US Changes: The Compiled and Proposed

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

Re: US Changes: The Compiled and Proposed

Postby hansbroger » Wed 22 Feb 2017 19:56

HrcAk47 wrote:Yeah, this can easily go bad.


I'm actually not so sure. You could literally shut a rush of these things down with a few Mi-2/Mi-4 and something with an autocannon and they'd be horrifically vulnerable to flame vehicles in urban/closed terrain. What they would give is transport diversity and most importantly, an end to the transport drought in some US specs. They'd make a relatively decent opening rush if supported by a couple avengers but neither the US or Canada really have anything to back them up against more than helicopters (if they hit another motorized rush they're gone).

The best way to go would be to go with variants with high suppressive MG power like the .30 and .50 Gatling variants (as cheesy as they are) seeing as they have shorter ranges and cause fewer issues when it comes to tanks. That being said, I don't think a Mk.19 on an unarmored humvee would cause any kind of problems. A deck built around these will chew apart an infantry component built around limited availability SF and anti-superheavy AT, but if it faces anything like Motschutzen+BMP2 or LJ in WZeds with RR support it's just done, I think it will encourage infantry diversity and make the US an interesting player in the infantry department for once.

I certainly wouldn't do the AGL at very high availability but if it was on a 0/0/0/0 humvee I really don't see how it could be a problem outside of it facing a deck built around defeating superheavies... which I don't really care about. (I get bugged by anything that stinks of "Can this suggestion because it makes me waste AP buying AC vehicles/RR inf/pest control instead of Superheavies/Heavies+ASF). I can only imagine what a 2A72 or any of the NATO 30-40mm ACs would do to these things.
Projectnordic in game! will likely see you on pact/red dragons/french!
Image

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

Re: US Changes: The Compiled and Proposed

Postby QUAD » Wed 22 Feb 2017 22:22

hansbroger wrote:
HrcAk47 wrote:Yeah, this can easily go bad.


I'm actually not so sure. You could literally shut a rush of these things down with a few Mi-2/Mi-4 and something with an autocannon and they'd be horrifically vulnerable to flame vehicles in urban/closed terrain. What they would give is transport diversity and most importantly, an end to the transport drought in some US specs. They'd make a relatively decent opening rush if supported by a couple avengers but neither the US or Canada really have anything to back them up against more than helicopters (if they hit another motorized rush they're gone).

The best way to go would be to go with variants with high suppressive MG power like the .30 and .50 Gatling variants (as cheesy as they are) seeing as they have shorter ranges and cause fewer issues when it comes to tanks. That being said, I don't think a Mk.19 on an unarmored humvee would cause any kind of problems. A deck built around these will chew apart an infantry component built around limited availability SF and anti-superheavy AT, but if it faces anything like Motschutzen+BMP2 or LJ in WZeds with RR support it's just done, I think it will encourage infantry diversity and make the US an interesting player in the infantry department for once.

I certainly wouldn't do the AGL at very high availability but if it was on a 0/0/0/0 humvee I really don't see how it could be a problem outside of it facing a deck built around defeating superheavies... which I don't really care about. (I get bugged by anything that stinks of "Can this suggestion because it makes me waste AP buying AC vehicles/RR inf/pest control instead of Superheavies/Heavies+ASF). I can only imagine what a 2A72 or any of the NATO 30-40mm ACs would do to these things.


If "5 point with much less avail" applied to stuff like the Stolly and BTR-152, it would actually be a boon to the BTR-60 because you'd hardcounter the new 5 pointers while having way more avail.

If you were talking just about upgunned transport Humvees for 10 points, I also agree. USA has horrible HE output outside of redundant 152mm tank guns super bombers, and Vulcans, it would be cool if the Motorized element had tons of organic fire support.
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 » Wed 22 Feb 2017 23:19

US motorized/marine/airborne could do with a ton more wheeled humvee based firepower. It would be flavourful in a horrifically vulnerable way and unlike proliferating something like the V-150, LAV or another armored car series these things are not amphibious which alleviates some of the Humvee flank zerg concerns as deployment is bridge/choke point dependent.

Sending unarmored humvees into combat environments they should never have been in the first place is IRL US Flavour! its about time the game finally caught up :lol:

Also delta in Humvees.
Image

Great photo. 3rd Ranger Btn. Somalia 1993. Guess what's on the Humvees? Mk19s
https://chindits.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/s33.jpg
Projectnordic in game! will likely see you on pact/red dragons/french!
Image

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

Re: US Changes: The Compiled and Proposed

Postby QUAD » Thu 23 Feb 2017 04:56

hansbroger wrote:US motorized/marine/airborne could do with a ton more wheeled humvee based firepower. It would be flavourful in a horrifically vulnerable way and unlike proliferating something like the V-150, LAV or another armored car series these things are not amphibious which alleviates some of the Humvee flank zerg concerns as deployment is bridge/choke point dependent.

Sending unarmored humvees into combat environments they should never have been in the first place is IRL US Flavour! its about time the game finally caught up :lol:

Also delta in Humvees.
Image

Great photo. 3rd Ranger Btn. Somalia 1993. Guess what's on the Humvees? Mk19s
https://chindits.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/s33.jpg


This is honestly a possible change too. Just rerole the current recon humvees.
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 » Thu 23 Feb 2017 06:30

QUAD wrote:
hansbroger wrote:US motorized/marine/airborne could do with a ton more wheeled humvee based firepower. It would be flavourful in a horrifically vulnerable way and unlike proliferating something like the V-150, LAV or another armored car series these things are not amphibious which alleviates some of the Humvee flank zerg concerns as deployment is bridge/choke point dependent.

Sending unarmored humvees into combat environments they should never have been in the first place is IRL US Flavour! its about time the game finally caught up :lol:

Also delta in Humvees.
Image

Great photo. 3rd Ranger Btn. Somalia 1993. Guess what's on the Humvees? Mk19s
https://chindits.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/s33.jpg


This is honestly a possible change too. Just rerole the current recon humvees.


Re-rolling or better, cloning the recon humvees is exactly the way to go, it reduces the amount of workload on Eugen's end and utilizes existing units that hardly ever get used. It would be fantastic even if they ultimately only ended up as recon only transports.
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: Majestic-12 [Bot] and 53 guests