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 » Sat 11 Feb 2017 04:04

Killertomato wrote: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.
Mobile Units Operational :!:

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: US Changes: The Compiled and Proposed

Postby Mike » Sat 11 Feb 2017 04:06

Guggy wrote:
hansbroger wrote:
QUAD wrote: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.
Image
Courtesy of KattiValk

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

Re: US Changes: The Compiled and Proposed

Postby wargamer1985 » Sat 11 Feb 2017 04:30

Killertomato wrote:
wargamer1985 wrote: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.
APPLY TO THE GLORIOUS CULT OF THE WARHAWK! LIBERATING NAZIS SINCE 1939!
Image

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 » Sat 11 Feb 2017 05:38

hansbroger wrote: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.

hansbroger wrote:-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.

hansbroger wrote:-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.

hansbroger wrote:-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".
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
Killertomato
More than 10 000 messages. Soldier you are the leader of all armies!
Posts: 13730
Joined: Mon 9 Jul 2012 02:46
Contact:

Re: US Changes: The Compiled and Proposed

Postby Killertomato » Sat 11 Feb 2017 08:02

QUAD wrote:
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.

wargamer1985 wrote:True, of course since they are in game both systems deserve better AP.


Super Dragon is a semi-fictional system, so why not?
orcbuster wrote:USSR gets prototype marsupials, why would you need moose when you got stuff with kickers like that AND transport capability? And I'm not even gonna START on the french Marsupilami, I don't even think thats a real animal! Why no trolls for Norway?

User avatar
Bougnas
Major-General
Posts: 3699
Joined: Sat 26 Apr 2014 18:24
Contact:

Re: US Changes: The Compiled and Proposed

Postby Bougnas » Sat 11 Feb 2017 11:19

Killertomato wrote:
wargamer1985 wrote: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.
Image

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

Re: US Changes: The Compiled and Proposed

Postby wargamer1985 » Sat 11 Feb 2017 18:22

The Dragon II would warrant 16 AP, the Super Dragon warrants 20 AP.
APPLY TO THE GLORIOUS CULT OF THE WARHAWK! LIBERATING NAZIS SINCE 1939!
Image

User avatar
Bougnas
Major-General
Posts: 3699
Joined: Sat 26 Apr 2014 18:24
Contact:

Re: US Changes: The Compiled and Proposed

Postby Bougnas » Sat 11 Feb 2017 18:25

wargamer1985 wrote: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).
Image

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

Re: US Changes: The Compiled and Proposed

Postby QUAD » Sat 11 Feb 2017 19:33

Killertomato wrote:
QUAD wrote:
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.

wargamer1985 wrote: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.
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 » Sat 11 Feb 2017 20:21

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.
APPLY TO THE GLORIOUS CULT OF THE WARHAWK! LIBERATING NAZIS SINCE 1939!
Image

Return to “Wargame : Red Dragon”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 44 guests