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

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 » Sun 23 Oct 2016 23:29

another505 wrote:
orcbuster wrote:Answer is that there are simply more viable and interesting nations available to blufor historically.

Also vietnam is a horrible pick for a redfor nation.

Well, there is, but is not like Red has already ran out of options...

looking at Rom, bulgaria, iran/iraq


Ratio as it is now is pretty accurate
Image
Viker for ingen!

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

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

Postby Razzmann » Sun 23 Oct 2016 23:39

orcbuster wrote:
another505 wrote:
orcbuster wrote:Answer is that there are simply more viable and interesting nations available to blufor historically.

Also vietnam is a horrible pick for a redfor nation.

Well, there is, but is not like Red has already ran out of options...

looking at Rom, bulgaria, iran/iraq


Ratio as it is now is pretty accurate

With "now" you mean +2 Yugo and Finland, right?

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 » Sun 23 Oct 2016 23:41

Razzmann wrote:With "now" you mean +2 Yugo and Finland, right?


derp, indeed I do
Image
Viker for ingen!

User avatar
HrcAk47
Colonel
Posts: 2788
Joined: Sat 3 May 2014 18:00
Contact:

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

Postby HrcAk47 » Sun 23 Oct 2016 23:55

Still, there's potential for growth on both sides, should Eugen choose to do that, two to three nations each. And that's all even without going to the Middle East/Asia/Africa/elsewhere.

I wish WG4 returns to Europe :(
The SEAD never bothered me anyway.

SMB Yugoslavia Retexture Mod, now released, v.1.0

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 » Mon 24 Oct 2016 00:05

Iraq/Syria Baathist nation is probably the best bet. Apparently they had MiG-31s, Su-27s, Mi-28s, etc on order before the axe fell.
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?

GARGEAN
Brigadier
Posts: 3496
Joined: Wed 9 Apr 2014 14:19
Contact:

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

Postby GARGEAN » Mon 24 Oct 2016 00:08

orcbuster wrote:Ratio as it is now is pretty accurate

Accurate to what? Number of nations IRL? Looks too close to dump screams like "T-72 should cost 3 times less cause there was so muh many of them ", isn't it?

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 » Mon 24 Oct 2016 00:09

GARGEAN wrote:
orcbuster wrote:Ratio as it is now is pretty accurate

Accurate to what? Number of nations IRL? Looks too close to dump screams like "T-72 should cost 3 times less cause there was so muh many of them ", isn't it?


The number of nations with unique equipment?

You know, NATO's second biggest single disadvantage?
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
HrcAk47
Colonel
Posts: 2788
Joined: Sat 3 May 2014 18:00
Contact:

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

Postby HrcAk47 » Mon 24 Oct 2016 00:27

Romania has rather unique domestic gear, if that's a parameter to go by, APCs, IFVs, tanks, mortars, airplanes. Even a heli.
The SEAD never bothered me anyway.

SMB Yugoslavia Retexture Mod, now released, v.1.0

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

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

Postby FoxZz » Mon 24 Oct 2016 00:33

India would rather be on Blufor tough, considering their hostility to China (which is more a threat than Pakistan).

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 » Mon 24 Oct 2016 00:45

HrcAk47 wrote:Romania has rather unique domestic gear, if that's a parameter to go by, APCs, IFVs, tanks, mortars, airplanes. Even a heli.


Most of it ain't too good, though. The TR-85 specifically is a T-55AMV at best... You can do a lot with infantry, of course, but there are gaping holes.

Iraq at least has some good canceled orders.
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?

Return to “Wargame : Red Dragon”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 55 guests