USA and USSR the superpowers... or not?

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

Re: USA and USSR the superpowers... or not?

Postby codextero » Tue 20 Dec 2016 08:32

Partibrejker wrote:VDV and USMC as standalone, hell no. Though it would be nice to get USMC as a free bonus US specialization, since that would make "why finland gets hornet fighter but USA only in the navy" people happy.


another505 wrote:I dont want to see VDV and USMC as standalone. They still lack too much.
but i do want to see them as very viable specialization that could match other mech decks. VDV and USMC being viable can offer very unique gameplay and thematic

I don't think Sprut SD or 2 cards of HC would make USA/USSR suddenly overpowered


I don't intend for them to be standalones, but rather about as good as a Denmark/Canada level minor or slightly better. They have all the tools to be a standalone nation, but it doesn't mean it's necessarily a good idea to play them as one.

Instead, the idea is that you either play them as a part of the "Superpower" coalition with the Red Army/US Army, or in battlegroups.

US-Israel is way too broken, but USMC+Israel has a good chance to be balanced and historically accurate.

USSR is too powerful to coalition with anyone, but what if instead of Sovkor it was just the VDV that got deployed to help the Norks.

User avatar
wargamer1985
Brigadier
Posts: 3305
Joined: Sat 4 May 2013 00:36
Contact:

Re: USA and USSR the superpowers... or not?

Postby wargamer1985 » Tue 20 Dec 2016 09:26

Mike wrote:
another505 wrote:I dont want to see VDV and USMC as standalone. They still lack too much.
but i do want to see them as very viable specialization that could match other mech decks. VDV and USMC being viable can offer very unique gameplay and thematic

I dont think Sprut SD or 2 cards of HC would make USA/USSR suddenly overpowered


Another HC with the M829A2 to make it like the STRV 121 on steroids would be interesting but I think that's more a US wet dream.

The M1A1HC is more deserving of 22 FAV than it is of a M829A2 TBH.
APPLY TO THE GLORIOUS CULT OF THE WARHAWK! LIBERATING NAZIS SINCE 1939!
Image

Rimgrimner
First Sergeant
Posts: 214
Joined: Sat 25 Jun 2016 14:32
Contact:

Re: USA and USSR the superpowers... or not?

Postby Rimgrimner » Tue 20 Dec 2016 15:10

USA = not a superpower in Red Dragon. Needs a radical improvement in infantry tab minimum to get the buff they need to be viable. (as a superpower. )
USSR = (Russia is good in every category)

Oktoberfest
Second-Lieutenant
Posts: 987
Joined: Wed 23 Oct 2013 09:01
Contact:

Re: USA and USSR the superpowers... or not?

Postby Oktoberfest » Wed 21 Dec 2016 22:56

The only superpowers there is in this game and that can cover perfectly ALL aspects of the game alone is Yugoslavia and Finland.
Both are way stronger than the USA and on par AND superior to the USSR. The mix of very good units in every aspect is simply perfectly optimal.

Everything else is totally overshadowed by them, except Israël. And that pretty much sums it up.

Steamfunk
Lieutenant
Posts: 1470
Joined: Sun 14 Dec 2014 06:19

Re: USA and USSR the superpowers... or not?

Postby Steamfunk » Thu 22 Dec 2016 03:10

Just played some RD for the first time this year (almost). I can see where some of the criticisms lie, and I made certain comments myself before the final changes were cut and dried. I wouldn't go as far as to say the new nations eclipse the US/USSR, but they do need some tweaking. Also many issues with the US and USSR apply to the old NATO/Pact allies as well.

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

Re: USA and USSR the superpowers... or not?

Postby Sweedish_Gunner » Thu 22 Dec 2016 03:29

Oktoberfest wrote:The only superpowers there is in this game and that can cover perfectly ALL aspects of the game alone is Yugoslavia and Finland.
Both are way stronger than the USA and on par AND superior to the USSR. The mix of very good units in every aspect is simply perfectly optimal.

Everything else is totally overshadowed by them, except Israël. And that pretty much sums it up.


What are you smoking.

Yugoslavia needs some slight tuning on a few units and Finland is fine.
Image

User avatar
RoadkillRodger
Lieutenant
Posts: 1148
Joined: Fri 9 May 2014 07:24
Contact:

Re: USA and USSR the superpowers... or not?

Postby RoadkillRodger » Thu 22 Dec 2016 04:06

Rimgrimner wrote:USA = not a superpower in Red Dragon. Needs a radical improvement in infantry tab minimum to get the buff they need to be viable. (as a superpower.)
USSR = (Russia is good in every category)


USA infantry isn't that bad following the mg standardization imo. They were never an infantry heavy faction to begin with, and I'd rather not devolve their playstyle into ebloc+ just because that was the meta. The US tank tab is quite decent, as are their support tabs. A number of their planes are borderline useless, but hopefully at least some of Xeno's changes find their way into that air tab.

Russia hasn't been doing too hot lately, at least that I've seen.

Terracos
Sergeant First-Class
Posts: 143
Joined: Thu 26 May 2016 09:50
Contact:

Re: USA and USSR the superpowers... or not?

Postby Terracos » Thu 22 Dec 2016 11:59

On a nation level, USSR and USA are pretty high up in the ranking, its more the coalition that make the USA looks kind of weak, especially in the current map pool.

On Nation level its about this:
1. USSR/ISRAEL (depends a bit on the map)
3. USA
4. GB (thanks to the challies)

the other nations can barely stand alone, especially Yugo due to the lack of sead, the entire high end AA of USA/USSR is not contested at all

the problem now is that while USSR and IS dont need a coalition (both decks have almost no holes and enough stand-out units to turn a game in their favor), USA has a few holes that you either have to play around or need the help of Canada. While Canada provides the necessary INF tab, you actually lose 5AP that are crucial, as the US needs certain toys, that are mostly in slot nr 4 or 5 (after the basic stuff you need) and therefore you lose hard on this 5AP.

Other coalitions have a strong base line (EB, ENTENTE, CMW) and are not relying on fancy high end stuff and therefore are not hit by the -5AP.

While after the MG-rebalance the US-Inf is not abyssmal anymore but on par with all the "standart" inf types (that are outclassed by certain special infantry units like ANZAC, DDR) the APC/IFV section is really lacking for the US. Two things are really missing: A wheeled APC with a decent AC and a tracked IFV with a decent gun.
The last one can be achieved by at least buff the bushmaster a little bit, in my opinion by buffing the RPM. Changing AP wouldnt help as the HE output is the big problem.
To get a APC with AC it would be nice to change the LAV from the Veh-Tab to make it into a transport for Marines and SMAW.

This would already improve many US problems, and almost makes NORAD obsolete.

Steamfunk
Lieutenant
Posts: 1470
Joined: Sun 14 Dec 2014 06:19

Re: USA and USSR the superpowers... or not?

Postby Steamfunk » Thu 22 Dec 2016 15:55

A number of their planes are borderline useless..


Also applies to Redfor - look at all the crap bombers and the likes of Su-25, Su-25T - 200 points for 20% ECM?

Some discrepancies are real, like the US lack of wheeled transports and Soviet counter to ATACMS (Tochka lacks range, Oka is OP). That aside, it shouldn't be difficult to create a strong deck with US/USSR units within the timeframe.

Edit: And before anyone asks what I mean about the Oka, it is more like Pershing II in that it uses active radar and has a very small CEP.

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

Re: USA and USSR the superpowers... or not?

Postby GARGEAN » Thu 22 Dec 2016 16:33

Steamfunk wrote:Also applies to Redfor - look at all the crap bombers and the likes of Su-25, Su-25T - 200 points for 20% ECM?

Some discrepancies are real, like the US lack of wheeled transports and Soviet counter to ATACMS (Tochka lacks range, Oka is OP). That aside, it shouldn't be difficult to create a strong deck with US/USSR units within the timeframe.

Edit: And before anyone asks what I mean about the Oka, it is more like Pershing II in that it uses active radar and has a very small CEP.

Well, Tochka-U have 120km range against ATACMS Block I 128km, which pretty similar and still more that enough it terms of Wargame. Plus its accurasy is more than twice better, with 95-100m for Tochka-U and 225-250m for ATACMS. So, when in-game, Tochka-U should be able to hit exact building in town square.

Return to “Wargame : Red Dragon”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 30 guests