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 12 Feb 2017 00:37

wargamer1985 wrote: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.



Really most USA talk is geared toward future titles, in my opinion.
Mobile Units Operational :!:

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

Re: US Changes: The Compiled and Proposed

Postby hansbroger » Mon 13 Feb 2017 07:12

QUAD wrote:
wargamer1985 wrote: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.



Really most USA talk is geared toward future titles, in my opinion.

Yeah there's been some pretty convincing signals that nothing is going to be done with US/USSR/Eurocorps
Projectnordic in game! will likely see you on pact/red dragons/french!
Image

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 » Mon 13 Feb 2017 07:29

hansbroger wrote:
QUAD wrote:
wargamer1985 wrote: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.



Really most USA talk is geared toward future titles, in my opinion.

Yeah there's been some pretty convincing signals that nothing is going to be done with US/USSR/Eurocorps


It took two years for the Tomcat to come out of the Naval tab if that tells you anything.
Image
Courtesy of KattiValk

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

Re: US Changes: The Compiled and Proposed

Postby hansbroger » Tue 14 Feb 2017 19:34

For me, If there was one thing that would happen for the US (other than Xeno's air tab) it would be the Patton line tune up. With the state of US infantry as it is the tanks, IFVs and FSVs of the US deck take on a far more significant role (even the 25-40 point ones) than they do in coalitions that can just spam a sheer dead weight of shock infantry in M113s.

Things like the Bushmaster tune-up or more era appropriate TOW selections would be fantastic but when it comes down to changes that help the primary moving parts that are actually pushing into and holding zones in most games it still comes down to armor. There the stat obsolescence and stagnation in the US tank tab really only leaves you with the M1s and the M8 as options and that's hugely limiting, among other things it means you can only build a tab out of availability constrained high capability units that fall victim to every F&F gimmick and high AP unicorn out there, leaving you highly sensitive to attrition and necessarily risk averse. Indeed with the lack of cost effective Pattons the state of the US tank tab invites and completely justifies turtling.

US infantry may very well be able to do much better in places like forests if they had something like the M48A3 to rely on as a FSV, for truly the sum of US infantry power is whatever FSV is there to help the poor M60 men from becoming too much hamburger.
Projectnordic in game! will likely see you on pact/red dragons/french!
Image

Sigirdiwarth
Chief Warrant Officer
Posts: 508
Joined: Mon 5 Jan 2015 12:08
Contact:

Re: US Changes: The Compiled and Proposed

Postby Sigirdiwarth » Wed 15 Feb 2017 01:54

hansbroger wrote:US infantry may very well be able to do much better in places like forests if they had something like the M48A3 to rely on as a FSV, for truly the sum of US infantry power is whatever FSV is there to help the poor M60 men from becoming too much hamburger.

Poor little americans that only get t-55 equivalents with bonus rof and bonus armor, and m163 cs, and cev, and 5 HE slingers, etc. Your suggestions are always good but let's not fall prey to blatant exaggerations.
Image

GARGEAN
Brigadier
Posts: 3496
Joined: Wed 9 Apr 2014 14:19
Contact:

Re: US Changes: The Compiled and Proposed

Postby GARGEAN » Wed 15 Feb 2017 02:00

hansbroger wrote:For me, If there was one thing that would happen for the US (other than Xeno's air tab) it would be the Patton line tune up. With the state of US infantry as it is the tanks, IFVs and FSVs of the US deck take on a far more significant role (even the 25-40 point ones) than they do in coalitions that can just spam a sheer dead weight of shock infantry in M113s.

Things like the Bushmaster tune-up or more era appropriate TOW selections would be fantastic but when it comes down to changes that help the primary moving parts that are actually pushing into and holding zones in most games it still comes down to armor. There the stat obsolescence and stagnation in the US tank tab really only leaves you with the M1s and the M8 as options and that's hugely limiting, among other things it means you can only build a tab out of availability constrained high capability units that fall victim to every F&F gimmick and high AP unicorn out there, leaving you highly sensitive to attrition and necessarily risk averse. Indeed with the lack of cost effective Pattons the state of the US tank tab invites and completely justifies turtling.

US infantry may very well be able to do much better in places like forests if they had something like the M48A3 to rely on as a FSV, for truly the sum of US infantry power is whatever FSV is there to help the poor M60 men from becoming too much hamburger.

Why are these needed when you have Sheridans with insane RoF and 5 HE? Go a little pricier and you get MBT-70 with 10 RoF and autocannon.

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 » Wed 15 Feb 2017 02:04

The M1 line needs more help than the low-end Pattons do, though the M60A3 is still a tragedy and the M60A1 ERA is an overbuffed mess.

If Sheridan and M60A2 got the ROF they should have, the low-end Pattons would need to step up to the plate.
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?

Sigirdiwarth
Chief Warrant Officer
Posts: 508
Joined: Mon 5 Jan 2015 12:08
Contact:

Re: US Changes: The Compiled and Proposed

Postby Sigirdiwarth » Wed 15 Feb 2017 02:44

Killertomato wrote:The M1 line needs more help than the low-end Pattons do

Which exactly? I hope that you're not talking about the FAV monsters on the lower price range.

Killertomato wrote:If Sheridan and M60A2 got the ROF they should have, the low-end Pattons would need to step up to the plate.

Something tells me that you're not thinking about their sustained ROF :lol:
Image

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 » Wed 15 Feb 2017 03:03

Sigirdiwarth wrote:Which exactly? I hope that you're not talking about the FAV monsters on the lower price range.


They both need 2275m.

Killertomato wrote:Something tells me that you're not thinking about their sustained ROF :lol:


4 rounds/min would be charitable.
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?

GARGEAN
Brigadier
Posts: 3496
Joined: Wed 9 Apr 2014 14:19
Contact:

Re: US Changes: The Compiled and Proposed

Postby GARGEAN » Wed 15 Feb 2017 03:35

Killertomato wrote:4 rounds/min would be charitable.

Stub gun of huge caliber and heavy barrel-like ammunition with problems with loading having less RoF that cannon with unitary loaded cannon with smaller ammo that "muh 12 RoF" Rh120? Impossibru!

Return to “Wargame : Red Dragon”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 39 guests