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

User avatar
damoj
Command Sergeant Major
Posts: 322
Joined: Mon 26 Sep 2016 10:07
Contact:

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

Postby damoj » Mon 24 Oct 2016 01:00

Despite what so many people seem to say, Vietnam (and Phillipines as BLUFOR rival) would make a great thematic addition to Red Dragons, so long as it has a niche that's strongly represented - high end AA, a great deal of early MiG variants and varied shock infantry, plus whatever they'd taken from ARVN.

Romania and Hungary, like Finland, both have a lot of overlap with general USSR units, but there's enough room to produce variation in AFVs in particular.

Post-revolution Iran would be interesting if hand-waived into REDFOR. Like Yugoslavia, in reality the likelihood of fighting alongside the USSR was damn slim.

Syria, or perhaps its short-lived union with Egypt, the United Arab Republic, would be perfect as an Israel nemesis/counter faction. Maglans could be partially mirrored with ATGM FiST units, Mi-17s could have glorious 10 HE barrel bombs... think of the possibilities.

Cuba's too far afield for my taste - but I'd love to see Wargame 4 sprawl into sub-Saharan Africa. South Africa & Rhodesia vs Angola & Cuba, oh baby. So many wheels, so many COIN aircraft, more mortar variety - for Christ's sake, why don't we have Mortar FiST teams for instance? Vietnam would do well with that.

User avatar
damoj
Command Sergeant Major
Posts: 322
Joined: Mon 26 Sep 2016 10:07
Contact:

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

Postby damoj » Mon 24 Oct 2016 01:06

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


Perhaps by the 1992 timeline, but they had a solid treaty of friendship with the USSR, and were enemies of the US' friend. Do not forget that after the Sino-Soviet split, a Cold War Hot scenario with USSR & China on the same side is still a stretch - why not allow India to bury the hatchet with China to go full irredentist on Pakistan?

Yes, India and Pakistan would make pretty damn good additions, the Centurion spam was real.

User avatar
ToTheMetal
Command Sergeant Major
Posts: 347
Joined: Sun 14 Aug 2016 20:12
Location: Ironforge
Contact:

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

Postby ToTheMetal » Mon 24 Oct 2016 01:18

Luckily the communistic pestilence didn't spread into too many countries, so yeah, BLUFOR gets more nations, as it should.
Image

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

Postby another505 » Mon 24 Oct 2016 02:02

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

Thats illogical , cause china was hostile to USSR lol

India iirc base on some posters, will be red(dont quote me though)

ToTheMetal wrote:Luckily the communistic pestilence didn't spread into too many countries, so yeah, BLUFOR gets more nations, as it should.

I think it would be better balance if both have the same amount of nations until red runs out, then blue will have more than red. But while blue gets more nation, more red nation get flesh out
Image
Of Salt

codextero
Lieutenant Colonel
Posts: 2334
Joined: Sat 13 Dec 2014 02:52
Contact:

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

Postby codextero » Mon 24 Oct 2016 02:04

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


India has a very strong case to be Redfor in Wargame. They were far closer to the Soviet Union than the United States. Their primary conflict was with Pakistan, who would likely be blue due to the Afghan War. They also used more Soviet equipment than western equipment. The web of politics gets tangled in the China/Pakistan/India mess, but I think nations should be assigned based primarily on their relation to one of the two superpowers.

User avatar
Narcissistic Black
Major
Posts: 1892
Joined: Tue 14 Jan 2014 01:58
Contact:

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

Postby Narcissistic Black » Mon 24 Oct 2016 02:57

HrcAk47 wrote: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 :(


Why Europe? When it could be global... It is WW3
The First Narcissist
Image
Click signature to see Modification, Alpha Released. Try now.

User avatar
Sweedish_Gunner
Brigadier
Posts: 3105
Joined: Thu 25 Apr 2013 20:23
Contact:

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

Postby Sweedish_Gunner » Mon 24 Oct 2016 03:04

I would absolutely love to see Romania and Bulgaria added too (also throw any unique Hungarian equipment into one of those nations).
Image

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

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

Postby Xeno426 » Mon 24 Oct 2016 03:53

damoj wrote:Despite what so many people seem to say, Vietnam (and Phillipines as BLUFOR rival) would make a great thematic addition to Red Dragons, so long as it has a niche that's strongly represented

You mean like China and North Korea? Very thematic. Very дерьмо.


damoj wrote:Romania and Hungary, like Finland, both have a lot of overlap with general USSR units, but there's enough room to produce variation in AFVs in particular.

Romania also had a lot of indigenous aircraft it produced, along with an indigenous helicopter (real thing got cancelled, but hey, cool proto).

damoj wrote:Cuba's too far afield for my taste

Yeah, Cuba is just too far an oddball.

Brazil and Argentina would be funny (Pucará, here we come!), but I would rate them pretty low. I'd much rather see Romania, Italy, and Bulgaria added. Hell, maybe even Greece and Turkey. We'd be able to live out the Fourth Balkan Wars.
Last edited by Xeno426 on Mon 24 Oct 2016 07:34, edited 1 time in total.
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.

scottslater
Corporal
Posts: 44
Joined: Mon 10 Feb 2014 03:55
Contact:

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

Postby scottslater » Mon 24 Oct 2016 04:22

Me personally I would like to see the Southern Tier (Hungary, Bulgaria, Romania) added then AFSouth (Italy, Greece, Turkey). WG3 should have taken place in this theatre anyway.

After that we could potentially look at fleshing out enemies for Israel/the Middle East as a conflict in the Balkans could have very easily spilled into this region.
Give me Freedom or give me Death.

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

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

Postby Xeno426 » Mon 24 Oct 2016 04:24

I don't think Hungary would add much; even molni doesn't think it would be a good addition, and he's Hungarian.

It would be better than Austria, though.
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: Google [Bot] and 33 guests