|
Coming back to this game now when it is out of beta. Since Red Dragon is the most interesting faction of RD in comparison to ALB, I've started fiddling around with a Red Dragon deck. In some ways the Red Dragon remind me of the French deck I liked in ALB. Anyone got input on this deck?  LOG: Mi-4 for being cheap and fast. INF: Li Jian in autocannon choppers for initial helirush. Rest of infantry in wheeled transports. I have sofar found Tanke Shashou good for guarding towns as well as having more resilience than Ban Tank Fagots. Yubeyi as cannon fodder and Jeogockdae just to get the BTR-80A. SUP: Pretty unsure on this section. BRDM-2 Strela since HQ-7/Crotales have such low ammo count and I basically use them for supporting the wheeled push. What is the best Red Dragon arty? I ended up with Plz-83 since it was the least worse combination of fire rate and accuracy. PHL-63 since you can't never have enough napalm. TANK: Chonma-ho since they are cheap and have a decent KE autocannon, T-72M, since T-72s are always good to have with 4 HE and decent armour. Sofar I haven't called in the T-90S and don't know if they are actually needed. REC: I have found recon jeeps with very good optics to be great as passive spotters since they are fast and cheap. Recon armoured tank with very good optics is too good to pass on. VEH: ZLF-92 obviously, PTZ-89 as well and napalm tanks seems borderline OP with the indirect fire. At the start of beta I met a guy on Jungle Law that consistently blocked all routes using flame tanks. HELO: TY-90 to support helipush. Don't know about the HJ-8, but an additional ATGM carrier can't be bad to call in when needed. PLANE: Napalm, SEAD/air superiority and 1 ton bombs. Is the cluster bomber worth taking or are there better options for dealing with tanks and vehicules.
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2014 11:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 07:16 |
|
|
Cardiac posted:Coming back to this game now when it is out of beta. One logistics suggestion I would make is to swap one of your cards of supply choppers for a card of trucks. They changed the way supply works in RD now so that you can refill trucks from choppers. This way you don't have to risk your choppers at the front line. They can land behind it in cover, refill your trucks which can then drive to the front. It's a little more micro intensive but pretty cool when you get it working. Edit: Also thanks for all the nice comments on the video. I usually record all the games we play but most aren't that exciting. I am severely noobified since switching to red dragon for some reason. I kept that one because it was so stupid though.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2014 11:10
|
|
|
 Says a lot about why the cluster bombs are kinda bad.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2014 11:16
|
|
|
Updated, advanced version of the MG chart
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2014 11:34
|
|
|
Misleading chart is misleading with the HE/m^2/s 
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2014 11:41
|
|
|
Here's the dumbed down version of the sheet.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2014 11:56
|
|
|
More accurate you mean 
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2014 11:57
|
|
|
Xerxes17 posted:More accurate you mean Less accurate, more representative!
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2014 12:25
|
|
|
why are the stabilized DPS so low?
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2014 12:27
|
|
|
TheDeadlyShoe posted:why are the stabilized DPS so low? Half the accuracy. Except for the Bren which is 1/8th of the accuracy
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2014 12:28
|
|
|
Those missed units threads are pretty great, although it makes me sad because I don't think we're getting any unit DLC past the big one, they seem very burnt out with WG. Also, I don't outright mind Graphic, but he really needs to stop chiming in with the opinion that we don't need more cool poo poo. That is always a bad opinion given the nature of it. Mazz fucked around with this message at 14:10 on Apr 25, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2014 12:49
|
|
|
in the dumbed down chart, they arnt listed at half accuracy, theyre listed at like 3-4% normal accuracy. it's not an order of magnitude error there's something else going on there. TheDeadlyShoe fucked around with this message at 13:58 on Apr 25, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2014 13:52
|
|
|
I was still dividing by area for DPS stab, whereas I had taken it out for DPS stat. Fixed in my sheet.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2014 13:58
|
|
|
Shan have you done a full infantry rifle sheet or just the SF guns?
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2014 14:10
|
|
|
TheDeadlyShoe posted:oh lawd Having played the single player campaign, I get the feeling that they balance by playing versus the AI a lot rather than in the crucible of human-vs-human play.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2014 14:18
|
|
|
Xerxes17 posted:
Does it? I'm not seeing why exactly they're bad.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2014 14:21
|
|
|
Hubis posted:Having played the single player campaign, I get the feeling that they balance by playing versus the AI a lot rather than in the crucible of human-vs-human play. I think that's probably right. However, I want to reiterate that the campaigns are pretty great. Especially Climb Mount Narodnaya, which has a lot of strategic-level flexibility and complexity to it. I hope the Second Korean War campaign that's coming as DLC will be just as open and free in how you approach it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2014 14:21
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:Does it? I'm not seeing why exactly they're bad. Even Mk 82's have bigger suppression effects and that's a big factor in being able to stop a push. When you also consider the effective radius of the 1000kg and 500kg bombs, they end up being just about equally effective in terms of killing vehicles.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2014 14:38
|
|
|
Actually, drat, just did some testing against the AI and a Mirage F1CT strike will kill a T-72A under the pattern. Against tanks in platoons it looks to be 100% lethal. Edit: wait since when did T-72As have 2 top armor? 
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2014 14:43
|
|
|
Climbing Mount Narodnaya would be more challenging (though it's tough as is) if all the JPN spam tanks didn't run out of fuel before reaching anything. Honestly the AI should be immune to fuel. So should players. Remove fuel! Hubis posted:Having played the single player campaign, I get the feeling that they balance by playing versus the AI a lot rather than in the crucible of human-vs-human play. I wouldn't be surprised by this, I feel a lot of the game mechanics actually work better in the campaign than they do in MP. It is a mystery why they don't put more work into skirmish AI or adding scenario maps though. Would love higher difficulty versions of the early campaigns.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2014 14:44
|
|
|
TheDeadlyShoe posted:Climbing Mount Narodnaya would be more challenging (though it's tough as is) if all the JPN spam tanks didn't run out of fuel before reaching anything. Honestly the AI should be immune to fuel. The ONLY thing where I think fuel makes sense and is interesting and not just annoying is with Helicopters (where it is STILL silly because hovering in place indefinitely burns zero fuel )
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2014 14:47
|
|
|
HAHAHA the MiG-25RBT is a line-bombing cluster bomber with 6 AP5 bombs. Let's just put that on the list of units to never take.
Arglebargle III fucked around with this message at 14:55 on Apr 25, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2014 14:51
|
|
|
Fuel as a mechanic worked in EE because the nature of gameplay, especially rushes, was different then. You could do those big flank maneuvers more often. It became (mostly) dumb the minute they added airplanes.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2014 14:53
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:Edit: wait since when did T-72As have 2 top armor? They always had IIRC. It's the T-72B1 and up that go to 4 top armor.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2014 14:54
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:HAHAHA the MiG-25RBT is a line-bombing cluster bomber with 6 AP5 bombs. Let's just put that on the list of units to never take. Pretty much anything with more than 2 bombs ends up dropping them in a line. Explain to me how this is not stupid given the absurdly limited degree of control we have over plane flight paths. Like, it would be one thing if I could say "OK move here then attack along this path" reliably, but most of the time the turn radii and control AI are such that you end up being up to like 45' off from your desired strike angle. I've had a few precision napalm runs dropping a 90' box of fire around my units in a city to let them withdraw, but that degree of control is exceptionally difficult to achieve and generally just not practical. It ends up making planes like the F-111 with Mk. 82s pretty much worthless. Interestingly, it actually makes the A-6 with the Mk. 82se much better, because they're more accurate (meaning they get dropped in a tighter cluster and actually kill things instead of pissing them off). I'm not really sure if this is justified, since it was my understanding that the point of the retarders on the Snake-Eyes was to allow the A-6 to drop bombs from a super low altitude without blowing itself up rather than making them any more precise, but I suppose it would have the effect of doing both so whatever. There's no real way to simulate that unless they completely change how aircraft work so whatever. edit: You know, if they wanted to shift the balance between "heavy" and "light" bombers, they would give all bombs (and artillery shells) the exact same HE value, and just change the radius so that smaller bombers do max damage in a smaller area, but will do the same damage as a 1000kg bomb to whatever they DID hit. Right now there's really absolutely no reason you'd want to use a Mk. 82 over a Mk. 83 or Mk. 84. Hubis fucked around with this message at 15:44 on Apr 25, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2014 15:34
|
|
|
Eugen should stealth-remove fuel as a meaningful mechanic by making each unit of fuel worth 10 seconds of travel rather than 1. Presently the real autonomy is about 3% of the listed autonomy for tracked vehicles and 4% for wheeled ones, on roads. So something with 200km autonomy listed can actually only drive about 6km on roads, which isn't very far. It's really confusing. Also, for anyone who wanted confirmation that there is a double standard for unit inclusion for Soviets versus everyone else: MadMat posted:
Mortabis fucked around with this message at 15:49 on Apr 25, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2014 15:45
|
|
|
Those tanks and vehicles which are extremely fuel-limited really are annoying. The M41A1s run out of fuel before they reach much more than a third of the way up the map from spawn on Strait To The Point.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2014 15:53
|
|
|
John Charity Spring posted:I think that's probably right. I've been really enjoying the campaign so far but they feel very restrictive, have not tried Climb mount yet but in pearl of the orient at day 10 when the fleet arrives i just wanted to push the Chinese back but it just give you a well done chap and then that's it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2014 16:00
|
|
|
Mortabis posted:Eugen should stealth-remove fuel as a meaningful mechanic by making each unit of fuel worth 10 seconds of travel rather than 1. The thing that really fucks stuff up is the fact that moving through woods/rough terrain drains fuel faster, so taking advantage of tracked vehicles ability to avoid prepared defenses by going off-road is seriously mitigated. Mortabis posted:Also, for anyone who wanted confirmation that there is a double standard for unit inclusion for Soviets versus everyone else: I dunno, I can KIND OF agree with that -- especially with the extended timeline of Red Dragon. The rest of the Warsaw Pact really is kind of a cluster of hand-me-down Soviet units, so it's a challenge to keep them both unique and relevant on their own and in the extended timeline. This is much less of a concern for countries with both developed indigenous arms infrastructure (basically all of NATO and Sweden + Japan) and who continued along their expected path after 1990. That being said, Norway/Sweden/Denmark probably really DON'T make any sense to include in the game anymore now that it's not focused on fighting wars in Scandanavia, but they've kind of painted themselves into a corner there because the units already exist. I'm kind of perfectly fine with those countries only really being viable as a Coalition -- I'd reduce the availability/card and/or # of cards of all the units so that you'd be forced to take a mixed composition rather than just "all the cool swedish stuff", though. Really, the more I think about it, the more I realize that Coalitions would be much better if you had fewer cards, rather than just reduced availability. FSJ-90 can be great with their space gun, but you're never going to have enough of them in a coalition deck to rely JUST on them without also having some french special forces. Deckbuilding change of the day: - Reduce all (most) units availability by 1 card (to a minimum of 1) - Increase base deck to 6 slots of a given type (from 5) - Give national decks +1 cards to all unit types This would mean that the US *could* bring 2 cards of M1A2 now if they wanted, although they'd still actually have to pay the deployment costs for them. Likewise, it would mean that decks like Eurocorps would have to mix line infantry / support units if they wanted more than one card in a given role. This would cause more AP pressure, but honestly I never really find myself in the position of having to make *difficult* AP decisions when building decks right now. It's basically just a question of whether I bring 3, 4, or 5 cards of planes.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2014 16:02
|
|
|
At a minimum it would be good if Eugen would limit cards on a by-category basis, so that as a Eurocorps deck you get x cards of heavy tanks, and grabbing from Leclerc or Leopard 2A5 draws from that pool, and x cards of line infantry, so you can't double your availability of line inf by taking both Chasseurs and Jagers (not that you ever would, but you get my point). My objection to MadMat's explanation there is that the Soviet deck actually has quite a bit of diversity, and it's the other PACT countries that need help on that front. I encountered difficult AP decisions much more often in the ALB deck system than the RD one, where almost all of my cards take 2 points. My real deck decisions come down to which planes I take (not new from ALB) and which infantry cards to take since I only get 5. Mortabis fucked around with this message at 16:16 on Apr 25, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2014 16:14
|
|
|
MonkeyLibFront posted:I've been really enjoying the campaign so far but they feel very restrictive, have not tried Climb mount yet but in pearl of the orient at day 10 when the fleet arrives i just wanted to push the Chinese back but it just give you a well done chap and then that's it. Lol I didn't make it to turn 7 on Pearl of the Orient. Because my tanks were past Shenzhen and rolling into Guangdong province. The Ghurka airborne regiment you get at the beginning is loving sick. You can hop over sea zones to destroy many retreating enemy formations in one swell foop. I think I wiped out about 1/3 of the Chinese forces in the first turn. After that I just decided to drive north hard with everything except the RHKR which is a reserve force and use the Canadians and ANZACS to take up the defensive position south of the New Territories. It helped that after Day 1 they had nothing left that could reach HK within 3 days. The Canadians had 2 days to get into position. I took the Chinese spawn sectors on Day 4 or 5 and then just autoresolved the rest of the fights. The plan was to have the Marine Regiment support the drive north by landing east of Shenzhen but they got held up and eventually weren't needed. The Royal Scots Rgt. did all the heavy lifting.  Well, them and and the Tornado IDS squadron and the Ghurkas to mop up the retreating units.Holding the enemy spawns give you hilarious political points, by the end I think I had 70 and nothing to spend it on. Arglebargle III fucked around with this message at 16:33 on Apr 25, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2014 16:29
|
|
|
Yep, using airborne troops to cut off retreats is a gigantic help. Best Tactic there is IMO.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2014 16:34
|
|
|
Mortabis posted:At a minimum it would be good if Eugen would limit cards on a by-category basis, so that as a Eurocorps deck you get x cards of heavy tanks, and grabbing from Leclerc or Leopard 2A5 draws from that pool, and x cards of line infantry, so you can't double your availability of line inf by taking both Chasseurs and Jagers (not that you ever would, but you get my point). I'm pretty sure that the entire context of that quote makes it pretty clear he's talking about NSWP, considering the detail he puts into talking about breaking up the monotony of Soviet hand-me-downs. For example: quote:Actually, there are less Pact units left out for: So NSWP is the one with a really low standard for inclusion, with USSR getting a bit of an advantage as being a way to get some diversity into Redfor. ANZACs and Canada are similar, they're about including what they can rather than trying to pick and choose.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2014 16:37
|
|
|
I loaded up Climb Mount Noradnaya, spent about 15 minutes looking at the map and the various units, and closed it again. That looks like something that will take serious planning to pull off competently.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2014 16:39
|
|
|
Hubis posted:Bomb Actually the bomb dropping is super inconsistent in and of itself. The 4x500 on the IDS and F/A-18A drop in a neat little group, whereas the Harrier GR.5 with the same bombload drops them in a useless line almost 1250m long. My favorite is when the F-15 or F-111C throws a 1000 from the bomb group almost 2000m from where you clicked just 'cause. You have to test most nap/iron/clus bombers in a local game before you actually take them I've found. Also, for line bombing, I found its not too bad if you just shift click a movement command in front of a fire pos command. Give them enough room to turn and they tend to get close enough it's not too wasteful. Only takes a couple extra seconds given you can select from the air menu too. Mazz fucked around with this message at 16:47 on Apr 25, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2014 16:45
|
|
|
Xerxes17 posted:
So, unless things changed from ALB, "supply" is per salvo, and supply*2.8s/100supply=rearmtime, assuming that hasn't changed (2.8 is approximate and empirical, it may be a little higher/lower). I don't see what this says about clusters though? THe problem with clusters is simple: they were priced etc. around being able to pop 1 top armor units at like 4AP.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2014 18:02
|
|
|
Tulip posted:So, unless things changed from ALB, "supply" is per salvo, and supply*2.8s/100supply=rearmtime, assuming that hasn't changed (2.8 is approximate and empirical, it may be a little higher/lower). No, supply is in a salvo, but since bombs come in many configurations I've just done them per bomb. So if you want to know the supply/reload time of a 4-load bomber, just multiply the per bomb numer by how many are on the plane. That's a good point about cluster bombs actually, I hadn't thought about that.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2014 18:17
|
|
|
How do you actually destroy a formation in campaign? Wipe out every last unit in it, hit it while it's routing, something else?
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2014 18:53
|
|
|
General Battuta posted:How do you actually destroy a formation in campaign? Wipe out every last unit in it, hit it while it's routing, something else? Hitting it when it's routing or wiping out nearly every unit in it should do it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2014 19:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 07:16 |
|
|
Thoughts on this deck? https://i.imgur.com/b0PWyFJ.png
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2014 21:11
|
|
