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

User avatar
Killertomato
More than 10 000 messages. Soldier you are the leader of all armies!
Posts: 13730
Joined: Mon 9 Jul 2012 02:46
Contact:

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

Postby Killertomato » Fri 28 Oct 2016 03:04

But don't despair, because South Africa had another prototype helicopter gunship - the Atlas XTP-1 Beta:


Image
orcbuster wrote:USSR gets prototype marsupials, why would you need moose when you got stuff with kickers like that AND transport capability? And I'm not even gonna START on the french Marsupilami, I don't even think thats a real animal! Why no trolls for Norway?

User avatar
orcbuster
More than 10 000 messages. Soldier you are the leader of all armies!
Posts: 12362
Joined: Fri 7 Sep 2012 21:04
Contact:

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

Postby orcbuster » Fri 28 Oct 2016 03:18

Less sexy. Alpha version

Image
Image
Viker for ingen!

Chesnok
Command Sergeant Major
Posts: 334
Joined: Thu 2 May 2013 22:01
Contact:

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

Postby Chesnok » Fri 28 Oct 2016 03:32

orcbuster wrote:Less sexy. Alpha version

Well that's just adorable. It thinks it's a gunship!

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 » Fri 28 Oct 2016 03:57

orcbuster wrote:Now that is just plain sexy.

No other words needed.

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 » Fri 28 Oct 2016 07:20

orcbuster wrote:Now that is just plain sexy.


Don't forget the Bismark, the South African 55-ton 8x8 with a tank turret on top, or as I like to think of it, "a superheavy for Motorized". 85 km/h road speed, 1000 km operational range. Now, most photos of the prototype show the prototype with the Olifank Mk 1B turret, and the Olifant Mk 1B is a fine tank, I don't deny that... but wouldn't you rather have it with a 120 mm Rheinmetal gun? The Bismark could mount the turret from the TTD, and the TTD was made to take the 120 mm Rheinmetal gun.

And should I mention this thing was built to duel T-55s, and was (presumably) armoured accordingly, with heavily sloped frontal armour?

South Africa. Motorized gods.

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 » Fri 28 Oct 2016 07:32

The Bismarck with a 120mm gun would literally break the game.

Honestly South Africa needs to be the next DLC. I would say bundle Cuba but the amount of research required on making Cuba a 1990 nation is a little absurd, so screw Cuba. I want South Africa, now.
Mobile Units Operational :!:

User avatar
steppewolf
Second-Lieutenant
Posts: 970
Joined: Mon 26 Aug 2013 10:38
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Contact:

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

Postby steppewolf » Fri 28 Oct 2016 07:36

Eukie wrote:And should I mention this thing was built to duel T-55s, and was (presumably) armoured accordingly, with heavily sloped frontal armour?


120 mm on wheels sounds nice but I doubt those wheels, even 8 of them, can sustain a proper tank type of armor, maybe range and speed was its strong point but armor, I don't think so.

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 » Fri 28 Oct 2016 07:57

After some cursory reading including the Bismark ingame would be a stretch, imo 76mm and 90mm Rorikats with Olifants would be the armor tab, and Erlands would rest in the vehicle or support tabs.
Mobile Units Operational :!:

User avatar
homerfcb
Lieutenant
Posts: 1199
Joined: Mon 24 Sep 2012 16:33
Contact:

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

Postby homerfcb » Fri 28 Oct 2016 09:50

QUAD wrote:The Bismarck with a 120mm gun would literally break the game.

Honestly South Africa needs to be the next DLC. I would say bundle Cuba but the amount of research required on making Cuba a 1990 nation is a little absurd, so screw Cuba. I want South Africa, now.


Are you crazy? You are the main advocate for Cuba. You conviced me about Cuba. Keep Believing! A Cuba plus South Africa DLC would be that great... We need Romania, too, that's sure, but what's then? let it be Cuba. You have to fight for it Quad!

1. Italy + Romania
2. South Africa + Cuba
3. Spain + India
4. Turkey + Bulgaria
5. Iraq + Iran

That should be the plan for the next year!
The big nerf whiners thread, much controversal stuff, some suggestions and some more stuff, also with a big Patriot range explanation Just klick me, or go here viewtopic.php?f=155&t=48184

User avatar
steppewolf
Second-Lieutenant
Posts: 970
Joined: Mon 26 Aug 2013 10:38
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Contact:

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

Postby steppewolf » Fri 28 Oct 2016 11:49

My two cents about what I think should be next DLCs, if it will happen.

First, I am hardcore fan of the Cold War era tag of this game, it's why I bought it in the first place so I am weary of going too far of it and generally every faction I'll vote will have to have some connection with the events (e.g. Brazil for example shouldn't be added for a tank, their participation to events is close to zero).

So what I'd look for would be:

Italy (paired with France) + Romania (paired with Yugoslavia)

Cuba vs South Africa
What is difficult here is with whom to pair them.

For Cuba, the only plausible pairing is Soviet Union which would result in a new SovKor. No other RED country had the capacity to support Cuba other than symbolic help.

For SA, certainly not Commonwealth. With Israel it may be OP if Tsahal won't be nerfed. Maybe a Super Rugby Coalition, ANZAC + SA? :mrgreen: It would be only moto but still...

If Eugen decide to go for coalitions rather than countries than I'd like to see:
Italy+Spain+Portugal vs Romania+Bulgaria+Yugoslavia (Hungary may have a place here if Yugo will stay in its own coalition)

All 3 Blue countries could form a quite good Marine deck and Italy mainly have some very interesting local designs. Yes, Portugal would be like ANZAC but into a coalition can provide some nice features.

I'd avoid Middle East (or leave it for another game) for the following reasons:

- uncertain allegiances to RED vs BLUE sides
- difficulty to form any credible coalitions; seriously, do you want Irak T-72s roll shoulder by shoulder with Merkavas or Tomcats and MIG-31 on the same side? It's good to have as little as possible equipment from Red side in Blue side nations and viceversa due to the fact that this sort of "tribalism" (T-72/80 vs M1A1/Challys) is good for the game.
- most of Middle East conflicts are local quarrels and any affiliation or cooperation with a block or another was simply
due to oportunism rather than any connection with the ideologies of the two blocks.

The closest geographically from Middle East DLC I'd vote would be Pakistan (Blue) vs India (Red). I'd never vote for Blue Irak, Red Iran, Brazil, there is nothing there connected with a Cold War gone hot.

Other coalitions that might work:

Belgium + Netherlands (maybe Germany as well)
Greece + Turkey (maybe Italy for a fight for Istanbul), maybe paired with some of Southern NATO countries. This is highly controversial, maybe more than SK+Japan and in the time frame the respective armies weren't as strong or didn't had local designs (e.g. some of the first steps of Turkey in developing local designs was with Romania which resulted in RN-94 3x3 APC and T-122 Sakariya which is pretty much a clone of Romanian APRA-40 FMC MLRS). But I think in a Soviet Union + WP full scale attack of Europe, Greece and Turkey would have fought together.

Return to “Wargame : Red Dragon”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Majestic-12 [Bot] and 41 guests