U.S.-Israeli Alliance

User avatar
HrcAk47
Colonel
Posts: 2788
Joined: Sat 3 May 2014 18:00
Contact:

Re: U.S.-Israeli Alliance

Postby HrcAk47 » Thu 15 Dec 2016 14:23

GuerreroDelAlba wrote:meh, atleast the patriot is radar unlike that neva entente has, eugen is nuts.


98.7% games on BLUFOR player detected
The SEAD never bothered me anyway.

SMB Yugoslavia Retexture Mod, now released, v.1.0

ALEX8
Sergeant Major of the Army
Posts: 387
Joined: Thu 23 Jan 2014 01:04
Contact:

Re: U.S.-Israeli Alliance

Postby ALEX8 » Thu 15 Dec 2016 15:43

Solo wrote:I propose a USA-Israel coalition be created in order to counter the powercreep of Redfor coalitions and to make USA the competitive deck it should be.

In 1981 President Ronald Reagan formally signed the Memorandum of Understanding on Strategic Cooperation as a mutual security pact with Israel. To quote the Memorandum,

PREAMBLE

This memorandum of understanding reaffirms the common bonds of friendship between the United States and Israel and builds on the mutual security relationship that exists between the two nations. The parties recognize the need to enhance strategic cooperation to deter all threats from the Soviet Union to the region. Noting the longstanding and fruitful cooperation for mutual security that has developed between the two countries, the parties have decided to establish a framework for continued consultation and cooperation to enhance their national security by deterring such threats to the whole region.

The parties have reached the following agreements in order to achieve the above aims.

ARTICLE I

United States-Israel strategic cooperation, as set forth in this memorandum, is designed against the threat to peace and security of the region caused by the Soviet Union or Soviet-controlled forces from outside the region introduced into the region. It has the following broad purposes:

A. To enable the parties to act cooperatively and in a timely manner to deal with the above-mentioned threat.

B. To provide each other with military assistance for operations of their forces in the area that may be required to cope with this threat.


C. The strategic cooperation between the parties is not directed at any state or group of states within the region. It is intended solely for defensive purposes against the above-mentioned threat.

ARTICLE II

1. The fields in which strategic cooperation will be carried out to prevent the above-mentioned threat from endangering the security of the region include:
A. Military cooperation between the parties, as may be agreed by the parties.

B. Joint military exercise, including naval and air exercises in the Eastern Mediterranean Sea, as agreed upon by the parties.

C. Cooperation for the establishment and maintenance of joint readiness activities, as agreed upon by the parties.

D. Other areas within the basic scope and purpose of this agreement, as may be jointly agreed.


It is time the Memorandum be realized in Wargame. USA and Israel must act cooperatively in a timely manner to deal with the Soviet threat by military means.


Great idea!! +++

User avatar
Medan
Warrant Officer
Posts: 420
Joined: Tue 18 Jun 2013 23:06
Contact:

Re: U.S.-Israeli Alliance

Postby Medan » Thu 15 Dec 2016 15:50

No please.
Image

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: U.S.-Israeli Alliance

Postby orcbuster » Thu 15 Dec 2016 15:52

No
Image
Viker for ingen!

User avatar
Medan
Warrant Officer
Posts: 420
Joined: Tue 18 Jun 2013 23:06
Contact:

Re: U.S.-Israeli Alliance

Postby Medan » Thu 15 Dec 2016 15:55

orcbuster wrote:No


At least I said it nicely!
Image

throwaway
Lieutenant
Posts: 1262
Joined: Fri 27 Feb 2015 21:23
Contact:

Re: U.S.-Israeli Alliance

Postby throwaway » Thu 15 Dec 2016 15:57

It's threads like this that block US buffs, by making everyone who advocates for them look delusional.

thenosh
Lieutenant
Posts: 1456
Joined: Wed 11 Sep 2013 19:32
Contact:

Re: U.S.-Israeli Alliance

Postby thenosh » Thu 15 Dec 2016 16:02

throwaway wrote:It's threads like this that block US buffs, by making everyone who advocates for them look delusional.


This thread isn't blocking US buffs at all, everyone knows it could need some, but not through an israel us coalition.
"Where is my T-80UK CV with top mounted BUK-M1?"

-Wargame global chat, somewhen somewhere-

User avatar
Solo
Brigadier
Posts: 3429
Joined: Thu 20 Mar 2014 19:45
Location: Washington D.C.
Contact:

Re: U.S.-Israeli Alliance

Postby Solo » Thu 15 Dec 2016 16:45

throwaway wrote:It's threads like this that block US buffs, by making everyone who advocates for them look delusional.


Yes it is posts like this and not well thought out and well researched posts over the last 2.5 years.

*cough*

viewtopic.php?f=155&t=46863

*cough*

I posted that in July 2014....

2016 is the year of the meme.

User avatar
Solo
Brigadier
Posts: 3429
Joined: Thu 20 Mar 2014 19:45
Location: Washington D.C.
Contact:

Re: U.S.-Israeli Alliance

Postby Solo » Thu 15 Dec 2016 17:01

Fade2Gray wrote:
Solo wrote:In this meta I just don't know what the hell to do with an HA. In what scenario do I buy an HA? Most people run two cards of superheavy, one card of medium, and then one card of cheaper fire support if they have the activation points. Theoretically it should counter the mediums but it isn't cost effective in that role because it's countered by the superheavies so you're better off saving 40 more points and going for the M1A2 that will wreck mediums and superheavies.

I use the HC out of necessity because there are no other options. It isn't as good as the second card of superheavies most other decks get these days. It should have 24 AP and jack the price up 10 points.

I use Avengers! I find it to be more effective than manpads due to the ROF. It's a relatively cheap but cost-effective AA piece to sprinkle around. The only thing it struggles against is Mi-17s. I think they're vital to have to escort openers, otherwise a single Mi-24 will ruin your day - which it probably will anyways because of the undermodeled stinger.

I feel like any Chapp that isn't the M48A3 is a waste of a slot unless you're playing Norad and run an ADATS. But I know other US players may think differently.

I'm glad you appreciate me.


I'm utterly confused then. You don't know what to do with the HA, but somehow the IIIB is great? They are pretty close in stats. It has 1 more FAV, 1 more ROF, and a AGL. The HC is like it but with the advantage of hitting harder. What is the niche the IIIB is supposed to fit in then, other than as a 3rd super heavy? I guess its an even tougher IIA for ambush/forest fighting? O_o The HA and HC also have 4 TAV, so...

Also, considering how meta MI-17s are, that pretty much dooms the Avenger. Worse yet, rocket trucks do them in easily as well.

I'm disappointed that you are not joining me on the "Stinger is under modeled" side of things. :\


Main difference is IIIB punches above its
weight, HA punches under its weight. 20 AP is one of the most important thresholds because it 1 shots against 2AV so the HA with only 19 is significantly weaker as fire support. 21 AP means it can penetrate a bunch of Pact heavies at max range and the HA falls short because a bunch of Pact heavies have at least 20AV. Additionally, grenade launchers are OP due to stun mechanics so the IIIB can win against more expensive tanks in close quarters by getting stuns. It also improves its ability to be a fire support tank. HC vs IIIB would just be preference and I'd lean toward the IIIB due to its unique capabilities.

I do think stinger is undermodelled and the lack of range is unfortunate. However that is Iris' fight. :D

User avatar
Medan
Warrant Officer
Posts: 420
Joined: Tue 18 Jun 2013 23:06
Contact:

Re: U.S.-Israeli Alliance

Postby Medan » Thu 15 Dec 2016 17:09

HA is 20 AP. I am confused.
Image

Return to “Wargame : Red Dragon”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Majestic-12 [Bot] and 12 guests