upcoming tactical RTS Wargame: Red Dragon

i think most of us here have experience with mainstream RTS games, but i wanted to point out a specific one.

Wargame: red dragon is what i feel the closest thing you get to a simulation of how units fare in a conflict between east and west in a cold war gone hot.

it still remains a game of course, but the game is a graphical marvel and the combat is impressive and tactical awareness plays a big part. for example, you can send your tanks into an open field where they might have superior range. but might be taken under fire by a guided missile team firing at them from the treeline. and like in real life tanks do not fare well against AT-missiles. besides a lot of tactical concerns to keep in mind you need to keep an eye on logistical matters too, as you will need refuel, repair and restock ammunition of your troops if you expect to make a difference in the long run. the game sports a huge amount of units ranging from the beginning of the cold war to supposedly the 1990's according to the game info.

red Dragon will feature various nations (NATO + PACT and according allies in europe and asia). and according weapons. infantry, aircraft, vehicles and in red dragon also naval units will be introduced. its expected to release somewhere around March/April.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sAnR1ZtMyJo

its predecessor Wargame: airland battle is out for a while and i play that one occasionally. the campaign sucks but skirmish is fun enough.

Did I just see Il-102s?

Watched the video you linked to... near the end the Il-102s were interesting... of course they lost to the Su-25 for CAS aircraft in the 1970s... the funny thing is that the western articles harp on about how the Su-25 looks like the A-9 that lost to the A-10 in the US CAS competition... but what is really funny is that the Il-102 has specs very similar to the A-10 and it lost to the Su-25.

The Il-102 has a payload of about 7 tons though it does have internal bomb bays and a powerful forward firing gun reported to be 45mm but with the option of a 57mm calibre forward firing gun.

More interesting was the second crewman in a rear facing seat operating the twin barrel 23mm cannon in the tail of the aircraft.

It used non afterburning RD-33s as used in the Mig-29.

I've been playing the wargame series for quite some time. What really bugs me about it is the really unauthentic stats on many units(especially pact ones) always put in the name of "balance"(such as the vulca being more accurate than the Gsh-23 , abrams to have faster ROF than T-72B, T-80B armored less than the chieftain and the ITOW gets more AP capability than the konkurs, etc.

It could really help if some people with military knowledge like yours could come to the wargame forum to debunk a bunch of so called "experts" there trying to justify the completely unauthentic stats in the game with some historical justifications.

For example one idiot there said that the Su-15 shouldn't be ingame since it was barely used in the far east and was somehow inferior to all western fighters, yet he has no problem with adding the MiG-25  

Even tho i really enjoy Wargame i have one big dislike in this game.

It has rather often or at least my perception and few friends have same perception that "chances" which this game has when it comes to critical damage vs superior weapons is high when the bot plays. For instance you start the mission with GDR and later you get west german farces with leopard1 and 2's and T-34/55 can still land critical hits from 1.5km distance into your frontal arc and destroy the entire tank.

Another big issue is relative unrealistic "panic" mechanics in this game from my experience after enemy artillery about 100m near your tank units and they completley panic out and instead of driving away from the artillery fire they drive direct into it. Another experienced with paniced crew was a Mi-24A paniced from M16 fire and than flew into enemy fortified territory and obviously never came back.

The AI level for this specific panic mechanics is unfortunatley very poor designed.

Some vehicles have also to poor statistics such as damage and accuracy in this game compared with its real life counterparts which make them considerably useless or almost useless such as TOS-M1 Buratino.

When ignoring all those negative aspects it is still a very intense and fun game.

me i got tired of the likes of wargame- too unrealistic imo.
ffs if i want balanced units ill go play sc2 or maybe lol or dota 2, where's the fun in basically reskinned mcunits.

KomissarBojanchev wrote:I've been playing the wargame series for quite some time. What really bugs me about it is the really unauthentic stats on many units(especially pact ones) always put in the name of "balance"(such as the vulca being more accurate than the Gsh-23 , abrams to have faster ROF than T-72B, T-80B armored less than the chieftain and the ITOW gets more AP capability than the konkurs, etc.

It could really help if some people with military knowledge like yours  could come to the wargame forum to debunk a bunch of so called "experts" there trying to justify the completely unauthentic stats in the game with some historical justifications.

For example one idiot there said that the Su-15 shouldn't be ingame since it was barely used in the far east and was somehow inferior to all western fighters, yet he has no problem with adding the MiG-25  

i agree with both points, "balanching" is a thing that certainly was annoying at first. like the vulcan (Pivads) versus the "shilka" ZSU-23-4. and its indeed rediculous that the m1 is faster firing than the t-72(b). in real life, the M1 is not as great as it sounds either. the americans just like to portray its like the holy grail of MBT's while the t-90 and Leo2A7 are more potent nowadays...not to mention more affordable and you propably wont get cancer in your ass after serving in the latter two. the M1 armour is made of depleted uranium after all.

and i really dont know why, maybe its because the game is made by a civilian staff without someone with millitary practical knowledge of both east and west. im dont know. it still remains a great game tough in my opinion. and i cant wait for the game-speed adjustable function in red dragon so i can enjoy the spectacle more of MI-24's firing and armor rolling in line formation over a field while firing.

lol, well...we got such armchair-general experts everywhere. even here!! . im really sorry but my days trying to talk some sense into such people is done. or their justifications on bullshit. its pretty much a never ending argument really. in the end of the day it just matters how its applied in real-life war.
people like acting like an armchair-general jerk like you said we have them in the airsoft-world too. we have a team in airsoft that likes to act like they are "millitary proffesionals" too. and yes, they got their hardware pretty good sorted out and in general got good tactics. but...whenever it suits them they play outside the rules. shooting people in the face up close, ignoring hits and propably my favourite.....disrespecting combat veterans that organised the event by saying "we pay your salary and did not thrown away our education to a proper life".

just trying to make a point people like that are everywhere. they got internet, watch a few youtube vids and wiki-posts and suddenly they are experts. and even if they are wrong they twist it untill it sounds like they are right even if they are not. and they have no practical experience in the millitary to base any claims on.

You can tell such twits easily... they don't listen.

They also never change their mind even when faced with facts that prove them wrong.