No C-300 ?

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

Re: No C-300 ?

Postby GARGEAN » Mon 4 Sep 2017 11:42

ilias wrote:0. In game we have not things which been made in 90s, we have what was used in 90s

That's lol. NASAMS anyone? Macbeth? Crotale-NG?

User avatar
chykka
Brigadier
Posts: 3381
Joined: Wed 28 Nov 2012 14:55
Location: Canada, Alberta
Contact:

Re: No C-300 ?

Postby chykka » Mon 4 Sep 2017 11:45

I like the patriot. I like the idea of a highly specialized AA unit, that can stun bombers before they get close too their target.
Or of course if they score a crit or two is kinda funny. However it won't touch helo's and its 120 points so really it's not much different than high tier arty in that regard.
I think he ment mostly Soivet tech. You do get some 90s equipment but Soviets went kinda Hiatus early 90s though.
Image

ilias
Sergeant First-Class
Posts: 100
Joined: Mon 11 Jul 2016 04:07
Contact:

Re: No C-300 ?

Postby ilias » Mon 4 Sep 2017 12:17

GARGEAN wrote:..

sorry but i so much hate dumb posts like that, if you have anything to contradict what was written before, just write it, do not post opinion crab about your reading of posts,
ilias wrote:0. In game we have not things which been made in 90s, we have what was used in 90s
"worse" i meant (and one highly valuable thing you missing): is it's class it self, that type of AA systems was totaly deprecated by most (if not all) "serious" modern armies in favor to systems of Patriot and C-300 kinds

stop, what to hell i just wrote ? :D , guies i just hell tired now,
They wasn't replaced, MR SAMS are pretty much actual in service by pretty mutch almost everyone,
normally it would be: *Most of counties which can afford and want to pay for development and usage of pretty pricey Long Range AA systems, doing it, because they does have it's place and it's reasoning application tasks, point is they do exist, they do have reasons for it, and before 1995 Russia and US produced them and had in service at 1995y and later, US's patriot is in game,Russia's S-300 not --???,
alot of ridiculous from straight point of view things can be made in computer game in terms of gameplay, but gameplay is not only thing forming the game, in Wargame Red Dragon pretty mutch could present S-300 do not braking any logical "rules" or gameplay.
Last edited by ilias on Mon 4 Sep 2017 13:30, edited 4 times in total.

ilias
Sergeant First-Class
Posts: 100
Joined: Mon 11 Jul 2016 04:07
Contact:

Re: No C-300 ?

Postby ilias » Mon 4 Sep 2017 12:19

GARGEAN wrote:
ilias wrote:0. In game we have not things which been made in 90s, we have what was used in 90s

That's lol. NASAMS anyone? Macbeth? Crotale-NG?

*****, do not go rediculous, yes and maybe before 1995, because the damn game covers big time range with top end in 1995 and maybe for fun or gameplay what wasn't used and ... i didn't checked all the units in game and didn't readed numbers by hours just to know them

Edit: (and meant "not only made in 90s")
Last edited by ilias on Mon 4 Sep 2017 13:33, edited 4 times in total.

Fodder
Sergeant Major
Posts: 297
Joined: Fri 7 Oct 2016 20:15
Contact:

Re: No C-300 ?

Postby Fodder » Mon 4 Sep 2017 12:41

The real reason why its not ingame.
Becuz it was design to target strategic bombers and missiles, which are not ingame

Patriots only ingame becuz US infantry sucks and USA needed motorized AA

ilias
Sergeant First-Class
Posts: 100
Joined: Mon 11 Jul 2016 04:07
Contact:

Re: No C-300 ?

Postby ilias » Mon 4 Sep 2017 12:48

Fodder wrote:The real reason why its not ingame.
Becuz it was design to target strategic bombers and missiles, which are not ingame

Patriots only ingame becuz US infantry sucks and USA needed motorized AA

Sorry, do not see connection (between patriots and US infantry) ) , i'm missing something ?

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

Re: No C-300 ?

Postby GARGEAN » Mon 4 Sep 2017 12:52

Fodder wrote:The real reason why its not ingame.
Becuz it was design to target strategic bombers and missiles, which are not ingame

Patriots only ingame becuz US infantry sucks and USA needed motorized AA

Wrong.

ilias
Sergeant First-Class
Posts: 100
Joined: Mon 11 Jul 2016 04:07
Contact:

Re: No C-300 ?

Postby ilias » Mon 4 Sep 2017 13:02

GARGEAN wrote:..

Hope the last fixed description will not be missed in favor of first one (i just whole night coded and deved. some thing (1:58 PM already now), thinks are going one around another, another round and back :) ), sorry for the first one, wasted your time on reading
You really should as i wrote in future point one who could mistaked to the mistake or help with description
Last edited by ilias on Mon 4 Sep 2017 13:29, edited 1 time in total.

ilias
Sergeant First-Class
Posts: 100
Joined: Mon 11 Jul 2016 04:07
Contact:

Re: No C-300 ?

Postby ilias » Mon 4 Sep 2017 13:16

Few minutes ago chykka said something, hope he do not mind, posting it as first possible(on my look) reason why S-300 not in game now
ilias wrote:
chykka wrote:Subject: No C-300 ?
ilias wrote:Why in the game is no C-300 with some acceptable ranges missile ?
missiles (HAWK's Operational range: 45–50km)

If they were unprototyped. Mixed Decks would rise once again! Although not with 45 activation points.

That kind of,, can be right, but 1 thing is they can actually be 'prototyped' in game, yep its bit out of 'rules', but they kind of 'specialized'? ) , i anyway would always say "they were in reality THEY HAVE TO BE THERE" :)
Normally guies they could be added as prototype without getting to much worries )

ilias
Sergeant First-Class
Posts: 100
Joined: Mon 11 Jul 2016 04:07
Contact:

Re: No C-300 ?

Postby ilias » Mon 4 Sep 2017 13:42

Stop, wasn't PAC-2 pretty much not prototype in 90s,
ok thats too mutch misunderstandings, i'll go sleep, will appreciate sorting it out and some explanations why S-300 not in game to see next night )

Return to “Wargame : Red Dragon”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 35 guests