Wargame: Airland Dragon

User avatar
Sonki3
Corporal
Posts: 30
Joined: Thu 1 Sep 2016 23:14
Contact:

Re: Wargame: Airland Dragon

Postby Sonki3 » Sat 9 Jun 2018 14:50

Do not worry. :D

Just trying to give you some ideas.

I just asked, that Denmark gets the Leo 2 because the nation itself in Wargame is rather weak. Denmark does not have any sort of heavy tank on its own as well as not good anti tank capabilites.

Landjut get a lot of Leo 2 through germany, indeed, but Scandinavia on the other side only has the Strv 121. So the numbers are much lower.

Thats why I asked for the Leo 2 for Denmark. To improve the armored strengh of Scandinavia and Denmark itself.

Maybe another nation, like the Norwegians are an option. In 2001 they bought 52 Leo 2A4. (I do not know if this mod exceeds the year 1999. If not, maybe there can be made an exception.)

Thanks for reading my suggestions. :D
"A Roland for an Oliver."

"Wie du mir, so ich dir."

User avatar
Sireyn
Sergeant First-Class
Posts: 143
Joined: Sat 5 Jan 2013 06:57
Contact:

Re: Wargame: Airland Dragon

Postby Sireyn » Sun 10 Jun 2018 05:01

Bougnas wrote: There are some realistic options that would make Denmark both more flavorous but also more flexible, not all really change much but they exist at least.

1) Better motorized capabilities: even before 1980 the Danish army operated a number of squad level trucks and had actual motorized units. Giving Denmark this capability would be really simple: clone the Unimog transport truck from ANZAC (primary Danish squad level truck) and give it a good amount of cards for every infantry unit bar the MANPAD squads (they should use the Landrover or the M151 jeep).
Note that this could be done for other countries outside of Denmark, like ANZAC and W-Germany (both used the Unimog, the Stolly was never used as a squad level truck by ANZAC).

I replaced the Jupiter with the Unimog and gave it to everything except MANPADS. It has the same availability as the US Humvee (7 cards - 24/20/16/12/8). I am in the process of making a transport Rover specially for the MANPADS.

As an aside, the command M151 could be replaced by a Landrover, available from 1977.

Done.

2) More fleshed out recon: the current depiction in Wargame isn't the most authentic nor the most effective. Denmark had the unique aspect of operating 2 men squads on jeeps (M151 or later MB 240GD) carrying 2 Gv m/75 and 2 Carl Gustav M2. I suggest to reroll the M151 into a good optics recon transport for said 2 man squad (retains the MG), which would make recon more flexible.

Meanwhile, Spejderne should be rerolled into a 10man shock squad (identical to Livagarden but recon) in M113A1/Unimog as this was also done IRL. Danish recon infantry was famous for being quite aggressive in the Cold war, and the two aforementionned changes should properly represent this.

I've split Spejderne into two recon teams. The shock recon modeled after Livgarden is called "Gardehusar" (not sure on spelling and grammar). The two-man recon team is called Spejderne and has the Unimog, the recon M151 with good optics, and the M95 for transports. It is 15 points with exceptional stealth and the availability of a militia recon (0/12/8/0/0).

Finally I suggest that the M41A1 DK1 and norwegian NM116 swap optics (with necessary avail and price changes), as the danish tank with it's thermal optics deserves it more than the norwegian one, who didn't have them. Denmark already has decent VG optics options, while Norway lacks them.

Done.

3) Slightly improved tank tab: while there aren't any better options in timeframe, we can at least make it more cost effective.
The Leopard 1A3DK and the Australian AS1 should swp gun stats as the DK retained the same fire constrol system as early Leopard 1s, while the AS1 had the same SABCA FCS as the Canadian C1.
In turn the danish tank would be cheaper, and a good cheap fire support tank.

Done.

Meanwhile all Centurions arguably deserve a ROF buff to 9, but an armor nerf to 7 for those without improved glacis armor and 8 for those with (this was quite overmodeled at 9). Doing this would improve their effectiveness, and their price could also be reduced as they are very uncompetitive compared to Leo 1s.

- All L7's and M68's were standardized to 9 r/m, with a couple exceptions.
- QF-20 pdrs were standardized to 10 r/m.
- Centurion armor was standardized to 7 frontal, but I am still deciding which variants should receive 8 frontal.
- I've done another pass on Leopard 1's and standardized Leo 1A5 armor to match 1A3's and 4's. The Norwegian Leo 1's have also been corrected; their domestic 1A5's did not have applique armor while the 1A5NO2 was renamed 1A5NO and retained its applique armor.


The 5/2DK could get 16AP and 2275m range, but an accuracy nerf as it used a laser rangefinder combined with PPTFS m/85 (german DM33) APFSDS ammunition, turning it into a glass cannon less advanced than the Leo 1A5DK, but cheaper.

Done

4) Slightly improved air tab? There are a few options like removing the F-100D (retired in 1982) and instead replacing the Bullpup on the F-35 Draken with 4x19 70mm rocket pods and 2 AIM-9J Sidewinders (real loadout, the Bullpup was rare and used against bridges), which should also have 20% ECM at least (it had RWR, chaff and flares and could mount an EW pod).
This would improve danish rocket aircraft option and better represent the qualities of the F-35 Draken.

The CF-104 should use AIM-9Js (AIM-9Ls bought in 1983) and be cheaper, while a 1983 clone of the NL F-16A Block 1 could be done.

All done except for the F-16 clone. Denmark already has an iron bomber and a cloned F-16 is redundant in Scandinavia, especially since there are so many F-16's in that lineup.



Thanks for the many suggestions!

Sonki3 wrote:
Thats why I asked for the Leo 2 for Denmark. To improve the armored strengh of Scandinavia and Denmark itself.

Maybe another nation, like the Norwegians are an option. In 2001 they bought 52 Leo 2A4. (I do not know if this mod exceeds the year 1999. If not, maybe there can be made an exception.)

Thanks for reading my suggestions. :D


My mod is less strict with the timeframe than Eugen, but I don't want to add in a lot of post Cold War equipment, at least not without a strong gameplay or authenticity reason. My mod is assuming an alternate timeline where the Cold War continues into the 90's, and even escalates to conventional warfare, therefore I have justified several things that would have been available within that timeline.

One other issue is that I am attempting to retain national skins as often as possible. If I took a German Leopard 2 and cloned it for Denmark, it would still have German markings while complicating things for people who like to use reskins.

User avatar
Sonki3
Corporal
Posts: 30
Joined: Thu 1 Sep 2016 23:14
Contact:

Re: Wargame: Airland Dragon

Postby Sonki3 » Sun 10 Jun 2018 10:49

Ok ok.

I see.

Then is there a way that you simply increase the number of Strv 121 for Sweden? (More units per card or simply more cards to use)

I think this will also provide great help for Scandinavia. ;)
"A Roland for an Oliver."

"Wie du mir, so ich dir."

User avatar
Bougnas
Major-General
Posts: 3696
Joined: Sat 26 Apr 2014 18:24
Contact:

Re: Wargame: Airland Dragon

Postby Bougnas » Sun 10 Jun 2018 12:01

Sireyn wrote:
I've split Spejderne into two recon teams. The shock recon modeled after Livgarden is called "Gardehusar" (not sure on spelling and grammar). The two-man recon team is called Spejderne and has the Unimog, the recon M151 with good optics, and the M95 for transports. It is 15 points with exceptional stealth and the availability of a militia recon (0/12/8/0/0).

Great. The M95 is the armored car, right?

- All L7's and M68's were standardized to 9 r/m, with a couple exceptions.
- QF-20 pdrs were standardized to 10 r/m.
- Centurion armor was standardized to 7 frontal, but I am still deciding which variants should receive 8 frontal.
- I've done another pass on Leopard 1's and standardized Leo 1A5 armor to match 1A3's and 4's. The Norwegian Leo 1's have also been corrected; their domestic 1A5's did not have applique armor while the 1A5NO2 was renamed 1A5NO and retained its applique armor.


You are reading my mind there :D .
Regarding 8AV centurions, the only armor upgrades done (bar ERA on some foreign versions) were the addition of a 44mm plate to the glacis to increase it's thickness to 120mm (done on Aussie Mk5/1, maple Mk.11, maybe NL Mk5/2 (mistakenly named Mk 7) although I'm not sure about this, and Israeli Shots).
The next one was the replacement of the 152mm thick round mantlet with a flat 200mm thick one on the Mk8/10/13 (the only one of those still in service in WG timeframe is the Swedish Strv 101, not in game but that could supplement/replace the Strv 102).

Also I don't know if you have already done that with your speed changes but the danish 105mm Centurions shouldn't be faster than the 20pdr one. The only change done was the replacement of old tracks with Diehl ones around 1971, which doesn't warrant better top speed.
Another thing I noticed is that in vanilla the Centurion 105mm has the same gun stats as the Canadian Mk11 or the NL Mk5/2, which it shouldn't since those had received a thermal shroud and a ranging gun that it lacks.

It should have the same gun stats as the older Canadian Mk6 (though too old and already replaced by the Mk11 well nefore 1980) or the Strv 102 (not sure about AP because I don't know what ammo they used, I'm sure however that the Swedes used the L52 APFSDS as the Slpprj m/66). Nevertheless the most likely APDS rounds that they used would be the british L28 or an even older one (L24?).



My mod is less strict with the timeframe than Eugen, but I don't want to add in a lot of post Cold War equipment, at least not without a strong gameplay or authenticity reason. My mod is assuming an alternate timeline where the Cold War continues into the 90's, and even escalates to conventional warfare, therefore I have justified several things that would have been available within that timeline.


One post cold war danish unit that has some grounds to be in game is the Piranha IIIC APC.
According to this:
I starten af 1988, blev Piranha III 8x8 valgt af det danske forsvar efter omfattende test i konkurrence med XA-186 fra det finske Patria og den tyske Fuchs fra Rheinmetall Landsysteme.
Google translate:
In early 1988, the Piranha III 8x8 elected by the Danish defense after extensive testing in competition with XA-186 from the Finnish Patria and the German Fuchs from Rheinmetall Landsysteme.
http://www.patriotfiles.com/archive/dan%20...%20haIIIC.htm


The Piranha III was clearly a cold war programm, just like the m/92 PNMK. It only entered service in 1997, however looking at this it's quite likely that it was victim from budget cuts and a change in priorities that delayed it's development.
Considering that it offers unique capabilities to Denmark (a 3 FAV wheeled APC with 100kph top speed and a .50 cal) and was requested during the cold war, it could be a good replacement for the M113G3 as the heavy APC for mechanized forces (indeed the M113G3 was requested in 1999 and entered service in 2001, making it way more OOTF than the Piranha).

It has no proper model ingame, but it's not too much of a problem.
Image

User avatar
Sonki3
Corporal
Posts: 30
Joined: Thu 1 Sep 2016 23:14
Contact:

Re: Wargame: Airland Dragon

Postby Sonki3 » Wed 27 Jun 2018 12:27

Hey there.

How is the mod doing? Did you make a lot of progress?

Just asking.

Thanks. :D
"A Roland for an Oliver."

"Wie du mir, so ich dir."

User avatar
molnibalage
General
Posts: 6619
Joined: Thu 1 Aug 2013 22:54
Location: Hungary
Contact:

Re: Wargame: Airland Dragon

Postby molnibalage » Wed 27 Jun 2018 16:13

Sireyn wrote:Some Highlights
(All) Several aircraft had their turn rates standardized

What about speed? F-5, F-104, Su-17/22 and all similar aircraft should have 900-1000 km/h speed as long as MiG-21 with AG config has 1000 km/h...

It is funny that Eugen set same speed for supersonic fighters and subonic A-6 and AV-8...

[color=#4080FF](USA) F-14 Tomcat in the naval tab was move to the air tab and converted to an F-14A+ with AIM-7P and AIM-7M

AIM-9P was used only in F-111 in USA, P was mainly export variant. Because of smaller fins was used on F-111s but it was almost theoratical. During ODS after the frst days never was put on Varks. P never was Navy variant. I guess you wanted to write AIM-9P. It is ponitless to give it two different AIM-7 variants.

(UK) Jaguar GR.1's exchanged loadouts, with the cluster bomber having 4x IBL-755 and 2x AIM-7L (the hardpoints won't allow accurate weapon mounting locations)

AIM-7...? Is this typo? It should have only AIM-9 but IMHO any AIM-9 is ponitless if they have less HE than 5. All SR IR AAM should have 5HE. Yes, even small R-60 for HE increase it should loose base ACC.

(USSR) Su-27M rerolled into the top tier ASF

Why? Su-27M / Su-35* (T-10M) was designed to multirole aircraft. The 4xKh-29T is OP just reduce to 2xH-29T and 40% ECM as long as F-15E can have only 40%....

*It has nothing to do with today's Su-35

(USSR) Su-24M had its bomb load replaced with 2x FAB1500's

Maybe this is OP as long as it has 2/card avail.

(E. Germany) Mig-29 had its R-77's replaced with R-27ER

The R-27ER never was integrated for 9.12 and 9.13 in RL.

- Replace the Finnish Mig-25 with a Mig-31,

100% unreal. MIG-31 was so sensitive export of that always out of question. The exported MiG-25 was different from PVO variant and only real option for export was possible after "issue" after Belenko's fligth to Japan.

- Take a look at the Kub vs Neva ranges

Rather ther base ACC. Kub-M3 and Neva have similar max range only the max alt of Neva is higher which is irrelevant. Max. G and guidance + FCR of Kub was far more advanced. Neva should not be in the game at all. It never was an army air defense system. If you do not wish to stich accurate 3D model you could introduce 2K11 Krug with higer range but lower base ACC.

- Incorporate radar and nonradar weapons on anti-aircraft platforms that could do it

As long as Tung is immune to SEAD with SAM all RCG guided SAM should be. In fact AAAs also should be but it would make way too OP radar AAA.

[/quote]
None of MiG-29 9.12 or 9.13 was capable to use 4xR-27. Not even later proto variants with 4-4 HPs and it would be pointless because R-77.

User avatar
Sireyn
Sergeant First-Class
Posts: 143
Joined: Sat 5 Jan 2013 06:57
Contact:

Re: Wargame: Airland Dragon

Postby Sireyn » Wed 27 Jun 2018 22:52

Sireyn wrote:Some Highlights
(All) Several aircraft had their turn rates standardized

What about speed? F-5, F-104, Su-17/22 and all similar aircraft should have 900-1000 km/h speed as long as MiG-21 with AG config has 1000 km/h...

It is funny that Eugen set same speed for supersonic fighters and subonic A-6 and AV-8...


I'm not sure what Eugen's reasoning was for assigned turn rates and speeds, but I am aware of the dilemma. I have only touched a few platforms and only with minor adjustments. Here are two examples.

Some aircraft performed worse when carrying a bomb load, while others didn't (F-16 vs Mig-29, for example). For now, these platforms will have turn rates assuming maximum performance (though I agree that each aircraft should be tuned specifically for its load).

Delta wing aircraft are known for their outstanding instantaneous turn rates, but do suffer in sustained turn rates, so I have placed them slightly subpar compared to F-16/Mig-29 (320 for mirage, 300 for Kfir, and a speed reduction to 900 for both). I don't believe proper dogfighting maneuvers are possible to model, so I am generalizing.

[color=#4080FF](USA) F-14 Tomcat in the naval tab was move to the air tab and converted to an F-14A+ with AIM-7P and AIM-7M

AIM-9P was used only in F-111 in USA, P was mainly export variant. Because of smaller fins was used on F-111s but it was almost theoratical. During ODS after the frst days never was put on Varks. P never was Navy variant. I guess you wanted to write AIM-9P. It is ponitless to give it two different AIM-7 variants.


That was a typo, here is the loadout. AIM-7P production began in 1987 and improved the actuation system and electronics, leaving more room for propellant. I have given it extra range and a 5% accuracy increase. Source 1 and Source 2

Image

(UK) Jaguar GR.1's exchanged loadouts, with the cluster bomber having 4x IBL-755 and 2x AIM-7L (the hardpoints won't allow accurate weapon mounting locations)

AIM-7...? Is this typo? It should have only AIM-9 but IMHO any AIM-9 is ponitless if they have less HE than 5. All SR IR AAM should have 5HE. Yes, even small R-60 for HE increase it should loose base ACC.


Sorry, yet another typo. I'm aware that the AIM-9's should be on top of the wings and the bombs should be in line of each other, but that cannot be corrected. I have toyed with the idea of reducing the hitpoints of aircraft to a base of 8, with certain larger aircraft having 10, but that is not on my plate at the moment.

ImageImage


(USSR) Su-27M rerolled into the top tier ASF

Why? Su-27M / Su-35* (T-10M) was designed to multirole aircraft. The 4xKh-29T is OP just reduce to 2xH-29T and 40% ECM as long as F-15E can have only 40%....

*It has nothing to do with today's Su-35


The Su-27PU was restricted to Marines and the USSR needed a new top tier ASF. Su-27M was the first aircraft that could mount R-77's, even though it is capable of ground attack, so it was chosen. The USSR already has plenty of ground attack options, so the unicorn unit won't be missed as far as I'm concerned.

(USSR) Su-24M had its bomb load replaced with 2x FAB1500's

Maybe this is OP as long as it has 2/card avail.


It will have the same availability as the North Korean B-5 (1 card, 0/2/0/0/0)

(E. Germany) Mig-29 had its R-77's replaced with R-27ER

The R-27ER never was integrated for 9.12 and 9.13 in RL.


Do you have documentation that I could look at? My impression was that it was as simple as fitting a catapult rail to launch the missile, but my research here isn't very deep.

- Replace the Finnish Mig-25 with a Mig-31,

100% unreal. MIG-31 was so sensitive export of that always out of question. The exported MiG-25 was different from PVO variant and only real option for export was possible after "issue" after Belenko's fligth to Japan.


That was why I originally chose a Mig-25. I decided to change it to a Mig-31 because it was offered in the 90's to pay off war debts (though likely would never have actually happened). Topic
In the alternative timeline, Finland sided with the Reds and the Cold War went hot, so I am admittedly taking some liberty with it. Going with either aircraft would take some form of mental gymnastics, so I am going with the one that, I feel, benefits Finland the most while still retaining a thin veneer of justification.

Image

- Take a look at the Kub vs Neva ranges

Rather ther base ACC. Kub-M3 and Neva have similar max range only the max alt of Neva is higher which is irrelevant. Max. G and guidance + FCR of Kub was far more advanced. Neva should not be in the game at all. It never was an army air defense system. If you do not wish to stich accurate 3D model you could introduce 2K11 Krug with higer range but lower base ACC.


I'm glad you could confirm this as I was confused to learn that the Neva was even less advanced than the Krug. I have listed all of the relevant units and I am coming up with ideas for replacements.

- Incorporate radar and nonradar weapons on anti-aircraft platforms that could do it

As long as Tung is immune to SEAD with SAM all RCG guided SAM should be. In fact AAAs also should be but it would make way too OP radar AAA.


Some vehicles will be trickier than others, but I hope to incorporate radar and nonradar modes for these vehicles (with appropriate stat adjustments)


None of MiG-29 9.12 or 9.13 was capable to use 4xR-27. Not even later proto variants with 4-4 HPs and it would be pointless because R-77.


I am trying to reduce the proliferation of F&F MRAAMs, especially among minor nations. This loadout could be done, even if it wasn't done historically. As much as I agree that non-historical units are not a good thing, I believe the gameplay effects are worthwhile. Moreover, I think this is something Eugen would have gotten away with and might have done themselves, considering some of the other things that ended up in the game.

Another part of why I chose that loadout for the Finnish Mig-29 is that the hardpoints on the model are difficult to work around. If you use it in game, you'll notice that the missiles do not come off the rails properly, and If I use different kinds of missiles, the problem becomes more apparent. (A similar method was used on the North Korean A-51, though this is not noticed because all of the bombs are dropped at the same time.)

Thank you very much for the feedback, it is well received. I am glad to have these kinds of comments to check over my work and keep me accountable. If you have more to say after reading my comments, I'd be willing to reevaluate some of my choices.

User avatar
Bougnas
Major-General
Posts: 3696
Joined: Sat 26 Apr 2014 18:24
Contact:

Re: Wargame: Airland Dragon

Postby Bougnas » Thu 28 Jun 2018 09:41

- Take a look at the Kub vs Neva ranges

Rather ther base ACC. Kub-M3 and Neva have similar max range only the max alt of Neva is higher which is irrelevant. Max. G and guidance + FCR of Kub was far more advanced. Neva should not be in the game at all. It never was an army air defense system. If you do not wish to stich accurate 3D model you could introduce 2K11 Krug with higer range but lower base ACC.



These threads are useful to get data on Kub and Krug systems for the NSWP and the USSR:
[url]
viewtopic.php?f=155&t=59399[/url]
[url]
viewtopic.php?f=155&t=59401[/url]
Image

User avatar
molnibalage
General
Posts: 6619
Joined: Thu 1 Aug 2013 22:54
Location: Hungary
Contact:

Re: Wargame: Airland Dragon

Postby molnibalage » Fri 29 Jun 2018 09:52

Bougnas wrote:
- Take a look at the Kub vs Neva ranges

Rather ther base ACC. Kub-M3 and Neva have similar max range only the max alt of Neva is higher which is irrelevant. Max. G and guidance + FCR of Kub was far more advanced. Neva should not be in the game at all. It never was an army air defense system. If you do not wish to stich accurate 3D model you could introduce 2K11 Krug with higer range but lower base ACC.



These threads are useful to get data on Kub and Krug systems for the NSWP and the USSR:
[url]
viewtopic.php?f=155&t=59399[/url]
[url]
viewtopic.php?f=155&t=59401[/url]

The most useful RL features are not explained which can be considered for base ACC absraction.

User avatar
molnibalage
General
Posts: 6619
Joined: Thu 1 Aug 2013 22:54
Location: Hungary
Contact:

Re: Wargame: Airland Dragon

Postby molnibalage » Fri 29 Jun 2018 11:05

Sireyn wrote:I'm not sure what Eugen's reasoning was for assigned turn rates and speeds, but I am aware of the dilemma. I have only touched a few platforms and only with minor adjustments. Here are two examples.

Some aircraft performed worse when carrying a bomb load, while others didn't (F-16 vs Mig-29, for example). For now, these platforms will have turn rates assuming maximum performance (though I agree that each aircraft should be tuned specifically for its load).

Delta wing aircraft are known for their outstanding instantaneous turn rates, but do suffer in sustained turn rates, so I have placed them slightly subpar compared to F-16/Mig-29 (320 for mirage, 300 for Kfir, and a speed reduction to 900 for both). I don't believe proper dogfighting maneuvers are possible to model, so I am generalizing.

Too many times I felt Eugen simply did not think at all... R-27R and R-73 on C (!) cat MiG-21 (!!) in ALB while is for USSR is on Su-27S, totally incosistent and bad abstraction in many areas - rocket arty with range dependend CEP and fixed CEP for arty - with 0 coherence in modeling values.

That was a typo, here is the loadout. AIM-7P production began in 1987 and improved the actuation system and electronics, leaving more room for propellant. I have given it extra range and a 5% accuracy increase. Source 1 and Source 2

IMHO AIM-7P should not be in DB. AIM-7F and AIM-7M should be C cat and A/B cat AAMs with 50% and 60% base ACC as long as R-27R can have 60%...

Because of AIM-120 (especially because of accel developent of WG) the AIM-7P is just as or more pointless as was in RL.

Sorry, yet another typo. I'm aware that the AIM-9's should be on top of the wings and the bombs should be in line of each other, but that cannot be corrected. I have toyed with the idea of reducing the hitpoints of aircraft to a base of 8, with certain larger aircraft having 10, but that is not on my plate at the moment.

10HP is good reducing to 8 just make more OP the AAA.

All airplane should be able to kill airplanes with 0 AV with two hits as long as MANPADs are able to do. As long as MANPADs can have 5HE all MANPAD and AAM should have, their range and base ACC should be different. IMHO all MANPAD should have 5HE except Redeye and Strela-2 or maybe Blowpipe which is such garbage that nobody ever would use...

The Su-27PU was restricted to Marines and the USSR needed a new top tier ASF.

But why...? Why needs marines a new fighter?

(USSR) Su-24M had its bomb load replaced with 2x FAB1500's

Maybe this is OP as long as it has 2/card avail.
It will have the same availability as the North Korean B-5 (1 card, 0/2/0/0/0)

Rgr.

Do you have documentation that I could look at? My impression was that it was as simple as fitting a catapult rail to launch the missile, but my research here isn't very deep.

Hm...

You have to prove that any of MiG-29 was able to carry 4xR-27 (from any type) but you won't find any evidance. You have to prove the existance of this capability and not me that someting is not possible. :)

Just go to airwar.ru or find RU manuals. 4xR-27R never was possible. ER was not even integrated on 9.12 and 9.13.

That was why I originally chose a Mig-25. I decided to change it to a Mig-31 because it was offered in the 90's to pay off war debts (though likely would never have actually happened). Topic
In the alternative timeline, Finland sided with the Reds and the Cold War went hot, so I am admittedly taking some liberty with it. Going with either aircraft would take some form of mental gymnastics, so I am going with the one that, I feel, benefits Finland the most while still retaining a thin veneer of justification.

FIN is the most idiotic nation in WG. It has both the most advanced US stuff while also have good USSR unit. This is simply idotic To me FIN is a "NOGO" nation in WG universe.


I'm glad you could confirm this as I was confused to learn that the Neva was even less advanced than the Krug. I have listed all of the relevant units and I am coming up with ideas for replacements.

Generally it was less advanced except it had two missile channels but that is all. Krug never was exported outside WPACT because of very good reasons. After end of CW US had chance to examine the Krug and they were very surprides how advanced it was despite its of age and design era.


Thank you very much for the feedback, it is well received. I am glad to have these kinds of comments to check over my work and keep me accountable. If you have more to say after reading my comments, I'd be willing to reevaluate some of my choices.

Sadly these changes never will appear in stock WG. I play only very rarely nowadays with WG. ALB community is way too small now but in RD is very had to find a good lobby....

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests