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

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 04:30

If countries like Canada, Denmark, Norway, ANZAC, etc. are in this game, I'm sure Hungary could be "fleshed" out to be okay. And besides, if they like to balance around coalitions, Hungary would be used to make a coalition with Romania and Bulgaria ala Eastern Block (which I would rename Northern Tier).
Give me Freedom or give me Death.

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 06:15

If their in 1 country that pact needs its..

Image

Spoiler : :
INDIA.
The First Narcissist
Image
Click signature to see Modification, Alpha Released. Try now.

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 06:24

Would they really be REDFOR? I mean, they'd be opposed to China.
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
RoadkillRodger
Lieutenant
Posts: 1148
Joined: Fri 9 May 2014 07:24
Contact:

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

Postby RoadkillRodger » Mon 24 Oct 2016 06:44

Xeno426 wrote:Would they really be REDFOR? I mean, they'd be opposed to China.


At that point it might be just as useful to start Purplefor with many of the independent/non aligned nations.

User avatar
Yakhont
Colonel
Posts: 2870
Joined: Sat 31 Mar 2012 04:33
Contact:

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

Postby Yakhont » Mon 24 Oct 2016 06:52

India would more likely be REDFOR. China and India conflict is exaggerated due to their geographic boundaries which makes military conflict very difficult and limited. India could have some indigenous weapons due that IRL wasn't very successful but this is Wargme where Prototypes work perfectly.

With the inclusion of Israel the MidEast would be a good place to look.
Syria/Iraq Baath Alliance would be viable but considering their real life disagreements and questionability as nation states the dissonance would be weird.
Egypt would be another candidate with changing alliances (USSR aligned pre 1975 and USA aligned post 1978). A mix of new US and old Soviet equipment might be interesting.

I think Wargame has exhausted the candidates for a REDFOR vs BLUFOR type of game and with so many Nations and Specialisations there is no other purpose than to for promotion. Iw ould rather the dev focus on the game play and UI changes and refinement than add more Nations on the viability level of ANZAC.
Image

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 08:41

Xeno426 wrote:You mean like China and North Korea? Very thematic. Very дерьмо.


My dude, China and North Korea are merely awfully balanced. Vietnam would get an interesting blend of USSR, Chinese and a few USA units from the ARVN, and like North Korea's B-5 or USA's Patriot, probably a token strategic asset. Or, you know, I wasn't kidding about infantry mortar FiST units. That would be really interesting.



Xeno426 wrote: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.


That would be really cool - Italy and Turkey should have been NATO no-brainers, and would complement Romania/Hungary/Bulgaria and of course Yugoslavia really well.

User avatar
nuke92
Lieutenant
Posts: 1119
Joined: Tue 14 Jun 2016 21:51
Contact:

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

Postby nuke92 » Mon 24 Oct 2016 09:11

Since the southern front was rejected in favour of Scandinavia back in ALB times chances for Italy-Greece-Turkey vs Romania-Bulgaria-Hungary are very high.
+ you get a YUROM coalition
Image
"Spike MR is more accurate I'll give you that but Konkurs has more range and isn't prototype" - Warchat™ July 2017
"ALB added planes, RD added ships, WG4 will add Ekranoplans" - Warchat™ August 2017

User avatar
molnibalage
General
Posts: 6706
Joined: Thu 1 Aug 2013 22:54
Location: Hungary
Contact:

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

Postby molnibalage » Mon 24 Oct 2016 10:07

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.

Why is horrible? Why is better Finland and Yugo what in RL were inferior even comparing to Danemark or NL?

User avatar
molnibalage
General
Posts: 6706
Joined: Thu 1 Aug 2013 22:54
Location: Hungary
Contact:

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

Postby molnibalage » Mon 24 Oct 2016 10:17

Greyhound wrote:Hungary and Romania would be a nice addition. Altho they have a lot of copy pasta units, they have some unique ones and since they have so many same units as USSR and NSWP t won't take much effort to model new units.

Hungary except some home made crap APC did not had any unique vehicles what other EB countired did not had... In RL best HUN tanks was T-72M (or M1) which is T-72A equvivalent. For T-55AM we did not even ATGM...

For for infrantry marksman traibning HUN coscripted soilder got 2x30 ammo in total... The Soviet soilders used one big box/soilder (~1000 ammo) but in the superior commander of the soilder was unhappy with the result many times gave it more after they kick in the butt the soilder...

Consideing this the inf. of HUN (as well as whole NSWP) are over modeled as hell just beacuse of gamebalance... The level of USSR troops was way, way above any NSWP country...

In fact HUN would be a very fantasy nation even with T-72B/B1. We did not had even 2S3 only 2S1 (but only for some regiments or one division as I can remember), no Osa only Kub (with less them nomial qty.), only 2/3 or nominal Krug qty, only half of Strlea-1 + ZSU-23-4 of nominal, same case for MANPAD. HUN had only 4xStrela-10M, for a single battalion...

Air force? A single sq. of MiG-23MF was bought, rest was only MiG-21. Strike capabiltiy? No Su-25, only a single sq. of Su-22M3. The most funny part was HUN bought Kh-29 but never the rails for HP so they never was carried...

I have no idea why wish to see so many people so many fantasy nation... Rather adding new nations existing should be balanced or extended. For ex why is not the SA-4 (Krug) in the game as army level AD? As long as we have Buk it would be totally justified because both were used on army level...

I'm Hungarian but even me do not wish to see HUN because it is pointless... Rather just adding more and more nations it would be great to see a new WG which different deck conception wehere battalions are used, so national and other stuff are pointless, you simply create a mixed force for NATO / WPACT coalition or other coalition in case of other "theaters".

Also would be great to have bigger scale of battle, not some tanks and AD. I think here at least about battalion level. It should be general to see dozens of tanks and APCs with their RL air defense on battlefield and not the current where 2xTor defends 2xtanks and 3xIFVs...

User avatar
molnibalage
General
Posts: 6706
Joined: Thu 1 Aug 2013 22:54
Location: Hungary
Contact:

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

Postby molnibalage » Mon 24 Oct 2016 10:31

Xeno426 wrote: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.

Yes.
Austria also would be pretty bad idea. They were even weaker then HUN...

Return to “Wargame : Red Dragon”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 34 guests