Why the Dragons suck

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

Why the Dragons suck

Postby Razzmann » Wed 25 May 2016 22:34

Alright. So there are tons of threads "buff unit X because deck Y is bad at this". But generally you don't see more than 2,3 sentences of reasoning.
That's why I decided I make an extensive thread on why Blue/Red Dragons currently suck. Since there is already a very good thread for buffing RD ( viewtopic.php?f=155&t=56343#p900922 ), I won't focus on how we should buff them (since that is already done) but more why (though I will probably mention single buffs on some occassions, but it stays at mentions).
Another reason for this thread is that I am fed up with people saying "You have a T-90, so RD is better than Scandinavia!". This is just an example of the type of statements I mean with that.

I will write the part about Blue Dragons in this post, and the Red Dragons part in the 2nd post.

The plan is to go through every category (excluding Logistics and Naval) and then sum the big problems up in a few sentences (so just jump to the end of the 2 posts if you want a tl;dr).

Also, sorry for my grammar and typos.

Blue Dragons


Infantry:

Spoiler : :
I'll start right away: Their MG's are utter dogsh*t for the most part. This excludes the Minimi which is used by the Kutei '90 and the Teukjeonsas. The K3 LMG used by the Haebyung '90 is not quite as bad as the M60 or the 62L Shiki, but still one of the worst ones.

What does this mean? Blue Dragons is terrible for any kind of infantry grind or combat heavily focused on infantry (which is a big part in RD):

Their line infantry is bad because they all have terrible MG's and no AT weapon worth mentioning.

The 10men shock infantry has one of the worst MGs (just a tiny tad better than the M60) and also no AT weapon woth mentioning. On top of that their MG is not even CQC and the infantry costs 25pts without transport.

Their 15men shock infantry is not quite as bad. With the Panzerfaust 3 they have on of the best AT weapons available. Though since they are 15men, they are incredibly cost ineffective for their cost, most 10men shock infantry can outvalue them. And most 15men too. And then they don't even have a 5 point transport or any good fire support transport worth taking. Oh yeah and don't even try using the base Haebyung.

Now their special forces are not qute that bad. While the Seals and base Kutei are mostly worthless due to shitty LMGs, the Kutei '90 are actually usable. Nothing extraordinary bad about them - but also nothing extraordinary good either. Basically "standard" '90ies SF. However they share the same problem as every low availability / high cost infantry: Fire support just laughs at them. Vehicles don't care about their Primary weapon or MG stats, which is why spammign SFs for infantry combat is generally a bad idea.

The reservists themselves are just standard, terrible reservists, though they come in a 2AV transport armed with the M2 Browning, so this might actually be the most effective way to deal with masses of infantry...

They have very good ATGMs and Manpads though, which is worth noting. Gongbyung have a very high burst damage potential, but are very easily countered. Their RR Fist squads are okay-ish too, but nothing special.

However, Blue Dragons have some very good transports with the KAFV series, the Hachi-Kyu Shiki and the Kyu-Roku Wapc. However, with the exception of the Kyu-Roku, they all come with very bad infantry and relyiung solely on vehicles to fight infantry does not work out in the long run either.



Support:

Spoiler : :
Since I only plan to extensively talk about the tabs that are actually bad / the reason for the decks to suck, just a few words here.

Generally pretty good:

All high, mid end low end SPAAGs are very good. The closed arrow is very good in the opener too, the Short Arrow might not hit that much, but is therefore affordable, has very good range and has good availability.

Their long range aa is the only part that I don't like about it. Th HAWK Pip II is wiuth 55% accuracy not really among the best HAWKs and shares the same problems with evrey HAWK.

Mortar selection is good (though a 5HE mortar would be nice), same goes for the heavy tube arty.

MLRS is not that great, but which ones besides the Uragan and M270 are?



Tanks:

Spoiler : :
While they don't have a "true" super heavy, the Kyu is definitely worth its price, same goes for the K1. The K1A1 is decent enough to bridge the gap between K1 and Kyu. The Nana-Yon Shiki E and G are good too due to their unique auto loader.



Recon:

Spoiler : :
While they don't have a huge selection, most of their stuff is decent to very good.

Hachi Nana Shiki is still incredibly strong, the KAFV 90 is a good stealth tank and the Ninja is damn good too.

Their Shock recon has a bad AT weapon, but their SF recon is very good by having good weapons and a good selection of transports.



Vehicles:

Spoiler : :
Probably the tab that has the least influence on decks (besides a few exceptions), but there are still some untis worth mentioning.

The M36 is an incredibly good fire support as it brings 3HE, good range, accuracy and RoF and 2 FAV for just 10 points. All there is to say.

The Mitsubishi Chu-Mat should not be underestimated, a Chu-mat for merely 20 points.



Helicopters:

Spoiler : :
Again, pretty good, they have good I-Tow and Tow 2 Helicopters and a cheap but capable support / flank helicopter with the Ah-1J.



Planes:

Spoiler : :
Oh boy, where should I start.

Well, let's start with the good things.

The SEAD plane is one of the best ones in the game, if not THE best. Both ASF and SEAD, coming at 2 per card and with 50% ECM.

The F-1 coming at 4 per card in the Blue Dragons tab should also not be underestimated. 2 of those easily kill a 3 top armour tank and due to their fast speed and 20% ECM should be a plane to be wary of.

Other than that, their ASFs suck. Yes the SEAD is also an ASF, but due to having no SRAAMS, they get generally rekt, by most 120+pt ASF (the only exceptions being the ASFs in BD an RD).

The same goes for the KF-16C, trying to be a ghetto LRAAM plane.

While the PEace Pheasant 1 got some more bombs with the recent patch, this does not make up for the terrible survivability and still rather mediocre damage. I'm not even gonna mention the other bombers...

The Peace Pheasant 2 is also pretty bad outside of very small games. Needs to hit with all 4 ATGMs in order to kill a super heavy, and in most cases this is what your ATGM plane should be capable of doing in 2v2+ games. On top of that bad range, accuracy and does not come at a noteworthy veterancy level.



TL;DR: Their infantry is utterly bad infantry causng BD to be unable for them to successfuly fight against infantry since the good fire support can't make up for that in most cases. On top of that the plane tab is very bad due to not being able to support ground units or keep the air space safe.
Last edited by Razzmann on Sun 14 Aug 2016 17:00, edited 4 times in total.

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

Re: Why the Dragons suck

Postby Razzmann » Wed 25 May 2016 22:34

Red Dragons


Infantry:

Spoiler : :
Basically a big problem just like with the Blue Dragons, but exactly not in the same way.

The Bochongus (NK line infantry) are actually usable. They are the best redfor line infantry (though this does not say all too much) by not having the most terrible MG. But the MG is not that great either. While it has good burst damage, its burst length is very short, which means, that its DPS will drastically fall once the Morale falls, this is not the case with MGs like thge MG3 (heh, who would have guessed), the Minimi or... well. Every other MG has a much higher burst length. The Type 73 has 4, while every other line infantry MG has at least 8 with up to 20 when it comes to the PKM. So yeah, while usable, they are not as good as some may think.

Both versions of the Zhanzhi suck, the '85s are the worst upgraded infantry in the game. Their MG is as bad as the 62 Shiki. A solution would be to give the 85's version the Type 81 MG used by Chinese Shock and elite infantry. (see viewtopic.php?f=155&t=56343)

Their Shock infantry is a bit different...Let's start easy.

The Gongbobyong suck just like their Japanese counterparts, though a tad less by being cheaper and not having that bad of an MG. It also has no CQC btw.

Jeogockdae, a 15men shock infantry. The only good think about them is the AT weapon on the 90ies version. The Carbine is bad on Shock infantry, it has a lower DPS than an assault rifle outside of CQC. The RPD is a bit worse than the K3 LMG. All there is to say.

Lu Zhandui. Now, an infantry with a good MG for once. AND a good AT weapon! This ought to be good for infantry fights! Ehhh.. not really. Just like they Haebyung '90 they are incredibly expensive, though they at least come with a 5 point transport. But you still pay 35pts for that. And keep in mind, the extra 5 men barely increase the DPS! They are good when you fight against an equal amount of infantry (number of suquads, not men), but once you are outnumbered, you are gonna lose due to the much lower suppression damage. And you probably have even paid more. A solution could be to make them 10men (see viewtopic.php?f=155&t=56343 )

Li Jian. The base version are beasts. Incredibly high DPS, while not getting countered by a 5 point transport like their 90ies version. And just for 25 points. One of your best choices for fighting infantry as they are affordable. Buuut they have the same problem as the Kutei '90 (Fire support and all that).

The NK special forces are okayish. The base ones should be ignored, the 90ies ones have a good AT weapon and the carbine has actually decent DPS. But just like the shock infantry a terrible MG. Usable, but nothing special.

Reservists are good meat shields due to being 15men.

Their manpads are very good and their fist squads are one of the best due to having good range and 16AP. Coupled with their very good transport choices incredibly strong in the opening. Their infantry ATGMs are terrible and their flamer inf is just standard flamer inf.

They have some good transports though. The ZSD-90 is basically a slightly worse KAFV-25 and the WZ-551 has a very good autocannon too, while only having 1 armour though. It is very good if you combine it with Tanke Shashou '85 though.
And they have the glorious strela bus too!



Support:

Spoiler : :
Good AA, HQ-7 is top tier, HQ-61 is very deadly and afforadable at the same time (though it needs a supply truck). PGZ-95 is good, but very expensive. And some standard aa pieces like the Strela 10M are there too.

Mortars are very good too. But they don't have any high end artillery. Their MLRS is bad (the HE BM-24 is okayish, but you need several of those to generally have a noticable effect). Tube arty sucks too.



Tanks:

Spoiler : :
The T-90s is the T-90s, a super heavy.

The ZTZ-85-III is a rather special tank. Unlike most other ranks in this price range, it has a very low RoF and therefore good front armour an AP. Mostly AP. It plays a bit differently tha most other tanks, but if you can "peekabo" well enough, i.e. just go back into cover after each shot to basically nullify the bad RoF when fighting other tanks (obviosuly assjming the map allows you to do so).

The ZTZ-85-IIA. It suffers the same problems as its successor, though since it is cheaper, it is not that big of a problem. Still it loses against every other tank in its price range and the Chieftain Mk.11 costs the same while being mostly a copy when it comes to stats.

ZTZ-85-II and ZTZ-88. Actually good allround tanks. Not much to say, pretty much decent to good in every aspect, not obvious weakness.

ZTZ-59s are T-55s and bad. Though the IIA could be good if it had increased RoF and range.

The Ch'Onma-Ho's. Oh great leader, why? Share the same problem of the higher-end ZTZs. "Trades" RoF for AP, when compared to similar tanks. Add bad accuracy to that and you get a tank with terrible DPS! All there is to say.

So an okayish tank tab that misses a good tank between the 70 and 140 pts area.



Recon:

Spoiler : :
The once very strong ZTQ-62G is a shadow of what it once was... (this is an exaggeration of course). Still a good recon tank, but with the gun noise nerf, not nearly as good as before. Still, very good.

Type 63 was op berfore the patch, now with less accuracy, a price nerf and the removal of the stabilizer "merely" good.

Lie Ren are also worth noting as they have the Type 81, though a bad RPG.

So decent, but not particularely strong (anymore).



Vehicles:

Spoiler : :
They have THE beast ground ATGM with the HJ-9 on the WZ-550. Incredibly deadly, permitted the situation and map allows good use of it. Very expensive though.

ZDF-89 is basically the little brother of the WZ-55ß. With the increased accuracy pretty decent. Very good range and good AP.

The PTZ-89 is a good defensive tool. Nothing too special about it, trades FAV for AP and has not stabilizer. Cheap high AP TD.

The Su-100 got a 5 point price buff last patch, but due to the price and RoF, Red Dragons still have no good fire support.

Overall a good vehicle tab, though it has not cheap fire support options.



Helicopters:

Spoiler : :
THE best aa helo with the Z-9A TY-90. Just sad that all the other Helicopter (transports) suck....

Their AT helicotper are still bad, though at least the Z-9A HJ-8 got buffed. Still too expensive for what it can though.

Half is top tier, half is trash.



Planes:

Spoiler : :
Trash ASFs. The Su-27SK is just utter garbage and the J-8C is usable at best. The recent patches with the ASF changes did not help RD at all, while every other coalition got much better (besides the already top tier ones).

The SEAD is rather bad too. Though you at least get 2 per card and it does not waste its missiles anymore. 40% ECM at 150pts is still very bad though. However it could get a very unique loadout with ATGMs + SEAD missiles. (see viewtopic.php?f=155&t=56343 )

Bombers...ahh the Bombers. They are incredibly punishing if you have no AA. The J-7's just rearm so fast, if you have no aa, say bye bye to your infantry. But if you have aa... bye bye J-7's. Very situational. The same goes for the B-5 too, though it is more survivable due to higher health and its higher altitude at which it flies.

AT options are ok. JH-7 is garbage, but the Su-25K is good and the Q-5D too. While it does not one shot tanks it guarantees a good amount of damage and also fairly survivable.

So overall rather bad.



TL;DR: Red Dragon is bad at infantry grinds due to haing rather mediocre infantry and overall bad fire support. It has rather bad tanks between 65 and 145pts and also has many problems in the air tab. On top of that <80pt tanks are not really that kmportant for the most part nowadays. Overall Red Dragons could be summarised in one word: Redundancy.
Last edited by Razzmann on Sun 14 Aug 2016 17:00, edited 3 times in total.

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

Re: Why the Dragons suck

Postby RoadkillRodger » Wed 25 May 2016 22:50

Excellent post Razz.

BD suffers from awful infantry dps coupled to lack of fire support (somewhat unlike RD who get the J7H and q5d).

MG buffs to some of their indigenous mgs, or a kafv agl accuracy buff might help them contest infantry combat a little better.

User avatar
another505
More than 10 000 messages. Soldier you are the leader of all armies!
Posts: 13128
Joined: Sun 21 Jul 2013 05:18
Location: Hiatus
Contact:

Re: Why the Dragons suck

Postby another505 » Wed 25 May 2016 22:52

RoadkillRodger wrote:Excellent post Razz.

BD suffers from awful infantry dps coupled to lack of fire support (somewhat unlike RD who get the J7H and q5d).

MG buffs to some of their indigenous mgs, or a kafv agl accuracy buff might help them contest infantry combat a little better.

While BD lacks bomber unlike RD. It has fire support which RD doesnt have

Their Nona yon tanks are amazing fire support, m36 and their AGL vehicle KAFV and W APC are very good.
Image
Of Salt

User avatar
Woozle
Captain
Posts: 1603
Joined: Sat 1 Feb 2014 09:22
Location: Heierlark Base, North Osea
Contact:

Re: Why the Dragons suck

Postby Woozle » Wed 25 May 2016 23:02

I don't understand why the K3 is worse then the minimi, its functionally identical IRL. Also I can explain the low burst rate on the Bochungsu's LMG, just look at it and you will see why.

Image

A solution would be to assume they are using the integrated belt feed for the gun (this is much less commonly used), or just give them the RP-46 which NK also uses in large numbers.
Last edited by Woozle on Wed 25 May 2016 23:12, edited 1 time in total.

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

Re: Why the Dragons suck

Postby RoadkillRodger » Wed 25 May 2016 23:11

another505 wrote:
RoadkillRodger wrote:Excellent post Razz.

BD suffers from awful infantry dps coupled to lack of fire support (somewhat unlike RD who get the J7H and q5d).

MG buffs to some of their indigenous mgs, or a kafv agl accuracy buff might help them contest infantry combat a little better.

While BD lacks bomber unlike RD. It has fire support which RD doesnt have

Their Nona yon tanks are amazing fire support, m36 and their AGL vehicle KAFV and W APC are very good.


With the exception of the hellcats and nanas I feel like many of the transport options are not effective enough to make up for the inefficient infantry that you must bring in them.

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

Re: Why the Dragons suck

Postby Razzmann » Wed 25 May 2016 23:13

The KAFV grenade launcher transport is very good since it also has the M2 Browning, but it does not substitute usable infantry.

User avatar
morpher
Major-General
Posts: 3975
Joined: Sun 17 May 2015 21:03

Re: Why the Dragons suck

Postby morpher » Wed 25 May 2016 23:20

Ok, BD is a bad coalition, maybe the worst? It lacks something that it is very good at.

But RD? It is not bad at all. You said that it is bad at infantry grind. But against who? It grinds very well against US, for example. I can understand buffs to the inf and some tanks, but the AIR tab is designed to be poor at ASFs and SEADs.

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

Re: Why the Dragons suck

Postby Razzmann » Wed 25 May 2016 23:23

Infantry grind may have been bad wording on my part. I meant infantry fights in general where you see more than 2 squads fighting against each other.

morpher wrote:It grinds very well against US, for example.

Not when you face, LVTPs, CS's and CEVs in forests.

User avatar
Woozle
Captain
Posts: 1603
Joined: Sat 1 Feb 2014 09:22
Location: Heierlark Base, North Osea
Contact:

Re: Why the Dragons suck

Postby Woozle » Wed 25 May 2016 23:24

morpher wrote:Ok, BD is a bad coalition, maybe the worst? It lacks something that it is very good at.

But RD? It is not bad at all. You said that it is bad at infantry grind. But against who? It grinds very well against US, for example. I can understand buffs to the inf and some tanks, but the AIR tab is designed to be poor at ASFs and SEADs.


No air tab should be "designed to be poor" at anything, the hell kind of "balance" is that? Let's just make the Abrams ten points, I'm sure that's balanced! Better yet, how about we give the US an F-22, SOVKOR a 370mm triple recoiless rifle for seven points, and East Germany a Leopard 2A7++++++.

Return to “Wargame : Red Dragon”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 27 guests