Why is the Roland 3 still 4 per card?

User avatar
FoxZz
Chief Warrant Officer
Posts: 614
Joined: Thu 27 Mar 2014 19:16
Contact:

Re: Why is the Roland 3 still 4 per card?

Postby FoxZz » Tue 24 May 2016 20:19

IMHO, the FRG tracked Roland 3 should become an optical Roland with the stats and avail of the Roland 1 and the Rolands 3 should get a reload buff and +1 avail.

User avatar
Razzmann
General
Posts: 7497
Joined: Fri 7 Mar 2014 15:29
Location: The land of flowing beer and Sauerkraut.
Contact:

Re: Why is the Roland 3 still 4 per card?

Postby Razzmann » Tue 24 May 2016 20:20

Mako wrote:Wait why does the FRG one even have 3 top armor?

How does that make any sense?


3? you mean 2?
My guess is due to the different chassis.

Random
Captain
Posts: 1509
Joined: Thu 31 Jan 2013 19:05
Contact:

Re: Why is the Roland 3 still 4 per card?

Postby Random » Tue 24 May 2016 21:46

Oktoberfest wrote:
Random wrote:

Then take two cards of anti-plane AA. If you run out of Roland 3s on a regular basis you can take up to 4 cards in EC, if you wish.

Roland 3s can be protected against hinds very easily with crotales and flakpanzer.




Great. So basically you need to take two cards of AA to protect one card of AA. Very intelligent from you, sir.


Actually you need 0 units to protect Roland 3s against hinds, 95-99% of the time they should be fine on their own. However the person I was replying to had problems with hinds so I suggested two units which hardcounters Mi-24, flakanzer against very agressive use of helos and crotales for less agressive use by the enemy.



Markenzwieback wrote:
Random wrote:1. it is a comparison between red and blue, Red might have an advantage in longrange anti-plane-AA vs EC/LJ/WGNL, but I think that is fine considering the overall strenght of the decks compared and an availability buff would not solve this problem if it were a problem.

So the overall strength argument again? How is USSR or EB any bit less strong than the name coalitions to justify the influence on the AA argument? Or to what extend are they equally strong than USSR and EB to turn the question around?

Random wrote:2. I value the toparmor 2 of the german Roland 3 a lot, redfor does not have this outside one variant of the Newa, which is a lot less practical then the roland 3.

And you pay for the top-armor with an additional +5 points. In EC you can compensate by using the French Roland 3, but in WG/LJ/WGNL you have to pick this vehicle. EB on the other hand, can choose between up-armored NEVA or fast and not armored NEVA.

Random wrote:3. If I could get the german Roland 3 instead of the BUK or Tor I would use it in many of my redfor decks, USSR, EB and SovKor.

Personal preference and anecdotal evidence sure are valuable for game balancing. I'd pick a Tor over a Roland 3 any time of the day. Heck I'd even play the OSA-AKM over it in any of my BLUFOR decks simply for that 7HE and wheels. Does that change anything?

Random wrote:4. If you look at competing bluefor decks I would give the advantage to the coalitions including germany and france, since the Roland is imo preferable in most situations to the alternatives of CMW, US/Norad and BD, while it only gets outperformed by the NASAMS, which is even questionable in itself since they are extremly fragile with no armor whatsoever and 5 hp.

Commonwealth and Norad both get a non-radar missile system that can pretty effectively engage planes (speaking of the ADATS here) to the extend that you can manage to play smaller games without any long-range AA. And in addition you get either cost-effective AA systems (Tracked Rapier FSA) or the best AA system in the game (Patriot). Scandi is on a whole nother level with the only really F%F anti-plane AA. EC can compensate with Crotales, but again LJ/WGNL are on the rather low-end of the list.

The only deck that I would rate as outright bad in the AA department, is BD.


Yes, coalition deck have to be balanced with each other, not units, and especially not red and blue units.

Yes you only pay 5 points in an EC deck for the +1 toparmor. But I was making the argument that this is something that is not availaible to redfor at all on a useful unit(talking about 1v1 and 2v2 here, though the Newa can be dabated in a 2v2 context I suppose).

Yeah, the point of me prefering it over the osa akm the least relevant to balance, I admit.


Adats is a huge liability and extremly bad as AA. if you spend 110 points you get something that needs serious help to shoot down a plane. if you spend 130 you get a double-roland 3 which 80% or something like that shoots down a plane, on its own. Also 1 armor all around makes the adats very weak. It is a more expensive and worse tunguska in my eyes. Rapier FSA is a good unit. Patriot is quite expensive and needs support units and supplies, it can be very good sometimes, but in a majority of nsituations a double-roland 3 should do better.

User avatar
Razzmann
General
Posts: 7497
Joined: Fri 7 Mar 2014 15:29
Location: The land of flowing beer and Sauerkraut.
Contact:

Re: Why is the Roland 3 still 4 per card?

Postby Razzmann » Tue 24 May 2016 21:53

Small nitpick: ADATS has 2 front and side armour.

Random
Captain
Posts: 1509
Joined: Thu 31 Jan 2013 19:05
Contact:

Re: Why is the Roland 3 still 4 per card?

Postby Random » Tue 24 May 2016 22:42

oh yeah, ur right. still dies to microed skyhawks (if you turn of rockets until it is closer) and f-100 though.

Return to “Wargame : Red Dragon”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 39 guests