|
Xerxes17 posted:steealth change I've occasionally debated writing a thing to compare two sets of wargame data (since it seems to leave old patch data behind) to produce a kind of automatic changelog, would there be an actual desire for this? It'd probably need someone like you or Shanakin to actually interpret the output.
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2014 23:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2024 05:30 |
|
|
Enigma89 posted:That looks like it but it is missing a couple of forests. Dual Field was the best map because there were only a few points where you could really bunker down and hold. A lot of the map was open so you could push and pull the lines which was the best in W:EE. ALB and Red Dragon seem to have more static lines and a lot more snipes with artillery/airplanes to accumulate most of the points after the lines have been established. Sniping won't accumulate points in God's Chosen Gamemode.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2014 23:40
|
|
|
Mortabis posted:Sniping won't accumulate points in God's Chosen Gamemode. Yes, but it can prevent someone from gaining momentum and bog the game down into a +1 for 40 minutes.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2014 23:45
|
|
|
Eugen really should just put in a modloader since they're so bad at balancing. It wouldn't even be that difficult considering literally ever mod is just a different .dat file and executable.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 01:38
|
|
|
gently caress trophy 2k14 posted:Eugen really should just put in a modloader since they're so bad at balancing. It wouldn't even be that difficult considering literally ever mod is just a different .dat file and executable. I wish we had Vietnam style maps and small (60-80mm maximum) mortars. Would be a lot of fun.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 01:50
|
|
|
power crystals posted:I've occasionally debated writing a thing to compare two sets of wargame data (since it seems to leave old patch data behind) to produce a kind of automatic changelog, would there be an actual desire for this? It'd probably need someone like you or Shanakin to actually interpret the output. This would actually be really loving nice for when we need to update our spreadsheets, and to see if Eugen has hosed up something they didn't mean to ASAP 
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 02:00
|
|
|
Xerxes17 posted:This would actually be really loving nice for when we need to update our spreadsheets, and to see if Eugen has hosed up something they didn't mean to ASAP You could probably already do it well enough with diff, WinMerge or similar tool since the output is CSV but far be it from me to deny someone his coding pleasure.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 02:11
|
|
|
Hob_Gadling posted:You could probably already do it well enough with diff, WinMerge or similar tool since the output is CSV but far be it from me to deny someone his coding pleasure. I actually hadn't thought of that, that would probably get you 95% of the way there as is. But it still seems like a fun challenge and really that's the only part that matters .
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 02:40
|
|
|
DatonKallandor posted:Yes, basically. You can have a great IFV at 20 points, but you only get 1 card of it. Now you actually need to decide which infantry you bring in those good IFVs, and you have to bring some of your infantry in less good IFVs. You're really being confused by the point cost of the humvee. Once the humvee has dropped off its infantry, and assuming that you're not going to load up and go driving again, the humvee has no value. What you paid to bring it in doesn't matter in the slightest, that's sunk cost. If you're not using it as a transport the humvee has a very limited set of uses, like being a tripwire in a forest because of its terrible optics, chasing unarmed units with its .50 cal (yeah right!) or being an ATGM sponge. ATGM sponge is probably the most efficient choice. The 10 points cost is irrelevant to your decision of what to do with the thing after you've bought it.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 03:08
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:You're really being confused by the point cost of the humvee. Once the humvee has dropped off its infantry, and assuming that you're not going to load up and go driving again, the humvee has no value. What you paid to bring it in doesn't matter in the slightest, that's sunk cost. If you're not using it as a transport the humvee has a very limited set of uses, like being a tripwire in a forest because of its terrible optics, chasing unarmed units with its .50 cal (yeah right!) or being an ATGM sponge. ATGM sponge is probably the most efficient choice. The 10 points cost is irrelevant to your decision of what to do with the thing after you've bought it. He's not confused at all--the point is that because humvees are 10 points rather than 1 point, you have fewer of these chaff, and humvees have legimitate value because they are armed. Personally I think throwing away transports at the opponent as an ATGM sponge is a pretty dumb waste of a perfectly good unit. Transports have guns and can make the difference in infantry fights if you use them properly, they provide some inexpensive flank security (tripwire in a forest is actually a pretty important job) and I think a lot of people make the mistake of not re-using their transports. If you set down some infantry, then the frontline moves 5km forwards, then send your transports pack, pick up your infantry, and use them in the next attack. It seriously saves you a lot of points because you don't have to keep re-buying infantry, which are now fairly expensive.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 03:36
|
|
|
The .50 cal is no serious threat to anything except individual stray helicopters that wander too close to it. .50 cals don't do significant damage to infantry, especially not infantry in buildings, and any vehicle, armed or not, can serve as a forest tripwire. The .50 cal does not make the Humvee worth 10 points. It's unarmored and dies instantly to everything. It doesn't even have 10 loving hitpoints. To say nothing of the HMV, which is unarmed and still 10 points. Mortabis fucked around with this message at 03:46 on May 1, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 03:43
|
|
|
Fun fact: The S. Korean Blackhawk transports have "medium" optics!
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 03:52
|
|
|
Oh fields, my fields! Or how I learned to stop worrying and get tanks to be more used. Intro Currently we see very little use of tanks outside of the extreme ends of “the best” and “the cheapest”. Which is a poor thing as I’m sure everyone would like to see more Pattons, T-72’s and Leopards (and tigers and OH MY) driving around killing things. To me there is a confluence of factors: -Not cheap enough -Most not accurate enough -Surrounded by threats Tanks (and by extension, armor decks) need to be made kings of the fields to be the counterpart of the infantry being queens of the forests and cities. By doing so, we can hopefully move RD into not being such a heavily focused infantry game. They don't need to be overpowered to be buyable, but I think a meta with a lot of tanks moving around and being disposed of would make for a better game than tanks only being usable on the extremes of price/capability. Tanks are the most tactically deep unit in the wargame engine. They have meaningful speed, range, directional armor, they can fight on the move, etc. Having them be a main event would not be a bad thing for the game. Not cheap enough Currently tanks are in general not cheap enough for the middle category as they are only good at beating up on lower end tanks, but the top end tanks are able to do that even better while still being able to eat mediums for breakfast. However that is only to look at things from a tank on tank perspective. Once we consider the whole range of LAWs, RPGs, and ATGMs threatening tanks, we’ll find that the much vaunted armor isn't much to write home about. As a result tanks have a rather brittle and short-lived life. quote:“The tank’s fast but the armor’s crap!” So with that in mind, tanks need to be made more disposable. Currently if you lose two tanks on the attack, that can often be a big chunk of your attack unless it’s T-55 spam. This is seen with infantry attacks: the loss of two rifle squads is not a big deal. The loss of two M60A3’s should be the same in terms of concern. This would allow for more risky flanking maneuvers. The old T-72M of North Korean fame should have been a harbinger of future price balancing to come, not something to be nerfed back into line. If tracked vehicles are to be the slower and more ponderous method of fighting the battle compared to helicopter or wheeled forces, they sorely need to be an absolute sledge hammer. For that they need ability and numbers for en masse attacks. My thinking here is generally that all tanks are too expensive, but because of the price ranges this matters way more at the bottom-end than anywhere else. I also think Eugen balances too much based on price (i.e. "Destruction Value") and not enough on Availability (which tends to matter much more in Conquest than Destruction). We don't have enough tanks where "availability" is really a value in itself. I think that "low-end" tanks should be cost-inefficient relative to medium tanks (so almost the same price); however, they should be very AP-efficient, meaning it is easy to add them to a deck. Medium tanks should be much more price-efficient (almost as cheap as light tanks are now) but should have much less availability, meaning that you must burn a lot of AP if you plan on using them carelessly. You can expand 2-card tanks to 3-card tanks of reduced availability, and I think the change would be both balanced and still make both tank fighting and deck building more interesting. Finally, heavy tanks (example, T-80BV) need to be more price efficient, but at minimal availability (much like they are now) as they are now being out-competed by uber-heavies. Pricing medium tanks in the same range as infantry+IFV groups ($35-50 pts) seems very reasonable to me, so long as availability is such that they can't simply be spammed everywhere. Even in that case, I question how effective the tactic would be -- maps are much larger now than in EE, so the ability to detect a tank push early and then respond accordingly is much greater. Tanks used in such a fashion would just cause the enemy to concentrate air power on you. Not Accurate Enough Seriously, tanks should not be having sub WW2 hit rates for weapons that have laser range finders and APDSFS ammo. The limiting factor in mediums engaging “better” tanks should be range (already accounted for) and AP vs AV. A Leopard 1A2 having 40% accuracy isn't going to become a T-80U slayer, but certainly will be much more dangerous to it’s natural prey: other light tanks and vehicles. Surrounded by Threats A short list: ATGM (ground) ATGM(helo) ATGM(air) RPG’s Other tanks Cluster bombs HE bombs Tank destroyers Unsecured Forests Unsecured Cities Tanks are far more affected by bad morale due to how cannons work Essentially, the tank was public enemy No.1 for almost every single other arm on the battlefield. However this is somewhat of a swing and a miss in game as there is a sore absence of tanks to actually shoot at aside from cheap spam and heavy tanks. The point of this however is to say something simple: even if we make tanks much more competitive than they are now, there will still be a hell of a lot of things checking them from overrunning the enemy. Expand the HEAT tank idea This would be a good role to give Base T-62 and T-55. The idea behind HEAT-tanks is that they short circuit the progression of tanks so that a drastically lower end tank can hurt the big end tanks with at least 1 damage per HEAT hit. This would mean that you are much encouraged to do more than just rely solely on a few heavy tanks as you are then at risk of getting swarmed. This would encourage the use of mediums further as they then become a cheap source of extra HP as they will have enough armor to “defeat” the low AP of the small HEAT guns. This would also be a good way of re-purposing redundant units also. Conclusion More tanks = more movement which will mean more mobile and engaging gameplay. Pure ATGM helicopters would be more valuable due to their ability to get more missiles on target for cheap. Bombers would no longer be able to shut down an entire attack with a single run as you could actually have the numbers to spread out a big enough number of tanks to make a wide frontage attack. Massing a reserve for an attack on an unexpected point would be made easier. Suggestions I figured that we should work out good price points and then work on making the list after that. I personally think that the T-72A/M60A3/AMX-30B2/Chieftain Mk.5 (short list) being pegged at 35pts would be a good place to start from.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 04:09
|
|
|
Right now as it stands a pretty simple way of demonstrating that things are totally out of whack is that against everything but tanks, a tank that is twice the price of another tank is by far not going to be twice as useful against any target or threat as a tank half its price except for the uberheavies, which can really weather a significant amount of fire indefinitely. Since tanks that aren't top tier can be erased relatively trivially (hi Kahu!) if present in small numbers and the predators for tanks are a lot more prevalent than tanks, the primary determinant of tanks' price shouldn't be their combat utility against tanks.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 04:24
|
|
|
Got bored, made an all Gavin deck: XpAxg4j60BIHkqRPJUimPIwwcR9lekbedI5jyMI4I9QPowgfRgYuVnKltG2jbX1pa03STJW0raTgoIkdKSpHWlDMVr64ykjSRhZLswiUVLdpuzndCsA= Anything particular I'm missing that also comes in an M113?
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 05:03
|
|
|
I saw someone else post it in this thread (or the last one) but I think the game would greatly benefit from setting the "bottom" price to 100 points instead of 5, as then you could stick to 5-point increments but have much finer control at the bottom end. As it is right now the difference between a 10 point and a 15 point tank (or 15 and 20, etc) feels kind of arbitrary.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 05:08
|
|
|
Mr Luxury Yacht posted:Got bored, made an all Gavin deck: 
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 05:18
|
|
|
power crystals posted:I saw someone else post it in this thread (or the last one) but I think the game would greatly benefit from setting the "bottom" price to 100 points instead of 5, as then you could stick to 5-point increments but have much finer control at the bottom end. As it is right now the difference between a 10 point and a 15 point tank (or 15 and 20, etc) feels kind of arbitrary. Eh, I kind of agree but the big problem with this is you're forced to expand the top end massively, perhaps more so, anyway. Because if just add 100pts to everything and rebalance off that, but you want to keep the "saving pts time" for each unit the same you have to bump income up from around 5-7pts every for seconts to 50pts or so. Your reserve units can now come in every 8 seconds, like normal, but your M1A1, which would normally take ~100s of saving for can be bought in about ~22 despite being 280pts now. So the lack of granularity comes mostly down to a lack of scale to move in anyway. They need to boost up the top end somewhat regardless, boost income rate a bit and just accept you can get cheap stuff a bit faster and make better use of the range they gain.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 05:21
|
|
|
Mr Luxury Yacht posted:Got bored, made an all Gavin deck: Ditch the planes you've got, add more Skyhawks.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 05:21
|
|
|
Not sure if it is historical but would it be better medium tanks were a bit faster over open ground? It's part of what makes tanks like the Brennus so great.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 05:33
|
|
|
I am in love with the French recon tanks. The wheeled AMX-10 RC is a pretty fast tank with a pretty good gun for that price (I guess it's also available for 10 less on the tank tab, but the spotting and stealth has been tremendously useful). The AMX-13/90 with its HEAT 19rof provides excellent dakka in the proper position. I love wrecking infantry that think it's clever and tries to sneak past, and I love doing some sneaking of my own with them and catching a whole network of enemy AA unawares. As funny as it sounds, they may be my favorite part of the Eurocorps deck.
Llyranor fucked around with this message at 05:38 on May 1, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 05:36
|
|
|
Just ditch the planes entirely. The whole point of going full Gavin (never go full Gavin) is that an aluminium metal box, modified for every purpose, is the apex predator of military hardware and clearly all you ever need.
Mukip fucked around with this message at 05:43 on May 1, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 05:39
|
|
|
OctaMurk posted:He's not confused at all--the point is that because humvees are 10 points rather than 1 point, you have fewer of these chaff, and humvees have legimitate value because they are armed. I agree that transports have a lot of uses (I would not throw away VABs for example) but the Humvee is unarmored which I think makes it special among the 10 point transports.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 06:02
|
|
|
Llyranor posted:I am in love with the French recon tanks. The wheeled AMX-10 RC is a pretty fast tank with a pretty good gun for that price (I guess it's also available for 10 less on the tank tab, but the spotting and stealth has been tremendously useful). The AMX-13/90 with its HEAT 19rof provides excellent dakka in the proper position. I love wrecking infantry that think it's clever and tries to sneak past, and I love doing some sneaking of my own with them and catching a whole network of enemy AA unawares. As funny as it sounds, they may be my favorite part of the Eurocorps deck. Played my AY EM ECKS armored deck in a 10v10 for the first time today and yes, the AMX-13/90 is an awesome little recon bug. Using the AMX-30B is kind of a headfuck where you can't get close and ensure a kill; I even had an AMX-30B decide its autocannon was more effective in a point-blank fight a few times. It was worth it for the 2-3 times I watched a T-80UM retreat in confusion and then die to a platoon of three medium tanks though.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 06:05
|
|
|
Xerxes17 posted:Oh fields, my fields! One other thing worth noting is that I think the relatively low accuracy is somewhat necessitated by the "first-shot-free" aim time tanks have -- if they had higher accuracy, then that would be really unbalanced against infantry/ATGM trucks trying to ambush them! The real solution would be to remove that, however.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 11:25
|
|
|
For anyone interested, my infantry work just went up in all its glory. link to pubbie forum
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 11:57
|
|
|
Did you just not apply my changes or did you detect the AmericaniZed spelling and revert it? I thought I might manage to sneak a few zs by you. 
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 12:17
|
|
|
I used diff on the versions, fixed the actual errors. Also some of your changes gave it the wrong meaning, but that's partly because my wording was ambiguous (and looked slightly duplicative) anyway. Really appreciated the comments though.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 12:30
|
|
|
I just got the joke in Atoll Inbound. Atoll was a NATO reporting name for a Soviet missile!
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 13:02
|
|
|
Shanakin posted:For anyone interested, my infantry work just went up in all its glory. Both this and Xerxes' tank analysis a few posts up in this thread are excellent and I'd love to see them acted upon by Eugen.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 13:45
|
|
|
So this may be off topic but now that the nuclear holocaust scenario of the Cold War is fading from the public imagination, do you think it's better or worse than the environmental collapse scenario that the world seems headed for now? Just curious whether pushing the button in the 1960s might have saved the human race from its own ravenous depredations.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 13:51
|
|
|
worse, no matter how you slice it. a collapse of civilization holocaust is worse for obvious reasons more limited destruction would probably result in societies that don't care much about the environment and a collapse of the international order. both of which would result in a LOT of environmental damage, above and beyond that inflicted by nuclear detonations.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 13:56
|
|
|
Uggghhh let's not go down that road. Pubbies seem to like Shanakin's thread but I'm not sure for most of them if it's because they've actually internalized the conclusions or just that they're wowed by all the charts.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 14:00
|
|
|
Yeah Xerxes, I didn't have a good idea about your tank table earlier (blame me playing other games too much). After reading that post, I'll take another look. I like the concept.Arglebargle III posted:So this may be off topic but now that the nuclear holocaust scenario of the Cold War is fading from the public imagination, do you think it's better or worse than the environmental collapse scenario that the world seems headed for now? Just curious whether pushing the button in the 1960s might have saved the human race from its own ravenous depredations. This feels like a Pandora's box of a question, but IMO it'll really depend on how we approach the real serious poo poo (stuff like China poisoning all its land) in the next 25-50 years. From a certain perspective though, we seem pretty loving doomed as a society any way you cut it. Too many interconnected factors that result in the deaths of a couple billion people. The nukes wouldn't have saved us from that per say, just reset the clock of civilization in a similar way. Mazz fucked around with this message at 14:22 on May 1, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 14:01
|
|
|
Mortabis posted:Uggghhh let's not go down that road. In my experience, lots of charts and lots of words is very convincing to the average forum pubbie regardless of the quality of charts or words. I've tried to make my words and charts not too bad though.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 14:19
|
|
|
So i have been playing a bunch of games against the computer, and goddamn is it hard. So much goes on at once that I can't get good tactical control of the battlefield. I can't position my troops where they need to be, i can't ensure for example that my AAA doesnt run out in front of the tanks they are guarding, and so on. Heeeellpp!
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 14:27
|
|
|
Try slowing the game down. I don't know if this works in skirmish but it does in the campaign. One thing that might help is changing what units you are using. For example, the OSA-AKM is a good AA unit with wheels and is pretty fast. If you try band moving it with tanks it will outrun them most of the time. A slower tracked AA unit might be easier to manage. Faster tanks would help too, or maybe a tank-chassis SPAAG such as the Challenger Marksman.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 14:30
|
|
|
Okay, on a lighter note, WHY IS THIS NOT IN THE GAME EUGEN?!   Russia has one too so it's balanced. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cRg4FKFBpBI Arglebargle III fucked around with this message at 14:32 on May 1, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 14:30
|
|
|
given how fast planes come in it probably is
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 14:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2024 05:30 |
|
|
TheDeadlyShoe posted:Try slowing the game down. I don't know if this works in skirmish but it does in the campaign. is there any way to set formations, so tanks would always be in the 'front' of the formation, no matter which way they are moving or pointing?
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 14:40
|
|