USSR: The Good, the Bad and the Mediocre

User avatar
PzAz04Maus
Lieutenant
Posts: 1368
Joined: Sat 22 Mar 2014 01:42
Contact:

Re: USSR: The Good, the Bad and the Mediocre

Postby PzAz04Maus » Wed 13 Apr 2016 08:01

Steamfunk wrote:
And China, possibly?


Only local at best until ... maybe 10 years ago? They're still fairly embryonic as far as power projection capabilities are concerned. Their regional command and military structure was designed to make China a pain to occupy, but this led to the drawback of of poor unity of command. There's many other problems that even I don't quite know about, but China is at best handling border disputes with local forces or the Third Vietnam War occurs with a full Military District (oh it was bad). Not a conventional Grande Armee.

To my knowledge, almost every one of their fights in the time frame were going to be guerilla/irregular forces (think Korean War) facing conventional armies, or conventional armies facing irregulars and guerillas.

To an extent, that is because of how Asian wars are typically fought, but they won't be dealing with some Chinese Fulda Gap in the Japanese Home Islands or Malaysia. If the USSR invades, China's giving up space for time while leafing through Mao's On Guerilla Warfare again.

Wikipedia, of all things wrote:The Chinese People's Liberation Army began as a peasant guerilla force which in time transformed itself into a large regular force. This transformation was foreseen in the doctrine of "people's war", in which irregular forces were seen as being able to engage the enemy and to win the support of the populace but as being incapable of taking and holding ground against regular military forces.

User avatar
RoadkillRodger
Lieutenant
Posts: 1148
Joined: Fri 9 May 2014 07:24
Contact:

Re: USSR: The Good, the Bad and the Mediocre

Postby RoadkillRodger » Wed 13 Apr 2016 08:22

Steamfunk wrote:
There's only one path anyone ever fights over, and you can cover the whole map with recon.


That basic assumption is very, very wrong. Anybody who has played ranked in the last while will tell you that SovKor is not a thing, while the USSR is less effective than it used to be. It seems like you can't have played more than half a dozen 1v1 to give you that impression.

Steamfunk
Lieutenant
Posts: 1470
Joined: Sun 14 Dec 2014 06:19

Re: USSR: The Good, the Bad and the Mediocre

Postby Steamfunk » Wed 13 Apr 2016 17:30

That basic assumption is very, very wrong.


Ok fine, but this thread is about the nerf USSR/make USA great again threads. Thus is presumably why the Gornostrelki gained and lost transports within the blink of an eye, because I didn't see the much in regular games. To give you another example, the main gunship I use is the Mi-24VP. I often use them in pairs with attack move. This is because the Kokon has weak stabs and base accuracy (as opposed to real life, where wire-guided missiles are less accurate and can't fire on the move at all). I do this because they do more damage than an Mi-28 in a short period of time, which is vital for hit and run attacks. My only complaint would be that the CTH of the Kokon is low enough that a single helicopter is often insufficient, as is one with less than 8 missiles.

By contrast, US players seem to have impossibly high standards which the devs will never be able to satisfy. The Longbow is apparently too good in the sense that the Hellfire hits so often, firing them in pairs is actually wasteful. It's also so good that the base Apache is underused, although it's also one of the most effective helicopters in the game. They have the TOW-2 with 70% 25 AP (that's 850mm of RHAe), and apparently that's not good enough, even though ERA on Soviet tanks only goes up to 23, or 20 on most K5 variants..

I'm grateful that the Tomcat went to air, but I still read posts about the US and NATO having more marine fighters. Even after I explain the naval dynamics, I get cut down by some pithy reply about the US Navy being awesome or whatever (even though naval was multinational from day one). I might as well bash my head against that brick wall over there for all the good this does.

User avatar
MILINTarctrooper
Major
Posts: 1911
Joined: Mon 27 Jan 2014 04:19

Re: USSR: The Good, the Bad and the Mediocre

Postby MILINTarctrooper » Fri 15 Apr 2016 18:44

I remember this one match between me and a USSR player. I literally threw the book at him with an unspec US deck.

Killed all of his Ka-50/52...half them by M8 AGS fire position. Mi-24V dies to a Command Abrams same way even with his rear rush. He actually flanked me with helos and lost. 1 Patriot eviscerated his air force. He used 2 T-72BU lost them to the lowest tier infantry vehicles. He lost his Mi-28N to stingers. Then just pushed with cheap units.

I have played players in Ranked DDR vs. USSR and won.

Heck even got T-72M and T-72 kills on T-80UM!

I will be honest USSR doesn't need to be whipped with the nerf whip any more.
And US isn't all that hot to boot either in some sectors.

And both nations have the OP Coalitions of their chosing NORAD/SOVKOR.

So don't being beating up on either nation because don't like X Prototype...play with mid-tier or low-tier and see how it feels!
Heck in one game I beat a Cat A USSR/SOVKOR Combo with a 1980 Cat C US deck!

USSR is hampered by pricing. Some of the prices are hold overs from ALB. And has issues of efficiency versus a rather broad spectrum of threats if you are not playing heavy proto...like US players do alot of as well.
Image
52.2% 1v1 Ranked 32.2% Multi since Open Beta.

User avatar
KattiValk
General
Posts: 6320
Joined: Tue 19 Nov 2013 03:39
Location: Houston, Texas (CST)
Contact:

Re: USSR: The Good, the Bad and the Mediocre

Postby KattiValk » Fri 15 Apr 2016 19:29

It doesn't matter if you can kill a unit with something inferior to it, that just means the opponent didn't handle their forces well.

I've killed two Patriots in one run with a SEAD and AGM plane in a spur of the moment detour with a DDR deck. That doesn't mean the Patriot isn't a very effective AA unit.

MILINTarctrooper wrote:He lost his Mi-28N to stingers.
But the N isn't in the game.

User avatar
Markenzwieback
Captain
Posts: 1708
Joined: Tue 27 Oct 2015 17:06
Contact:

Re: USSR: The Good, the Bad and the Mediocre

Postby Markenzwieback » Fri 15 Apr 2016 19:32

MILINTarctrooper wrote:-snip-

So bad players playing bad with the Soviet deck is reason enough for a good argument to not nerf USSR?

Edit: Just saw the post above. Basically agreed.
Image

User avatar
MILINTarctrooper
Major
Posts: 1911
Joined: Mon 27 Jan 2014 04:19

Re: USSR: The Good, the Bad and the Mediocre

Postby MILINTarctrooper » Fri 15 Apr 2016 19:43

kiheerSEDMAN wrote:It doesn't matter if you can kill a unit with something inferior to it, that just means the opponent didn't handle their forces well.

I've killed two Patriots in one run with a SEAD and AGM plane in a spur of the moment detour with a DDR deck. That doesn't mean the Patriot isn't a very effective AA unit.

MILINTarctrooper wrote:He lost his Mi-28N to stingers.
But the N isn't in the game.

For the most part...everything USSR has...Redfor minus Red Dragons has in various formats.

If it rather annoying that the balancing argument is overriden three ways. 1) Player Capacity 2) Economic Cost/Efficiency 3) Unit addition Subtractions.

There are valid things about some units that are added. Like Patriot nullifying a rather large portion of the Redfor aircraft arsenal.
Or stabilized TLGM allowing full on kiting for USSR. But its the way units are used.

Heck...2) is how I figured out a way to make flying Moto-Schutzen.

But then again...there are exploitables...like landed helos firing their cannons, guns, ATGM, rocket pods, AA rockets while landed. Tank Gun versus helo. I can't tell you how many Mi-28 I have killed with tank cannons. Arty killing helos with snipe shot...although in ALB to get such a hit was luck and skill to pull off since the helo would be stun dancing around. Although Helos usually are 1 hit survive even if a 125mm shot is fired at them. The AP rules are borked.

If there is a will there is a way to break this game via its game mechanics.
Image
52.2% 1v1 Ranked 32.2% Multi since Open Beta.

User avatar
Fade2Gray
General
Posts: 8659
Joined: Wed 1 May 2013 23:30
Location: IED proof in Iraq
Contact:

Re: USSR: The Good, the Bad and the Mediocre

Postby Fade2Gray » Fri 15 Apr 2016 20:16

Whale whale whale...

look who is back.
Image
Image
Think you have what it takes to enlist into the military? You sure about that?

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: USSR: The Good, the Bad and the Mediocre

Postby Mike » Fri 15 Apr 2016 22:13

kiheerSEDMAN wrote:It doesn't matter if you can kill a unit with something inferior to it, that just means the opponent didn't handle their forces well.

I've killed two Patriots in one run with a SEAD and AGM plane in a spur of the moment detour with a DDR deck. That doesn't mean the Patriot isn't a very effective AA unit.


I got three with the JH-7A in one sortie before it had the ripple fire. :lol:
Image
Courtesy of KattiValk

User avatar
Communazi
Sergeant Major
Posts: 269
Joined: Sat 3 Mar 2012 11:04
Contact:

Re: USSR: The Good, the Bad and the Mediocre

Postby Communazi » Fri 15 Apr 2016 22:59

Try as I may, I just feel like the USSR is garbage at the moment. Once upon a time it was a wonderful schizophrenic hot mess, now it's been lobotomized and has gotten fat and bloated. A crap ton of units that are essentially the same, a handful of unicorns, and some decent staple units that are present in most other decks anyway due to balance, plus with better availability..

The only thing going for it is familiarity, and that breeds contempt.

Return to “Wargame : Red Dragon”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 48 guests