Heavy armaments infantry

User avatar
Mopsidae
Master Sergeant
Posts: 165
Joined: Sat 27 Jul 2013 08:30
Contact:

Re: Heavy armaments infantry

Postby Mopsidae » Mon 21 Oct 2013 13:51

D10D wrote:Absolutely agree, there should be heavy weapons squads, but this brings up another problem - too much types of infantry.


How is this an issue? As it stands infantry selection is an absolutely braindead process. You get an ATGM card and a MANPADs card, then you look through aaaaaaaaaallll the other infantry for a total of two things - fifteen man squads and CQC MGs. Adding crew served weapons would really mix things up in terms of defensive infantry selection.
Add http://steamcommunity.com/id/simt if you'd like to get mad at video games with me!

Elukka
Chief Warrant Officer
Posts: 655
Joined: Sun 11 Mar 2012 23:00
Contact:

Re: Heavy armaments infantry

Postby Elukka » Mon 21 Oct 2013 15:35

Bryan wrote:But it is split between 2-3 men.
In Singapore IIRC 2 men can operate
1st guy- stand/ commander
2nd guy- sight
3rd guy- missiles
then less than 30 seconds the whole thing can be assembled, stand-sight-missile go.

Well, yeah, all existing weapons teams (ATGMs and MANPADS) already have more than one person. Same idea would work for other sorts of weapon teams.

Mot
Second-Lieutenant
Posts: 955
Joined: Mon 21 Jan 2013 17:00
Contact:

Re: Heavy armaments infantry

Postby Mot » Mon 21 Oct 2013 15:51

Let's make something clear, the term STATIC in wargame applies to weapons that require the squad to be stopped, you can't fire a RPG or an ATGM on the move.

The weapons people are describing are DEPLOYABLE, meaning that you have several components that require assembly, for example, an automatic grenade launcher is hauled by up to 3 soldiers, one carries ammo, another the tripod and another the weapon itself, the weapon must be deployed, and therefore is static.

This are two different things.

Still I'm all in favor of deployable weapons.
"I suck at Wargame" or "I have to wait 30 minutes to pubstomp people" are not solid arguments to criticize the game... just saying.

User avatar
Coffee_Zombie
Chief Warrant Officer
Posts: 724
Joined: Mon 24 Oct 2011 23:35
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Contact:

Re: Heavy armaments infantry

Postby Coffee_Zombie » Mon 21 Oct 2013 16:10

I would like to see this added to to RD a bit of shuffle in the inf section would be good. Some better assault options would be a welcome addition.

User avatar
Raymond Saint
Lieutenant
Posts: 1088
Joined: Fri 6 Apr 2012 12:36
Location: RSFSR
Contact:

Re: Heavy armaments infantry

Postby Raymond Saint » Mon 21 Oct 2013 17:02

Mot wrote:Let's make something clear, the term STATIC in wargame applies to weapons that require the squad to be stopped, you can't fire a RPG or an ATGM on the move.

The weapons people are describing are DEPLOYABLE, meaning that you have several components that require assembly, for example, an automatic grenade launcher is hauled by up to 3 soldiers, one carries ammo, another the tripod and another the weapon itself, the weapon must be deployed, and therefore is static.

This are two different things.

Still I'm all in favor of deployable weapons.

Isn't ATGMs deployable weapons? Konkurs for example?
Image
Therefore, your point is invalid.
Image

Mot
Second-Lieutenant
Posts: 955
Joined: Mon 21 Jan 2013 17:00
Contact:

Re: Heavy armaments infantry

Postby Mot » Mon 21 Oct 2013 17:14

Raymond Saint wrote:Isn't ATGMs deployable weapons? Konkurs for example?
Therefore, your point is invalid.


First, you could have bothered to read my entire post, I'm all in favor of this types of weapons being introduced.

Second, just because EUGEN decides that deployable ATGM are within the scope of the game while deciding that the deployable status of other weapons are not, is their decision, not mine.

Third, there's clearly balancing reasons for the fact that Deployable ATGM are treated as simple static weapons, that reason being that without this work around there wouldn't be hard hitting infantry. Almost all, if not all, strong ATGM are deployable weapons, both in NATO and PACT.

So no, my point is not invalid, there's exceptions with good reasons for being so.
"I suck at Wargame" or "I have to wait 30 minutes to pubstomp people" are not solid arguments to criticize the game... just saying.

Sevatar
Chief Warrant Officer
Posts: 749
Joined: Wed 29 May 2013 18:50
Contact:

Re: Heavy armaments infantry

Postby Sevatar » Mon 21 Oct 2013 18:06

Dont Forget the MG 3 on tripod = 17 kg but still practical.
Increases your range from 600 meters to 1200 meters and god help you if you walk in that field of fire.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c_Qu98v6FGM
While in the Video he is shooting short Bursts you normaly use 20 - 30 bullet Bursts.

User avatar
theBLUBinYou
Lieutenant
Posts: 1061
Joined: Tue 6 Nov 2012 20:21
Location: Germany
Contact:

Re: Heavy armaments infantry

Postby theBLUBinYou » Mon 21 Oct 2013 18:15

It's not just a tripod....it's the mighty Feldlafette :P

Looksharp
Sergeant Major
Posts: 277
Joined: Sat 23 Mar 2013 19:53
Contact:

Re: Heavy armaments infantry

Postby Looksharp » Mon 21 Oct 2013 21:16

I would be for it, if the WP side got the NSV, or DShK instead of the KPV. The 1 AP power of the KPV, I think, could possibly cause balance issues. Other then that, it could be very interesting to introduce support weapons teams.

User avatar
derrickkolba
First Sergeant
Posts: 238
Joined: Thu 9 Feb 2012 16:14
Location: Iron curtain of Michigan
Contact:

Re: Heavy armaments infantry

Postby derrickkolba » Tue 22 Oct 2013 02:08

what about rifle grenades? :o
Image

Return to “Wargame : Red Dragon”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 48 guests