Should more than just 2 new nations be added to REDFOR?

User avatar
[EUG]MadMat
More than 10 000 messages. Soldier you are the leader of all armies!
Posts: 15467
Joined: Thu 30 Jun 2011 13:31
Location: Paris, France.
Contact:

Re: Should more than just 2 new nations be added to REDFOR?

Postby [EUG]MadMat » Thu 27 Oct 2016 16:39

Broth3r wrote:Portugal + UK, its oldest ally, would be pretty much AFNORTH NN!

"Wellington's Ghost" coalition?

Xeno426 wrote:Why would Brazil be Red? Or India, for that matter? India would be opposed to China more.

I wondered about Brazil too.
Yet, for India, we proposed it as REDFOR among the vote's choices because of the USA's partnership with Pakistan which, historically, brought India & USSR closer together.

From Wiki, out of a better source at hand right now:
A cordial relationship with India that began in the 1950s represented the most successful of the Soviet attempts to foster closer relations with Third World countries. The relationship began with a visit by Indian Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru to the Soviet Union in June 1955 and Khrushchev's return trip to India in the fall of 1955. While in India, Khrushchev announced that the Soviet Union supported Indian sovereignty over the disputed territory of the Kashmir region and over Portuguese coastal enclaves such as Goa.

The Soviet Union's strong relations with India had a negative impact upon both Soviet relations with the People's Republic of China, including Indian relations with the PRC, during the Khrushchev period. The Soviet Union declared its neutrality during the 1959 border dispute and the Sino-Indian war of October 1962, although the Chinese strongly objected. The Soviet Union gave India substantial economic and military assistance during the Khrushchev period, and by 1960 India had received more Soviet assistance than China had.
This disparity became another point of contention in Sino-Soviet relations. In 1962 the Soviet Union agreed to transfer technology to co-produce the Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-21 jet fighter in India, which the Soviet Union had earlier denied to China.

ALEX8
Sergeant Major of the Army
Posts: 387
Joined: Thu 23 Jan 2014 01:04
Contact:

Re: Should more than just 2 new nations be added to REDFOR?

Postby ALEX8 » Thu 27 Oct 2016 16:42

India and Iran would be interesting choices for next Redfor nations. Or why not just ask about community opinion if you are planning to add more nations after the next DLC? we are the ones buying these DLCs anyway.

User avatar
Darkstar387
Warrant Officer
Posts: 485
Joined: Wed 19 Feb 2014 16:36
Location: Tower on the 38th Parallel
Contact:

Re: Should more than just 2 new nations be added to REDFOR?

Postby Darkstar387 » Thu 27 Oct 2016 17:02

MadMat, are you guys sick of creating content for Red Dragon yet? Or do you think our wallets can still squeeze a little more content out of your team? :mrgreen: Because this conversation isn't slowing down

User avatar
Eukie
Chief Warrant Officer
Posts: 547
Joined: Wed 23 Apr 2014 16:22
Contact:

Re: Should more than just 2 new nations be added to REDFOR?

Postby Eukie » Thu 27 Oct 2016 17:06

integ3r wrote:Add brazil and india to redfor.


I know I just took the floor in defence of weak minors, but Brazil is particular. They have extremely well-trained and diverse infantry that could fill any role... armed with Super Bazookas. They designed a tank that beat the M1A1 in Kuwait's trials... but the best they have for themselves is upgraded M41 Walker Bulldogs and M5 Stuarts. They have a domestic wheeled IFV with autocannon and ATGM - and that ATGM is a MCLOS Cobra.

QUAD wrote:air loadouts, no konkurs, infantry that is not numerous, no strelas on tanks, arty that is not numerous, no snipers besides 2 men (when DPRK has an entire division of snipers lol) and lack of units that would have been fun


Does any nation get infantry that are more or less numerous?

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

Re: Should more than just 2 new nations be added to REDFOR?

Postby QUAD » Thu 27 Oct 2016 17:25

Eukie wrote:
integ3r wrote:Add brazil and india to redfor.


I know I just took the floor in defence of weak minors, but Brazil is particular. They have extremely well-trained and diverse infantry that could fill any role... armed with Super Bazookas. They designed a tank that beat the M1A1 in Kuwait's trials... but the best they have for themselves is upgraded M41 Walker Bulldogs and M5 Stuarts. They have a domestic wheeled IFV with autocannon and ATGM - and that ATGM is a MCLOS Cobra.

QUAD wrote:air loadouts, no konkurs, infantry that is not numerous, no strelas on tanks, arty that is not numerous, no snipers besides 2 men (when DPRK has an entire division of snipers lol) and lack of units that would have been fun


Does any nation get infantry that are more or less numerous?


EB gets numerous shock infantry because they are 15 points, CW and Scandi get numerous line infantry because they are so good they are actually worth taking. Blue Dragons kind of get numerous special forces because they come in cheap transports and are 30 point, while not completely sucking.
Mobile Units Operational :!:

User avatar
Broth3r
Chief Warrant Officer
Posts: 627
Joined: Mon 10 Mar 2014 19:25
Location: Lisbon, Portugal
Contact:

Re: Should more than just 2 new nations be added to REDFOR?

Postby Broth3r » Thu 27 Oct 2016 17:46

[EUG]MadMat wrote:
Broth3r wrote:Portugal + UK, its oldest ally, would be pretty much AFNORTH NN!

"Wellington's Ghost" coalition?

Treaty of Windor, mate. Almost 650 years of alliance.

Or, alternatively, "We Still Have Loison's Arm" coalition :twisted:

Also, on the subject of ambiguous REDFOR nations, I agree relations with the USSR should be the defining factor. Intra-faction conflict shouldn't be a reason for exclusion; it's not as if anyone would argue Greece and Turkey aren't both BLUFOR.

User avatar
Eukie
Chief Warrant Officer
Posts: 547
Joined: Wed 23 Apr 2014 16:22
Contact:

Re: Should more than just 2 new nations be added to REDFOR?

Postby Eukie » Thu 27 Oct 2016 18:08

QUAD wrote:EB gets numerous shock infantry because they are 15 points, CW and Scandi get numerous line infantry because they are so good they are actually worth taking. Blue Dragons kind of get numerous special forces because they come in cheap transports and are 30 point, while not completely sucking.


I'd call that "cost efficient", not "numerous".

User avatar
integ3r
Lieutenant
Posts: 1144
Joined: Mon 3 Jun 2013 03:10
Contact:

Re: Should more than just 2 new nations be added to REDFOR?

Postby integ3r » Thu 27 Oct 2016 18:30

[EUG]MadMat wrote:I wondered about Brazil too.


1) It represents a reasonably powerful nation with unique weaponry.
2) In the 60s post-US backed coup, it was US aligned, but from late 70's and outward, it was establishing ties with the middle east and had an anti-israel stance in order to do so and was generally at odds with americans when it came to their dealings.

They weren't heavily anti-american per se, as they were committed to 3rd world neutrality, but they were unfriendly towards them. If FORCED to take a side, it could easily come down to siding with the USSR, just because they were neutral/slightly friendly to them while middle eastern trading partners were also negative to the US.

It's not a strong basis, but you could cook up a scenario where the whole world is dragged into WW3. Norway was neutral in WW2 and look how that turned out.

In the same vein, it wouldn't be hard to lump Argentina as well in with the red camp (falklands war).

EDIT: Here, have an osorio tank.
Image
Last edited by integ3r on Thu 27 Oct 2016 18:55, edited 3 times in total.
"How do into gaem of war? How 2 git gud?":
Spoiler : :

User avatar
[EUG]MadMat
More than 10 000 messages. Soldier you are the leader of all armies!
Posts: 15467
Joined: Thu 30 Jun 2011 13:31
Location: Paris, France.
Contact:

Re: Should more than just 2 new nations be added to REDFOR?

Postby [EUG]MadMat » Thu 27 Oct 2016 18:42

Broth3r wrote:Or, alternatively, "We Still Have Loison's Arm" coalition :twisted:

We took revenge on Uxbridge ... ;)

User avatar
47andrej
Lieutenant
Posts: 1335
Joined: Sun 12 Feb 2012 19:22
Contact:

Re: Should more than just 2 new nations be added to REDFOR?

Postby 47andrej » Thu 27 Oct 2016 19:22

I hope Eugen devs ;) would reconsider Iraq's side if we gonna get new poll someday. While i see arguments for Iraq being blue there are still heavy arguments for red side.

Arguments for Iraq being in BluFor camp:
-Support from West during Iraq-Iran War. West lost with Shah, its associated ally, also reliably arms importer.
-French arms imports.

Arguments for Iraq being in RedFor camp.
-Support from Socialist block during the War. Islamic Revolution wasnt something that suited socialist worldview of historical capitalist-communist struggle.
-Soviet, chinese, czechoslovak, yugoslav arms imports.
-Iraq had socialist based one-party (Arab Socialist Baath Party) system.
-In the end, there was Operation Desert Storm, attack through BluFor coalition being in games timeframe.

I'm beware that USSR suspended iraqi exports during Iraq-Iran war for 2 years, but also France urged Iraq to pay all its debts fast or ending up without new shipments.

BluFor Iraq wont also stand a chance in a possible poll.
(Preferably team up Iraq together with Syria as baathist force :P)

Return to “Wargame : Red Dragon”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests