![]() ![]() Which was me killing top tier superheavy 170+ point tanks with a trash 60 something point tank by using treeline and long range atgms to conceal the maneuver of leopards and then using them to punch holes in their flanksīut you can deduce literally nothing from artillery kills except that you moved a white circle over some stuff and clicked and then waited and then repeated for some time. It likely must have involved some impressive armor movement, either building up localized force superiority or outplaying the enemy probably by utilizing long range milans and flanking maneuvers from what I can tell. Or this which was someone using a top tier tank to crush three similarly top tier tanks, proving that Challenger 2 is best tank all USSR shit tanks can go home. I can deduce that someone snuck a recon tank and penetrated into the enemy's rear echelons in such a way that they managed to rear massive havoc on their real line units and killed one of their command units (Infantry in this case), in presumably what was an exploitation of lack of rear or flank security Like every kill list has a story behind it. When I see a kill list and some gloating I usually expect it to be impressive not something literally anyone could do the same with given 2 FOBs and a lot of time to fire away. The reason people post giant kill lists with like Challenger 2s is because to have survived that long and taken so many high value kills, they must have been deployed in a way that allowed them to crush the enemy while not being destroyed for a long period of time and that is impressive because they are a front line unit. ![]() An artillery unit is naturally going to survive over the course of a game and rack up a giant list of kills- they don't sit at the front line, they retaliate from beyond race- it's not impressive at all. Red Dragon is a sandbox like no others, in that it manages to force players to re-learn the actual warfare tactics to win.Ĭlick to shrink.Be that it may be, Artillery kill lists are hardly impressive in the first place. ![]() ![]() The door to door urban combat and the tank traps, the helicopter tactics and the naval ambushes. The special ops being portrayed better than in any other RTS out there as delicate and very fragile scalpels that can and will attract an overwhelming response if detected (intentionally or not), yet slaughtered like pigs like anyone else if caught in the open. The presence of AT weapons from rockets to ATGM, fragmentation weaponry, the magnificent SAM/SEAD gameplay (in itself, the IADS mechanic can make up their own sub-game, as you are playing a vicious psychological game of bluff, anticipation, sacrifice and cunning to deny the airspace to the enemy or to suppress the enemy defences at the right time and place), the improvized tactics of autocannon and napalm suppression, the ATGM bait and the ATGM bluffs (a SS-11 will look like the same thing as a Milan F3 for their target, until it hits). Most countries feel right because there is an underlying historical logic and doctrine behind each of them, that players tend to rediscover by playing. In Red Dragon, the tools are so, so much more numerous and act in glorious harmony when fielded correctly. You can mess up with the stats, add this or that, but in the end, all units look like the same. You have tanks with a gun, machine guns, mortars and rifles. Steel Division was a mistake, IMO, if only because World War II completely lacked the diversity of tools that characterized the Cold War. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |