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

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 12:13

molnibalage 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.

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


Lay off the palinka, dude.
The SEAD never bothered me anyway.

SMB Yugoslavia Retexture Mod, now released, v.1.0

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 12:17

HrcAk47 wrote:
molnibalage 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.

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


Lay off the palinka, dude.


Have you checked the inventory of FIN before '90s...?

Yugo also was quite subpar comparing to even average NSWP level...

Just for the record, I hate palinka...

Sleksa
Lieutenant Colonel
Posts: 2265
Joined: Tue 14 May 2013 12:26
Contact:

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

Postby Sleksa » Mon 24 Oct 2016 12:21

molnibalage 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.

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


Image

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 12:21

Since people are bawling over Vietnam, please tell me which tanks did they have ITF.

Spoiler : Here's a hint :
T-34/85
SU-76
SU-100
T-54
T-54A
Type 59
Type 63
PT-76
PT-76B with DShK
After reunification:
M48A1 Patton
M48A3 Patton
M41 Walker Bulldog
M67 Zippo


You will notice that all of the mentioned fails to costs more than 25 money ingame.
The SEAD never bothered me anyway.

SMB Yugoslavia Retexture Mod, now released, v.1.0

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 12:25

molnibalage wrote:
HrcAk47 wrote:
molnibalage wrote:Why is horrible? Why is better Finland and Yugo what in RL were inferior even comparing to Danemark or NL?


Lay off the palinka, dude.


Have you checked the inventory of FIN before '90s...?

Yugo also was quite subpar comparing to even average NSWP level...

Just for the record, I hate palinka...


Subpar as compared to Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria? Give me a break. By what criteria?
The SEAD never bothered me anyway.

SMB Yugoslavia Retexture Mod, now released, v.1.0

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 12:35

HrcAk47 wrote:Subpar as compared to Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria? Give me a break. By what criteria?

Just check air power...

FIN used the stone age MiG-21F-13 which was phased out in Hungary in mid '70s (in 1973 HUN gave many MiG-21F-13 to Syria because phase out have been started) while FIN used until mid '80s.

HUN with one onf the weakest air force in NSWP had BVR capability with MiG-23MF. Another fighter what had FIN is Draken... MiG-21bis in FIN was used in late '90s until the arrival of Hornets... In WG FIN will be redfor (quite funny...) so you cannot expect Hornet.

And check the qty...

This in only air force check what air defense and armored units had.. T-55, lot of towed gun, no at least med. category SAM in quality, etc.

Finland was weak even comparing to Hungary...

YUG was just a little bit better in air force - they got earlier some MiG-29 9.12 - and on any other area similar or worse... They did not have Krug, no Osa. Tanks? Nothing special.
Last edited by molnibalage on Mon 24 Oct 2016 12:40, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
steppewolf
Second-Lieutenant
Posts: 971
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 » Mon 24 Oct 2016 12:38

Killertomato wrote: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.


This is a very common bias and it isn't true. Even first model, TR-77-580 was very different of T-55AMV, it had better armor (320 mm frontal), stratified as opposed with T-55 and was constantly upgraded (new FCS, re-designed turret with more space for ammo so better ROF); even T-55s were upgraded with some Romanian stuff and the old Soviet was reused / or intended to be used to upgrade T-34s and SU-100s (projects stopped due to 1989). The next design, TR-85 is even better and would make a good medium, between 75-85 pts with stratified composite armor (400 mm), tungsten warhead AP (Romania produce sizeable quantities of tungsten), modern FCS.

TR-125 is a design which incorporate tungsten in armor composition, a really good gun etc.

The issue with Romanian tanks was the interdiction from middle 80s forward to use any imported parts or materials and to produce them locally took too much time (e.g. put into production new productions lines).

Another argument to add Romania is that it can fit into an coalition with Yugoslavia thus not so much headaches or can bring an entirely new and different coalition with Bulgaria which can add to Romania especially in the gaps than of an eventual deck(e.g. more IFVs, SPAAGs, shock mechanized infantry, long range AA S-300, modern tube arty).

User avatar
Bougnas
Major-General
Posts: 3699
Joined: Sat 26 Apr 2014 18:24
Contact:

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

Postby Bougnas » Mon 24 Oct 2016 12:43

By the way I was wondering if we couldn't mix Hungary and Bulgaria into a single nation like ANZAC (such an alliance needs to be confirmed historically tho). Alone they don't have many unique stuff but maybe together they could make an interesting roster.
Image

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 12:46

molnibalage wrote:
HrcAk47 wrote:Subpar as compared to Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria? Give me a break. By what criteria?

Just check air power...

FIN used the stone age MiG-21F-13 which was phased out in Hungary in mid '70s (in 1973 HUN gave many MiG-21F-13 to Syria because phase out have been started) while FIN used until mid '80s.

HUN with one onf the weakest air force in NSWP had BVR capability with MiG-23MF. Another fighter what had FIN is Draken... MiG-21bis in FIN was used in late '90s until the arrival of Hornets... In WG FIN will be redfor (quite funny...) so you cannot expect Hornet.

And check the qty...

This in only air force check what air defense and armored units had..


Yugoslavia tested and evaluated MiG-23 many times. We even were overhauling them for foreign customers. We had it constantly on offer for purchase. But, MiG-21bis was chosen instead.

MiG-23 was deemed to be inferior to MiG-21 for our specific purpose, which is a defensive war.

But seriously, hearing how Yugoslavia was weaker than the happiest barrack in the Pact just made me chuckle heartily.
The SEAD never bothered me anyway.

SMB Yugoslavia Retexture Mod, now released, v.1.0

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 12:56

HrcAk47 wrote:Since people are bawling over Vietnam, please tell me which tanks did they have ITF.

Spoiler : Here's a hint :
T-34/85
SU-76
SU-100
T-54
T-54A
Type 59
Type 63
PT-76
PT-76B with DShK
After reunification:
M48A1 Patton
M48A3 Patton
M41 Walker Bulldog
M67 Zippo


You will notice that all of the mentioned fails to costs more than 25 money ingame.

Pretty much the same story with the ANZAC, albeit they're in the game.
Image

Return to “Wargame : Red Dragon”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 47 guests