Should more than just 2 new nations be added to REDFOR?

Dovahkin
Private First-Class
Posts: 7
Joined: Sun 7 Aug 2016 01:03
Contact:

Should more than just 2 new nations be added to REDFOR?

Postby Dovahkin » Sun 23 Oct 2016 22:23

Having Yugoslavia and Finland is great and all but BLUFOR would still have 5 more nations than RED. I don't understand why there has always been this imbalance between the amount of countries for each side and it's always in favor of BLUFOR. Adding Vietnam + Iran along with Yugoslavia and Finland would help to even up things a bit and give a bit more diversity to the game.

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: Should more than just 2 new nations be added to REDFOR?

Postby orcbuster » Sun 23 Oct 2016 22:25

Answer is that there are simply more viable and interesting nations available to blufor historically.

Also vietnam is a horrible pick for a redfor nation.
Image
Viker for ingen!

Dovahkin
Private First-Class
Posts: 7
Joined: Sun 7 Aug 2016 01:03
Contact:

Re: Should more than just 2 new nations be added to REDFOR?

Postby Dovahkin » Sun 23 Oct 2016 22:27

orcbuster wrote:Answer is that there are simply more viable and interesting nations available to blufor historically.

Also vietnam is a horrible pick for a redfor nation.



Not my pick, it was in voted for in this poll: http://www.eugensystems.com/the-votes-a ... n-pack-is/

It came in 4th place for REDFOR.

User avatar
Fade2Gray
General
Posts: 8659
Joined: Wed 1 May 2013 23:30
Location: IED proof in Iraq
Contact:

Re: Should more than just 2 new nations be added to REDFOR?

Postby Fade2Gray » Sun 23 Oct 2016 22:41

Vietnam is probably going to be the one faction that's even worse than North Korea, unless they get some "campaign buffs" as well. What could they bring to the Red Dragon coalition other than SCUDs? Hell from all the poking around that I've done it looks like they have not even upgraded their tanks much, if at all.

I see some oddball American vehicles, like M113s and Sheridans, are those supposed to have been captured during the American Vietnam war?

Iran, India, and the FFAR coalition would be pretty interesting additions to REDFOR at least.

Edit: apparently they upgraded a bunch of T-55s to throw M3 standard, complete with NATO 105mm gun.

Vietnam is so poor however that most of their infantry is still on foot. Goodness.
Last edited by Fade2Gray on Sun 23 Oct 2016 22:54, edited 1 time in total.
Image
Image
Think you have what it takes to enlist into the military? You sure about that?

User avatar
Greyhound
Sergeant Major of the Army
Posts: 377
Joined: Sun 9 Aug 2015 16:47
Location: Czech Republic
Contact:

Re: Should more than just 2 new nations be added to REDFOR?

Postby Greyhound » Sun 23 Oct 2016 22:53

Hungary and Romania would be a nice addition. Altho they have a lot of copy pasta units, they have some unique ones and since they have so many same units as USSR and NSWP t won't take much effort to model new units.
Image

User avatar
nuke92
Lieutenant
Posts: 1119
Joined: Tue 14 Jun 2016 21:51
Contact:

Re: Should more than just 2 new nations be added to REDFOR?

Postby nuke92 » Sun 23 Oct 2016 22:55

If anything this poll isn't representative anymore. Vietnam being number 4 doesn't make an iota of sense.
You should look for the last two places of Redfor, there lies true potential. Also it is european eastern block therefore making coalitions possible in the first place.
Image
"Spike MR is more accurate I'll give you that but Konkurs has more range and isn't prototype" - Warchat™ July 2017
"ALB added planes, RD added ships, WG4 will add Ekranoplans" - Warchat™ August 2017

User avatar
another505
More than 10 000 messages. Soldier you are the leader of all armies!
Posts: 13128
Joined: Sun 21 Jul 2013 05:18
Location: Hiatus
Contact:

Re: Should more than just 2 new nations be added to REDFOR?

Postby another505 » Sun 23 Oct 2016 22:55

orcbuster wrote:Answer is that there are simply more viable and interesting nations available to blufor historically.

Also vietnam is a horrible pick for a redfor nation.

Well, there is, but is not like Red has already ran out of options...

looking at Rom, bulgaria, iran/iraq
Image
Of Salt

User avatar
Demonicjapsel
Chief Warrant Officer
Posts: 680
Joined: Sat 26 Jul 2014 20:58
Location: Triggering HRCK and his warcrime denying Yugoboos

Re: Should more than just 2 new nations be added to REDFOR?

Postby Demonicjapsel » Sun 23 Oct 2016 23:00

Fade2Gray wrote:Vietnam is probably going to be the one faction that's even worse than North Korea, unless they get some "campaign buffs" as well. What could they bring to the Red Dragon coalition other than SCUDs? Hell from all the poking around that I've done it looks like they have not even upgraded their tanks much, if at all.

I see some oddball American vehicles, like M113s and Sheridans, are those supposed to have been captured during the American Vietnam war?

Iran, India, and the FFAR coalition would be pretty interesting additions to REDFOR at least.


well apart from the absolute horrible lack of tanks, the VAF is pretty well endowed with modern equipment, fielding both Flankers and a Fitter variant on overcharged steroids.

Although interesting, id be in favor of a Romania, which features a rather odd mix of local equipment, soviet tech, french and some yugo stuff..

User avatar
homerfcb
Lieutenant
Posts: 1199
Joined: Mon 24 Sep 2012 16:33
Contact:

Re: Should more than just 2 new nations be added to REDFOR?

Postby homerfcb » Sun 23 Oct 2016 23:10

India
Cuba
Romania
Bulgaria
Hungary
Vietnam
Nicaragua
Angola
Mongolia
Laos

In this Order. You can see that there is not much sense in adding the last ones, but 1-5 all seem to have something new to offer. You could also add Iran, Libya or Syria, but I don't see them as true REDFOR, but at least they are close to it than to Blufor, which all other Gulf/Arabic countries aren't. However if they plan to add many more nations, it would be great to focus on REDFOR, however they should always sneak in some BLUFOR nation as countries like Italy, Turkey or Spain have much stuff to offer...
The big nerf whiners thread, much controversal stuff, some suggestions and some more stuff, also with a big Patriot range explanation Just klick me, or go here viewtopic.php?f=155&t=48184

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

Re: Should more than just 2 new nations be added to REDFOR?

Postby HrcAk47 » Sun 23 Oct 2016 23:25

Romania is a very, very fleshed out nation with a lot of potential. Steppenwolfs research shows that it can have one of the most competitive Moto decks on Redfor, second only to Soviets in choice of wheeled transports.
Also, you can't spell "pyromaniac" without "Romania". Shock rocket flamers everywhere.

In general, they are the most real choice for Redfor. I will vote for them if there's another vote coming.

Following that, Bulgaria is probably the best chance of Redfor to get tactical missiles - they used so many, and so many types. Also, S-300, T-80BV, T-72M2 and few other things never before seen outside the Soviet Union.
While they might be lacking in indigenous designs, they sure have great potential. Literally the Netherlands of Pact.

Not to mention, all of them have good coalitioning potentials.
The SEAD never bothered me anyway.

SMB Yugoslavia Retexture Mod, now released, v.1.0

Return to “Wargame : Red Dragon”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 20 guests