USA and USSR the superpowers... or not?

User avatar
Demonicjapsel
Chief Warrant Officer
Posts: 680
Joined: Sat 26 Jul 2014 20:58
Location: Triggering HRCK and his warcrime denying Yugoboos

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

Postby Demonicjapsel » Sun 11 Dec 2016 22:07

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.


I consider the longbow preferable to the RAH66 on the grounds that the longbow did enter service, and as such, deserves priority over comperable helos that did not.

the US needs buffs, it needs fixing the M1 line, reroll some of the useless pattons into something halfway decent, reroll the airtab and grant the top Paladin guided munitions to offset low rof with unrivalled precision. That would make for a nice contrast as well. USSR relies on AoA, while the US relies on precision as they did IRL.

Give it standard artillery dispersion whrn firing blind and a very small dispersion when your units draw line of sight. This would diffirentiate the 109A6 from the 109A5NL, which is flatout better then it.

As for the javelin, i feel its a bit OOTF, but depending on the stats wouldn't argue heavily against it. I do feel the US infantry tab is better served with some tweaks and buffs then anything else

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 22:13

Partibrejker wrote:
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 :)


I don't get this.

Comanche is already in the game, it's called the OH-1. it just has a 20mm cannon and more Stingers.

Comanche CANNOT carry all munitions without stub wings and thus losing stealth. Comanche could carry EITHER six Hellfires OR 12 stingers in the internal bays. Not both, and no rocket pods.

Demonicjapsel wrote:
I consider the longbow preferable to the RAH66 on the grounds that the longbow did enter service, and as such, deserves priority over comperable helos that did not.


It doesn't fit where it is. RAH-66 was the follow-on to Kiowa Warrior, AH-64D was Apache+.


Demonicjapsel wrote:
As for the javelin, i feel its a bit OOTF, but depending on the stats wouldn't argue heavily against it. I do feel the US infantry tab is better served with some tweaks and buffs then anything else


First full-system test firing was 1993 and full deployment was 1996.
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 22:20

Thought that the OH-1 Ninja and RAH-66 Comanche are different things, though, now that you've explained in more detail how LO wold look, I am totally missing why would you switch longbow for this, except if you reaaaalllyyy looooooveeee that heli that much.
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 22:42

Partibrejker wrote:Thought that the OH-1 Ninja and RAH-66 Comanche are different things, though, now that you've explained in more detail how LO wold look, I am totally missing why would you switch longbow for this, except if you reaaaalllyyy looooooveeee that heli that much.


They're both stealth helicopters with Stingers.

And Longbow shouldn't be a recon helicopter because it wasn't one. Yeah it had good sensors... but so did AH-1W, and AH-64A. It should've been the god-king of anti-tank gunships.

RAH-66 was the next-generation recon bird.
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 23:03

Killertomato wrote:
Partibrejker wrote:Thought that the OH-1 Ninja and RAH-66 Comanche are different things, though, now that you've explained in more detail how LO wold look, I am totally missing why would you switch longbow for this, except if you reaaaalllyyy looooooveeee that heli that much.


They're both stealth helicopters with Stingers.

And Longbow shouldn't be a recon helicopter because it wasn't one. Yeah it had good sensors... but so did AH-1W, and AH-64A. It should've been the god-king of anti-tank gunships.

RAH-66 was the next-generation recon bird.


Ahaaaa, now I get you completely. Well I guess our playstyle is different since I still don't get why would you need a recon stealth AA heli in USA in favor of longbow. To elaborate, without any negativity intended, supercobra has aim9, daps have the same stuff for less money, I dig only the stealth part, and even that ain't wooow for helos, at least that is what practice has shown me thus far.
Spoiler : :

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

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

Postby RoadkillRodger » Sun 11 Dec 2016 23:07

Demonicjapsel wrote:
the US needs buffs, it needs fixing the M1 line,


I've actually had decent results using base M1 as an fsv, imo it functions somewhat better than the bmpt when you consider price and AT capacity.

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

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

Postby Xeno426 » Mon 12 Dec 2016 01:14

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.

You know, just to demonstrate your knowledge, I'm going to make a statement.

The Sherman was a better tank than the Tiger.
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
orcbuster
More than 10 000 messages. Soldier you are the leader of all armies!
Posts: 12362
Joined: Fri 7 Sep 2012 21:04
Contact:

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

Postby orcbuster » Mon 12 Dec 2016 01:17

Xeno426 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.

You know, just to demonstrate your knowledge, I'm going to make a statement.

The Sherman was a better tank than the Tiger.


I'll add the panther in for free.
Image
Viker for ingen!

User avatar
JoonasTo
Master Sergeant
Posts: 192
Joined: Thu 17 Nov 2016 21:30
Location: Somewhere in the Finnish woodlands
Contact:

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

Postby JoonasTo » Mon 12 Dec 2016 01:19

Image
The psychotic Finnish wood-elf

User avatar
Doinize
Lieutenant
Posts: 1433
Joined: Tue 30 Jul 2013 13:14
Contact:

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

Postby Doinize » Mon 12 Dec 2016 01:55

orcbuster wrote:
Xeno426 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.

You know, just to demonstrate your knowledge, I'm going to make a statement.

The Sherman was a better tank than the Tiger.


I'll add the panther in for free.


Stop you'll make the wehraboos cry!!
Image

Return to “Wargame : Red Dragon”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 41 guests