USA and USSR the superpowers... or not?

User avatar
Partibrejker
Command Sergeant Major
Posts: 333
Joined: Sun 22 Feb 2015 22:14
Location: Elektronska Industrija, Yugoslavia
Contact:

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

Postby Partibrejker » Sun 11 Dec 2016 19:44

The thought of anything being a super power should be thrown out of the minds of wargamers, to elaborate, it is a fact that (for example) USA is a super power and that it has bazillion airplanes and tanks and huge manpower and that it would, probably, crush any minor in an all out war, but the thing about wargame that, even though "scenario" is an all out war, matches are not because - AVAILABILITY. What I want to say is - an average abrams is not better than the, idk, average leopard (for example, not serious comparison), but would abramses, in general, beat leopards, yeah, because, as an surreal example, West Germany had, what, 400, 500 tanks tops, lets make it even 1000 it does not matter, since the USA has thousands and thousands. Simple as that. The easiest thing to do would be to make this game as full blufor vs full redfor, but, for the sake of fun and diversity, it is broken down to nations(though you can still play general decks), and if some nation had a better unit, in most of the cases, game-wise, that is represented adequately. AKA can you beat superpower in game hell yeah, could you beat them in real life - usually not, but all wargamers with "superpowaaah" mindset should keep in mind that we are playing a game and that's about it. In the end of it, if we could just add nukes as a weapon and USA, UK, ISR, FRA and USSR(maybe I missed some nation) could insta win every single match, yet again this is not a hyper-realistic to the molecular level simulation of "what would happen of cold war turned hot", but a unique RTS game of "what could happen if cold war turned hot in the 10x10 kilometers square" :mrgreen:
Spoiler : :

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

Postby Killertomato » Sun 11 Dec 2016 19:55

The US is missing a lot of stuff that it had IRL.

Spike is in, Javelin is out. Ka-52 is in, RAH-66 is out. Merkava 3 BAZ is in, M1A2 SEP is out. Panzergrenadiers are shock, light riflemen are not.

USSR has a few holes (Su-27IB, Kornet, Pantsir, shock Gornos) but it just has fewer holes.
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
Partibrejker
Command Sergeant Major
Posts: 333
Joined: Sun 22 Feb 2015 22:14
Location: Elektronska Industrija, Yugoslavia
Contact:

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

Postby Partibrejker » Sun 11 Dec 2016 20:36

Killertomato wrote:The US is missing a lot of stuff that it had IRL.

Spike is in, Javelin is out. Ka-52 is in, RAH-66 is out. Merkava 3 BAZ is in, M1A2 SEP is out. Panzergrenadiers are shock, light riflemen are not.

USSR has a few holes (Su-27IB, Kornet, Pantsir, shock Gornos) but it just has fewer holes.


I agree, on the other hand if we would list and then bring in everything that is missing everywhere and what could everyone get, I would not be surprised if people started asking for T-1000 on blufor and kevlar wearing cossacks on horses with exo skeletons on the redfor.
Spoiler : :

ThePriyad
Corporal
Posts: 45
Joined: Sat 15 Oct 2016 23:37
Contact:

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

Postby ThePriyad » Sun 11 Dec 2016 20:44

After playing US in ranked for about a year, I'd say they've been consistently good. I'm honestly surprised that I am the only one regularly using US in ranked at a high level. It takes more effort and demands combined arms, but the tools are there.

For the NORAD coalition, I don't see any Canadian unit I would take that's worth losing 5 activation points and availability for Ranked 1vs1 matches. There was a case to be made for Canadian Rifles '85s with the TH-495 but that time is gone since the IFV patch. There was also probably a case to be made for Eryx, but I preferred SMAW even before the Eryx changes.

We all know US performs well enough in 10v10s.
Image
Making #US Great, One Ranked Match At A Time.

User avatar
Fade2Gray
General
Posts: 8659
Joined: Wed 1 May 2013 23:30
Location: IED proof in Iraq
Contact:

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

Postby Fade2Gray » Sun 11 Dec 2016 21:06

You know, the whole premise of this thread is flawed from the start. EUGEN has already made it public knowledge that the USSR is pretty much a "superpower" in game. On top of that, this is not a game about the overall war of NATO vs PACT, this is about limited meeting engagements of balanced forces.

Now, does the USA need some love? Sure, but the USSR overall is not exactly desperate for buffs.
Image
Image
Think you have what it takes to enlist into the military? You sure about that?

User avatar
mvp7
Master Sergeant
Posts: 192
Joined: Thu 2 May 2013 15:22
Contact:

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

Postby mvp7 » Sun 11 Dec 2016 21:16

Killertomato wrote:The US is missing a lot of stuff that it had IRL.

Spike is in, Javelin is out. Ka-52 is in, RAH-66 is out. Merkava 3 BAZ is in, M1A2 SEP is out. Panzergrenadiers are shock, light riflemen are not.

USSR has a few holes (Su-27IB, Kornet, Pantsir, shock Gornos) but it just has fewer holes.

I wouldn't describe most of these things as holes from a gameplay point of view, more like not having the nicest things or having just equally nice things. Javelin (F&F, top attack) and RAH-66 (6 Hellfires, 12 Stingers, possibly recon and stealthy?) would be in their own class even in comparison to Spike and Ka-52, not to mention any other similar units in the game.

Su-27IB, Kornet and Pantsir would just give an already well rounded faction even better options in categories where it already has some of the best (or the best) units in the whole game. M1A2 SEP could be nice since Norad does lack a second superheavy, maybe as a 1 card 1 availability tank with 24 front armor for 200 points... but it would be hitting all the limits of tank performance and time frame and it's not something that is really needed by US or Norad.

As for infantry, the USA could really use an overhaul with heavy re-rolling but I think Soviets have a pretty solid selection as it is.

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

Postby Killertomato » Sun 11 Dec 2016 21:21

mvp7 wrote:I wouldn't describe most of these things as holes from a gameplay point of view, more like not having the nicest things or having just equally nice things. Javelin (F&F, top attack) and RAH-66 (6 Hellfires, 12 Stingers, possibly recon and stealthy?) would be in their own class even in comparison to Spike and Ka-52, not to mention any other similar units in the game.


Javelin could be F&F, but there are alternate options and spike is also supposed to be F&F. The US doesn't have any other infantry ATGMs except dragon, which is garbage.

RAH-66 is an OH-1 with more stingers and a cannon, or an OH-1 with 6 hellfires and a cannon. I honestly wanted it instead of Longbow.
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?

kish
Sergeant
Posts: 54
Joined: Wed 21 Aug 2013 20:43
Contact:

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

Postby kish » Sun 11 Dec 2016 21:30

Desty wrote:
kish wrote:Consider WW2. The USA was lagging in tech behind the germans, the soviets were un the stone age but still they won, strategically.
Why should coldwar times change this concept?


you have no idea about the cold war outside of this game right? :lol:


you have no idea what a concept is right? ofc soviet take took a giant leap right into leading some areas but the concept (!!) is that tactical prowess and strategic competence are two different things.

User avatar
mvp7
Master Sergeant
Posts: 192
Joined: Thu 2 May 2013 15:22
Contact:

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

Postby mvp7 » Sun 11 Dec 2016 21:56

Killertomato wrote:Javelin could be F&F, but there are alternate options and spike is also supposed to be F&F. The US doesn't have any other infantry ATGMs except dragon, which is garbage.

RAH-66 is an OH-1 with more stingers and a cannon, or an OH-1 with 6 hellfires and a cannon. I honestly wanted it instead of Longbow.

The Super Dragon is indeed pretty depressing ATGM system but US does have good tanks and plenty of TOW-2 and Hellfire platforms to compensate. From realism point of view, Spike-LR at least has an option of guidance unlike Javelin which is also kinda iconic for it's F&F capability. Much like RAH-66 it would probably either be really undermodeled or overpowered if it were in the game. I'd rather see a TOW-2 or I-TOW infantry team than Javelin if US were to get a better infantry ATGM.

User avatar
Partibrejker
Command Sergeant Major
Posts: 333
Joined: Sun 22 Feb 2015 22:14
Location: Elektronska Industrija, Yugoslavia
Contact:

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

Postby Partibrejker » Sun 11 Dec 2016 22:05

mvp7 wrote:
Killertomato wrote:Javelin could be F&F, but there are alternate options and spike is also supposed to be F&F. The US doesn't have any other infantry ATGMs except dragon, which is garbage.

RAH-66 is an OH-1 with more stingers and a cannon, or an OH-1 with 6 hellfires and a cannon. I honestly wanted it instead of Longbow.

The Super Dragon is indeed pretty depressing ATGM system but US does have good tanks and plenty of TOW-2 and Hellfire platforms to compensate. From realism point of view, Spike-LR at least has an option of guidance unlike Javelin which is also kinda iconic for it's F&F capability. Much like RAH-66 it would probably either be really undermodeled or overpowered if it were in the game. I'd rather see a TOW-2 or I-TOW infantry team than Javelin if US were to get a better infantry ATGM.


If there would be a RAH-66 in game it would cost a shitload of points, so the question is, is it better to have longbow for a reasonable amount of points, or super omnipotent Comanche with a biiiig paycheck (I cannot see it being cheaper than 190 even 200, since aa, hellfire, rocketpods, cannon, mix those into 3 + stealth), that could still get easily shot down by 25 point aa infantry :)
Spoiler : :

Return to “Wargame : Red Dragon”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 40 guests