Mig-31 sucks

User avatar
molnibalage
General
Posts: 6679
Joined: Thu 1 Aug 2013 22:54
Location: Hungary
Contact:

Re: Mig-31 sucks

Postby molnibalage » Tue 27 Sep 2016 09:52

Xeno426 wrote:
Demonicjapsel wrote:pardon my ignorance, but didn't the Foxbat have a dedicated ELINT and more importantly, a bomber variant, that has no problem being in game?

It's not so much the variant, but the command they fell under. The MiG-25R family (of which the bomber, MiG-25RB, comes from) were under the Long Range Aviation (ADD), along with other strategic-level weapons and strategic reconnaissance. This is where you'd find stuff like the big bombers (Tu-95, Tu-22, Tu-22M, Tu-160) and the MiG-25R.

Tactical reconnaissance, air-superiority and point-interception fighters, along with general CAS, was handled by Frontal Aviation. Su-27S, MiG-29s, Su-17s, MiG-27s, MiG-23s (except MiG-23P or Su-27P) were handled on this level, and they would make up the vast majority of aircraft seen over the battlefield, to the exclusion of pretty much everything else.

There was also the PVO, Soviet Air Defense. Their job was to protect the Soviet air space from incursion, and they operated the big interceptors like the MiG-25P/PD, MiG-31, Su-9, Su-15, Tu-128, etc. Sort of like the US's Aerospace Defense Command and their operation of aircraft like the F-102 and F-106.

The PVO and ADD had primary mission goals that were outside of operations we'd see in Wargame, so for the USSR they shouldn't have the MiG-25, MiG-31, or "P" aircraft in their air tab. The MiG-25 gets a pass for the DDR because their air command was much smaller and spread over smaller area, so separation of things into "strategic" and "tactical" had less purpose.

Exactly. Tons of times have been explained this but sadly almost nobodly listen..

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

Re: Mig-31 sucks

Postby QUAD » Tue 27 Sep 2016 19:22

ill say it again. allow Tomcats to do tricks and give them 70 ECM to represent Top Gun training.
Mobile Units Operational :!:

User avatar
Ribar
Warrant Officer
Posts: 479
Joined: Fri 7 Sep 2012 09:27
Location: Belgrade,Serbia
Contact:

Re: Mig-31 sucks

Postby Ribar » Tue 27 Sep 2016 21:37

I didn't read all the posts, so sorry if I'm repeating somebody's statement :

I would put F-14s and MiG-31Ms at 2 per card and 1 card per deck availability.

They should have good enough accuracy to take down low ECM bombers while not having enough accuracy to snipe everything out of sight, especially not advanced air superiority fighters. I think that they cannot effectively engage advanced air superiority fighters in the current games.

The current one plane availability for MiG-31M makes it viable only for "stunning" low ECM planes at most, while if you take two cards of tomcats you can combine them for much greater effect and even shoot down low ECM bombers. Having two MiG-31Ms and no MiG-31s at all would be ok in my opinion.

Of course, that is what I would like to see being done, could it be performed well enough? That I do not know...

Edit: I like the thought of giving F-14 medium ranged missiles to serve as Cat C/B ASF for US Marine deck, and re-rolling MiG-31s as SEAD planes (if that is actually possible?).
Image :mrgreen:

User avatar
Xeno426
Carbon 13
Posts: 11965
Joined: Tue 13 Mar 2012 21:27
Location: Acheron, Hadley's Hope
Contact:

Re: Mig-31 sucks

Postby Xeno426 » Wed 28 Sep 2016 00:19

Ribar wrote:Edit: I like the thought of giving F-14 medium ranged missiles to serve as Cat C/B ASF for US Marine deck, and re-rolling MiG-31s as SEAD planes (if that is actually possible?).

Not in timeframe, no. The closest thing would be the MiG-31F that was proposed in 1995... and never left the concept artist's desk.
Image
CloakandDagger wrote:And you're one of the people with the shiny colored name. No wonder the game is in the state it's in.

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

Re: Mig-31 sucks

Postby hansbroger » Wed 28 Sep 2016 01:28

Demonicjapsel wrote:
Xeno426 wrote:I'd kill the USSR MiG-25s as well; they're out of place for USSR air doctrine.


pardon my ignorance, but didn't the Foxbat have a dedicated ELINT and more importantly, a bomber variant, that has no problem being in game?


Yeah the Elint and R/RB variants are appropriate..ish for frontal aviation use but in many cases there was a more likely airframe in use for the given mission.

The PD on the other hand is an interceptor used by the PVO. The only nations with any business using MiG-25 in an air to air role in Wargame are Iraq, Syria and Libya.
Projectnordic in game! will likely see you on pact/red dragons/french!
Image

ardi223
Master Sergeant
Posts: 178
Joined: Sun 19 Apr 2015 16:39
Contact:

Re: Mig-31 sucks

Postby ardi223 » Wed 28 Sep 2016 18:06

hansbroger wrote:
Demonicjapsel wrote:
Xeno426 wrote:I'd kill the USSR MiG-25s as well; they're out of place for USSR air doctrine.


pardon my ignorance, but didn't the Foxbat have a dedicated ELINT and more importantly, a bomber variant, that has no problem being in game?


Yeah the Elint and R/RB variants are appropriate..ish for frontal aviation use but in many cases there was a more likely airframe in use for the given mission.

The PD on the other hand is an interceptor used by the PVO. The only nations with any business using MiG-25 in an air to air role in Wargame are Iraq, Syria and Libya.

Yeah then we can shoot it down with our mighty F-5s like we did back in 80s :twisted: :evil:
I want Lena Katina :mrgreen: :D 8-)

User avatar
Caterpillar
Sergeant
Posts: 67
Joined: Sun 19 Jul 2015 18:09
Contact:

Re: Mig-31 sucks

Postby Caterpillar » Sat 1 Oct 2016 17:57

I think a 5 pts/5% acc buff is essential for the MiG-31.

It is too expensive
Join other Tactical mode players on: http://steamcommunity.com/groups/tacticalrd

User avatar
Xeno426
Carbon 13
Posts: 11965
Joined: Tue 13 Mar 2012 21:27
Location: Acheron, Hadley's Hope
Contact:

Re: Mig-31 sucks

Postby Xeno426 » Sat 1 Oct 2016 19:37

Caterpillar wrote:I think a 5 pts/5% acc buff is essential for the MiG-31.

It is too expensive

I don't think it's essential at all.
Image
CloakandDagger wrote:And you're one of the people with the shiny colored name. No wonder the game is in the state it's in.

User avatar
Caterpillar
Sergeant
Posts: 67
Joined: Sun 19 Jul 2015 18:09
Contact:

Re: Mig-31 sucks

Postby Caterpillar » Sat 1 Oct 2016 20:14

Xeno426 wrote:
Caterpillar wrote:I think a 5 pts/5% acc buff is essential for the MiG-31.

It is too expensive

I don't think it's essential at all.



Well, it is 140 pts for 30% acc missiles and im pretty sure it doesn't fire two missile salvos like F-14...

The only reason to buy it is for AIR recon, and some support.

Even the Tornado F.3 which has 8,400m range with 50% accuracy and SRAAMs costs 135 pts.

For me it feels like 130-135 pts price will fit the MiG-31 better although not many of us will use it anyway.
Join other Tactical mode players on: http://steamcommunity.com/groups/tacticalrd

User avatar
Xeno426
Carbon 13
Posts: 11965
Joined: Tue 13 Mar 2012 21:27
Location: Acheron, Hadley's Hope
Contact:

Re: Mig-31 sucks

Postby Xeno426 » Sat 1 Oct 2016 20:15

Caterpillar wrote:Well, it is 140 pts for 30% acc missiles and im pretty sure it doesn't fire two missile salvos like F-14...

The only reason to buy it is for AIR recon, and some support.

Even the Tornado F.3 which has 8,400m range with 50% accuracy and SRAAMs costs 135 pts.

For me it feels like 130-135 pts price will fit the MiG-31 better although not many of us will use it anyway.

So it's useless.

I don't see a problem.
Image
CloakandDagger wrote:And you're one of the people with the shiny colored name. No wonder the game is in the state it's in.

Return to “Wargame : Red Dragon”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 50 guests

cron