Finnish Spike missile out of time frame.

shnowitzer
Corporal
Posts: 20
Joined: Mon 23 May 2016 19:53
Contact:

Re: Finnish Spike missile out of time frame.

Postby shnowitzer » Thu 9 Feb 2017 23:20

Jesus, this got out of hand. I only brought the subject up because knowing that the Spike MR was not adopted until 2000 rubbed me the wrong way. After hearing the reasons why it was added, I am not wholly convinced. However, I have come to the conclusion that it isn't worth fighting this much about.

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

Re: Finnish Spike missile out of time frame.

Postby HrcAk47 » Thu 9 Feb 2017 23:21

shnowitzer wrote:Jesus, this got out of hand. I only brought the subject up because knowing that the Spike MR was not adopted until 2000 rubbed me the wrong way. After hearing the reasons why it was added, I am not wholly convinced. However, I have come to the conclusion that it isn't worth fighting this much about.


Welcome to the forums, enjoy your stay! :mrgreen:
The SEAD never bothered me anyway.

SMB Yugoslavia Retexture Mod, now released, v.1.0

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

Re: Finnish Spike missile out of time frame.

Postby Oktoberfest » Fri 10 Feb 2017 11:58

Tiera wrote:
Read the previous answers if you want to actually discuss this matter, please.
For the 5th time:
RL acquisition of 64 Hornets = Lots of money spent, next to no money for anything else
RD timeline acquisition of 20 Hornets, 20 MiG-29 bought via bilateral Finno-Soviet trade as per other weapon systems of the day + maintenance of 20 Drakens and MiG-21bis. = lots of money to left to spent elsewhere.

And no, not every single project was included. Far from it.
The historically ordered 200 BTR-80s are the most notable omission, but the what-if section of units that could have been included include XA-185 AMOS, Swiss MOWAG Spartan IFVs, Swedish ASRAD-R AA systems, domestically modernized Itpsv 57-2 Mod, Austrian-made modernized ammo for 95 S 58–61 with milan 2-level AP and the fact that Finnish S-125s were late-production Soviet variants and thus upgraded in the similar manner as Yugo ones (excluding the 40km Yugoslav magic missile lasers, of course), just to name a few.

Our aims in creating the Finnish roster were to create a playable deck based on actual research and sources, to avoid redundant units as much as possible, and to avoid blatantly breaking any former established gameplay conventions in the game.

So if you really have a problem with a single-card proto of Chu-Mats with +5% base accuracy, in my opinion you're barking at the wrong tree.

If it's just an excuse to let out some steam about the lack of Javelin/Kornet/ASF Hornet/other stuff, then by all means carry on. Just say it as it is, or use a better excuse than Finnish Spikes or F-18s.


The problem I see in this statement is the following: You don't buy weapons systems like you buy Baguettes at your local bread shop. There is an extensive acquisition phase, and the weapons are not delivered all at once. It takes months, even years, to order such supplies. Even with crash programs.

As was established in this topic, the training of the Hornet's pilots of Finland started in 1992, so, one year after the war's gone hot between Finland and Bluefor. So, the Hornet Deal would have been void at that time and there should be only russian provided ASF. Besides, Finland would have only USSR left as an export market. I warrant you that this would have a financial impact of the acquisition of materials. So, the argument of the timeline set in 1991 is important.

About units blatantly breaking any former established gameplay conventions, I can assure you that many of the new units did just that. The most famous example being the M-84AN NOD Stealth Tank.

It's not letting some steam off for missing weapons. It's just that the player base accepted the fact that some weapons were excluded because of gameplay reasons and "coalition balances" a few years ago, and this limitation just got thrown out of the window with single nations suddenly becoming more powerful (even with just a fraction of their GDP/R&D budget and competences and inhabitant numbers) as some major nations of the Cold War, i.e France, Germany and Great Britain. This is not OK at all. These nations don't need a coalition to be viable, because their weak points are not related to the Meta at all. They all have great recon, great tanks, good enough infantry and excellent AAA. What Germany, France or Great Britain all lack in a specific department and have to get from mixing their unit rosters with units from other nations.

EVEN THOUGH SAID NATIONS HAD THE AVAILABLE TECHNOLOGY IRL AT THE TIME !

France could field a modern SPAAG, and Germany could field a non-radar AA. Germany could field a modern ASF and not a modernized relic of Vietnam, and France could field bombers that don't come directly from the 6 days war. Germany could field an indigenious modern howitzer, and France a modern IFV. But noooo, it was a deliberate decision to limit the units for these nations so you had to take the coalitions to get viable decks.

And here, P2W nations don't get that limitation. They get the finest, the modern units that some of their engineers put on paper but without knowing if they'd ever have the ressources to realise them (they didn't), even in an alternate timeline.

I am OK with that, with the fact that IF you tweak enough the reality, and for gameplay reasons, they get access to that. But I am not OK with the fact that it puts major nations in the shadow, even making them totally uncompetitive in engagements because of power discrepancies that are not anymore to compensate with tactics. You can't SEAD the long range optical AA, you can't counter recon the NOD tanks that just snipes everything coming close to it, you can't compensate the firepower of numerous heavies and superheavies having access to excellent ammunitions from outer space, etc... if you don't get access to equivalent kits.

Fighting an M-84AN with a Leo1A1 or an AMX-13/90 is bullshit. Sending 0 ECM bombers against targets when there is long range AAA you can't SEAD is idiotic. And there are a lot of other examples I could draw.

So, yeah, if you have to give money to get access to good units for each nations, I'll gladly pay. Give me a 40 Euros France DLC giving me access to
- 6xCrotale on an AMX-30 chassis (for armored deck)
- 2x3 cards of T3 Leclerc with 20AP
- Vextra IFV
- AMX-10RCR recon tanks with 18 AP
- Commandos Paras 95 recon
- Hellfire for the Tigre HAP
- Puma Cassiopée exceptionnal recon unit
- Realistic ammunition for the AMX-30 line (ranging from 13 AP HEAT to 18 AP KE, as it is IRL)
- SPAAG on an AMX-30
- Chasseurs with APILAS, as it was principally an Armée de Terre weapon
- 2 man recon group with FR-F2 or PGM sniper rifle
- HOT-2 carriers for VAB Mephisto or AMX-10 HOT
- Mirage IV carpet bomber
- Mirage 2000 bomber
- Etendard with ROCKET PODS instead of useless redundancy with the Mirage 5
- 2 cards of Legion 90
- Berliet mounted Roland 2 with 4 Rolands ready to fire.

And as you can see, the units I've cited are not even prototypes. They are developped, tested and acquired weapon systems used in the french army, and not some engineer's wet dream drawn on the corner of its diner table, unlike some of the new units.

Same of Germany, the USA, USSR, the UK and tutti quanti.

The funny thing is, it wouldn't even disrupt the balance in the game. It would just make one nation balanced against the new ones. And if all nations get the same treatment in DLCs, then we wouldn't need the cancer of the coalitions anymore. Each nation would be viable on its own, balanced with the others, and a lot of whining would cease about the unfair treatment of nations among the others. The only nations that would still need coalitions would be micropowers like ANZAC or Danemark, but that would be it.


If I'd talk about fantasy units I would add :
- Leclerc T-40
- Leclerc with Gepard turret
- Vextra 105 with Leclerc FCS
- etc...

Then the powercreep would be compensated and major nations would again dominate minor nations, as it should be.

User avatar
CuteKitten
Corporal
Posts: 34
Joined: Thu 9 Feb 2017 14:22
Contact:

Re: Finnish Spike missile out of time frame.

Postby CuteKitten » Fri 10 Feb 2017 19:53

kiheerSEDMAN wrote:
CuteKitten wrote:Doesn't excuse anything. Make the coalition members more equal.
Coalitions exist so that everyone doesn't have to be equal. If you try to make things equal, you end up: doing the same time frame stretching you seem to be so against, giving things outlandish stats (*cough* Pracka), or creating memes (chainsaw MG3 standing atop the corpses of its nail file brethren).

:lol:
Ok, let's take everything away from the US that's later than 1985. Just play Norad, bro.

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

Re: Finnish Spike missile out of time frame.

Postby codextero » Fri 10 Feb 2017 20:02

CuteKitten wrote:
kiheerSEDMAN wrote:
CuteKitten wrote:Doesn't excuse anything. Make the coalition members more equal.
Coalitions exist so that everyone doesn't have to be equal. If you try to make things equal, you end up: doing the same time frame stretching you seem to be so against, giving things outlandish stats (*cough* Pracka), or creating memes (chainsaw MG3 standing atop the corpses of its nail file brethren).

:lol:
Ok, let's take everything away from the US that's later than 1985. Just play Norad, bro.


Norad isn't all that good either. The deck is not that easy to play due to the lack of cost effective shock in cost effective transports. It has this contradiction where the decent infantry come only on wheels but the decent everything else only comes on tracks.

User avatar
Stillehavet
Sergeant
Posts: 66
Joined: Thu 25 Feb 2016 13:52
Contact:

Re: Finnish Spike missile out of time frame.

Postby Stillehavet » Fri 10 Feb 2017 20:11

Oktoberfest wrote:great job

Take my huge +1
I'm a Scandinavia player, and my game nickname is #SWE JAS-39 Gripen.
Jag älskar Gripen!

User avatar
hansbroger
Lieutenant General
Posts: 4428
Joined: Sun 28 Jul 2013 03:45
Contact:

Re: Finnish Spike missile out of time frame.

Postby hansbroger » Fri 10 Feb 2017 20:26

Is Spike technically OOTF? Yes. Do I care? Not really. Why? Many reasons.
-Spike does not bring a non-existent capability to Finland and it does not provide Finland with a capability it would not already have.

-Spike takes the place of the TOW which inexplicably is still not modeled in game despite ATGMs and RRs used by light infantry, let alone AT teams creeping up into its weight category. I'm perfectly happy facing it rather than an infantry TOW-2/2A

-Spike really isn't amazing when you compare it to other ATGM teams other than its accuracy. It is a fantastic ATGM on Maglan because the only thing that has previously been able to survive in that category with IRL stats without people throwing a hissy fit has been Metys and Dragon. When you compare it to other dedicated team ATGMs it is fast and accurate but otherwise not much of a can opener.

-It is a low profile timeline bender. This isn't a category leading unit like the aircraft vaporizer that is OTOMATIC or high tier aerial knife fighter that is Novi or Gripen... This is an infantry ATGM team in the mid-high position of the pack. It doesn't rock the boat.
Projectnordic in game! will likely see you on pact/red dragons/french!
Image

User avatar
KattiValk
General
Posts: 6320
Joined: Tue 19 Nov 2013 03:39
Location: Houston, Texas (CST)
Contact:

Re: Finnish Spike missile out of time frame.

Postby KattiValk » Fri 10 Feb 2017 20:48

CuteKitten wrote:Ok, let's take everything away from the US that's later than 1985. Just play Norad, bro.
I can't tell if you just didn't understand my argument or just tried what might possibly be the worst straw man attempt I've ever seen. What's worse, is I'm afraid both are bad for your public image.

User avatar
CuteKitten
Corporal
Posts: 34
Joined: Thu 9 Feb 2017 14:22
Contact:

Re: Finnish Spike missile out of time frame.

Postby CuteKitten » Fri 10 Feb 2017 20:51

kiheerSEDMAN wrote:
CuteKitten wrote:Ok, let's take everything away from the US that's later than 1985. Just play Norad, bro.
I can't tell if you just didn't understand my argument or just tried what might possibly be the worst straw man attempt I've ever seen. What's worse, is I'm afraid both are bad for your public image.

You didn't understand your own argument. You implied nation balance doesn't matter as long as coalition balance is fine.
That's the problem with your mental gymnastics. You get caught contradicting yourself.

User avatar
Razzmann
General
Posts: 7497
Joined: Fri 7 Mar 2014 15:29
Location: The land of flowing beer and Sauerkraut.
Contact:

Re: Finnish Spike missile out of time frame.

Postby Razzmann » Fri 10 Feb 2017 20:55

CuteKitten wrote:
kiheerSEDMAN wrote:
CuteKitten wrote:Ok, let's take everything away from the US that's later than 1985. Just play Norad, bro.
I can't tell if you just didn't understand my argument or just tried what might possibly be the worst straw man attempt I've ever seen. What's worse, is I'm afraid both are bad for your public image.

You didn't understand your own argument. You implied nation balance doesn't matter as long as coalition balance is fine.
That's the problem with your mental gymnastics. You get caught contradicting yourself.

So you are implying nations can be ass while the coalition they form is not?
Oh, and I am still waiting for an answer to my question.

Return to “Wargame : Red Dragon”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Shifu and 50 guests