH I would gladly trade LR 90s MG in for nothing if it meant a price decrease.

IMO if USA is to get a cost efficient 10 man brawler squad, it would be line training Airborne with Minimi and M72A4.

[Mike]

USA just lacks fun units imo.

EFOGM would have been great, unlike any of the SPIKE-NLOS carriers it wouldn't have stabilizers (can't quite figure out why they qualify for them either.....) and it wouldn't have armor since it was based on the Humvee chassis so... actually balanced. Still don't know why they ditched the concept and went for netfires..., would have been excellent addon firepower for the IBCTs and SBCTs that rely on MRAPs and Strykers

LOSAT admittedly would have splattered practically any tank in game, indeed the flight time is so fast as to almost approximate that of a tank shell. That being said it came on everything from the Humvee to the M8 chassis to the Bradley.

M6 BRADATS would have been a fantastic piece of SHORAD and a nicely balanced realization of the Air-Ground Defense concept that was floating around at the time.

Oh right uparmored M8 variants....

All the infantry armaments from the various AT programs to just the plain old M249.

More ITF airframes and ordinance.

I probably would have thrown in the M1 TTB just for the WTF factor.

I'd swap the TTB for the Comanche, personally.

Yeah, Comanche would be a better choice.

[wargamer1985]

Personally I would love LRs to get an AP buff.

Given that the Army didn't even operate Dragon II, what they have is actually more than can be justified.

The way to get more AP to them is to give them another launcher.

Like the Ford Aerospace AAWS-M. 1925m AP whatever the BILL has, SALH.

True, of course since they are in game both systems deserve better AP.

[Xeno426]

I'm reticent to go the "smart" munitions route because the US doesn't actually hold a convincing edge in that category when it comes to the implementation of such munitions in Wargame.

Sure it can. Unlike most other nations, the US boats not only many kinds of smart munitions, but in numbers larger than anyone else and having used them on a much wider scale than anyone else.

-Laser Guided bombs - US and USSR both had in inventory and used in combat pre-1996.

And France, but still the US leads the pack in sheer numbers and how often they've used them.

-Sensor Fused sub-munitions - Both US and USSR had in inventory pre-1996, Soviets had them in rockets, shells and aerial canisters.

Yeah, though how they work is a bit different. The US went for many smaller "skeets", about 40 per bomb. The USSR went with only about 14 bomblets per RBK-500U.

-JDAM: the first demonstrator kits were delivered in 1997 and testing started in 1998, barely OOTF but could be argued as the program started in 1992. Could have higher accuracy on target PoS I guess but how is it different from how a Paveway is handled in game?

Would be quite useless in Wargame. JDAM guides to a GPS coordinate, which means it can't hit a moving target. It just allows for very accurate point target destruction. Want that house or bunker gone? You can now do so without worrying about weather or cloud conditions.

If Eugen wants, smart weapons could be the US's "flavor".

[Killertomato]

That would just inflate price of something you use as basically a fast and durable ATGM team.

TBH I would gladly trade LR 90s MG in for nothing if it meant a price decrease.

IMO if USA is to get a cost efficient 10 man brawler squad, it would be line training Airborne with Minimi and M72A4.

I'd like some kind of 10-man shock squad with a good MG. It could have M72A4, it could have AT4. I just want infantry options for killing
infantry that aren't Deltas or Marines.

True, of course since they are in game both systems deserve better AP.

Super Dragon is a semi-fictional system, so why not?

[Bougnas]

Personally I would love LRs to get an AP buff.

Given that the Army didn't even operate Dragon II, what they have is actually more than can be justified.

The way to get more AP to them is to give them another launcher.

Like the Ford Aerospace AAWS-M. 1925m AP whatever the BILL has, SALH.

Light riflemen are available in marine deck so maybe they also represent marine forces? The Dragon II would already give them 19/20AP.

[wargamer1985]

The Dragon II would warrant 16 AP, the Super Dragon warrants 20 AP.

[Bougnas]

The Dragon II would warrant 16 AP, the Super Dragon warrants 20 AP.

I thought that the Dragon II had about 600mm of pen? Or I'm mistaking it for teh Super Dragon (I am thinking of the swiss thing so it's probably super dragon).

[QUAD]

That would just inflate price of something you use as basically a fast and durable ATGM team.

TBH I would gladly trade LR 90s MG in for nothing if it meant a price decrease.

IMO if USA is to get a cost efficient 10 man brawler squad, it would be line training Airborne with Minimi and M72A4.

I'd like some kind of 10-man shock squad with a good MG. It could have M72A4, it could have AT4. I just want infantry options for killing
infantry that aren't Deltas or Marines.

True, of course since they are in game both systems deserve better AP.

Super Dragon is a semi-fictional system, so why not?

Line squads can grind if they have a nice MG. (Gevermenn, Jaakari.)

10 points, Airborne, 1985, M72+Minimi with M113 transport option.

[wargamer1985]

To be honest, I think that would be too powerful, and since we can't have new units I am of the mind of small changes that have a big impact.