|
I semi-seriously suggested special forces infantry on the Eugen forums like, 6 months ago, the reception was (probably rightfully) not very good. Leif came up with the idea of "combat controllers" as US SF command infantry. It'd basically be just another way to hilariously stomp pubbies but it would be of questionable usefulness otherwise. I don't like the idea of either high CV prices or limited CV availability. Losing because you literally run out of CVs is just massive bullshit all the way around. Mortabis fucked around with this message at 04:10 on May 30, 2014 |
#
?
May 30, 2014 04:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2024 06:49 |
|
|
SF CVs seem like a very very bad idea. Neutralizing spawns is a cheesedick tactic as it is but at least now it's a huge risk for a huge payoff. Letting an actual combat-effective unit do it would gently caress up the game to the point where backfield antics would be the new meta, not tank warfare. Did the CRAM exist in 1990? Give FOBs a CRAM, it's the same exact thing ships use just on land and make it able to shoot down artillery rounds too. Justin Tyme fucked around with this message at 05:04 on May 30, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 04:55
|
|
|
A crazy rocket artillery meta?
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 05:03
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:A crazy rocket artillery meta? they'd have to drain their own fob in order to shoot enough rockets to kill an enemy fob 
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 05:05
|
|
|
Why should we give fobs crams? What would it add? What would redfor use?
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 05:07
|
|
|
Xerxes17 posted:Why should we give fobs crams? What would it add? What would redfor use? Conscripts with Mosins.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 05:10
|
|
|
Justin Tyme posted:honestly giving a command star to FOBs is an absolutely brilliant idea in practicality but how would it work when they are taken over by enemy recon/SF? Does the enemy instantly get that zone? Hmm, is it possible to give FOBs decent anti-infantry weapons so that it deters lone infantry squads from capping it via applied lead? And is it actually possible for it to be a garrisonable building if the previous idea is not viable?
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 05:10
|
|
|
Xerxes17 posted:Why should we give fobs crams? What would it add? What would redfor use? just give redfor those twin-barrel defense chainguns they have on their ships (or whatever else they might use irl for realsies) I say give them crams because I can REALLY see stacked teams just buying as many Malkas/M110s as possible and just shelling the piss out of fobs as soon as they know their location, which considering fobs can't actually move would be a bit unfair.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 05:14
|
|
|
Oh god it would create a zone around the fob that would be immune to counterbattery fire. Would you want to play a game where you couldn't smerch an artillery warrior's howitzers?
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 05:16
|
|
|
Yeah, bad idea overall IMO. No CRAM/Point defense systems needed.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 05:19
|
|
|
The FOB is a pretty weird concept in the scale of warfare depicted RD anyway. Having a semi invulnerable resources pile at the back of the map encourages people to play support decks and spend the game with a bunch of 109s moving 100m every time they fire. I'd take it out entirely and replace it with higher supply higher availability supply vehicles.
Trimson Grondag 3 fucked around with this message at 05:39 on May 30, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 05:27
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:Oh god it would create a zone around the fob that would be immune to counterbattery fire. Would you want to play a game where you couldn't smerch an artillery warrior's howitzers? Hadn't thought about that. Maybe just increase the HP of command fobs to 999999999 or something. Or maybe just leave them be, it's hard to say what kind of gameplay would emerge. Jet Age posted:The FoB is a pretty weird concept in the scale of warfare depicted RD anyway. Having a semi invulnerable resources pile at the back of the map encourages people to play support decks and spend the game with a bunch of 109s moving 100m every time the fire. I'd take it out entirely and replace it with higher supply higher availability supply vehicles. If you took them out you'd still have people doing the same thing only this time with hordes of supply trucks taking the place of fobs. Justin Tyme fucked around with this message at 05:39 on May 30, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 05:35
|
|
|
Hordes of lovely lovely exploding supply trucks 
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 05:39
|
|
|
The problem of FOBs getting shelled and killed once spotted is not so much of a concern as past the first minute of the game, buying a normal CV to hide somewhere becomes a trivial expense with the new prices. Giving them self dense capability to me adds nothing to game play at best or adds detriments at worst, such as the C-RAM idea. Notably, by making FOBs a CV and captureable means that Spec Ops infantry have another leg to stand on, capturing the bases to contest and then murking all other CV's in the area. This will give more gameplay elements for sneaky bastardry that can none the less be guarded against by putting a few squads of line infantry (that are now cheaper!) around to guard them. This also leads a choice: do you stack the fobs together and risk artillery fire killing them all or do you spread them out and then have to spend more on garrison troops to cover them all?
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 05:44
|
|
|
FOBs are actually pretty easy to kill in Red Dragon. They benefit a lot from presumed-immunity that doesn't actually exist anymore. Command FOB seems cool. quote:The FOB is a pretty weird concept in the scale of warfare depicted RD anyway. Having a semi invulnerable resources pile at the back of the map encourages people to play support decks and spend the game with a bunch of 109s moving 100m every time they fire. I'd take it out entirely and replace it with higher supply higher availability supply vehicles. Higher supply higher availability supply vehicles instead of FOBs wouldn't nerf support decks much in any case.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 07:46
|
|
|
Get rid of FOBs entirely and make all supply vehicles resupply automatically in reinforcement zones. Reduce supply vehicle availability per card and increase price. Running out of supplies sucks, so it should be a punishment for losing your supply vehicles not because you used your units too much.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 07:59
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Get rid of FOBs entirely and make all supply vehicles resupply automatically in reinforcement zones. Reduce supply vehicle availability per card and increase price. Running out of supplies sucks, so it should be a punishment for losing your supply vehicles not because you used your units too much. Any concept like that really doesn't work though because it benefits artillery spam too much, especially as the games get larger. Sure we can load up on supply trucks and never run out anyway, but you shouldn't just have infinite supplies either. I like the idea of giving CV FOBs the ability to fire a MANPAD or 2 at recon helos or planes, etc, but nothing that can shoot at ground targets. Hence why I suggested just MANPADs and not full out CIWS options. Also I'm pretty sure the C-RAM didn't really exist until like 2003. Mazz fucked around with this message at 08:52 on May 30, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 08:39
|
|
|
Treat ground units like planes, they go off for a while and they come back all nice and full. Don't worry your artillery will be back any minute now. Any minute now. (Mostly joking)
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 08:43
|
|
|
power crystals posted:I've been really busy this week, I'll see if I can get some updates out this weekend. In the meantime: Feature request! The Patcher should make a report listing any ndfpatches that affects 0 entries so that you can be alerted of any typos or bad match conditions. Edit: or for this report to be configured for changes affecting "=! 1" entires. Edit2: Still nothing for adding entries to lists? To get CV FOBs we need to add "Maps:TableString:CommandManager:83:14497" to the modules list in TUniteDescriptor of the FOBs. Edit3: Currently Fobs makes the game crash when you quit, unless I have messed up and made a mistake when I was bumbling around
Xerxes17 fucked around with this message at 10:48 on May 30, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 09:09
|
|
|
Been away doing Tank stuff, anyone still playing vanilla RD or is it all theory crafting mod stuff now?
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 12:04
|
|
|
From the Pubbie Forum Thread posted:
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 14:39
|
|
|
I still can't believe the M693 F1 was underperforming versus the KPVT. I paid 10 points for that thing dammit! How do I install this manually, I should get on tomorrow and play. I haven't played in like 2 weeks and I guess everyone will be playing tankmod. Won't it be hard to find pubbies to stomp though? Arglebargle III fucked around with this message at 14:48 on May 30, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 14:45
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:I still can't believe the M693 F1 was underperforming versus the KPVT. I paid 10 points for that thing dammit! Perhaps you should use the readme? Edit: and loving lovely, lovely RARDEN cannon changes now is causing crashing for... The Mi-24A/P/VP  This is after we stopped it crashing from selecting units that actually have the drat thing!  Re-uploaded the .rar with a cleaned version that should be working.
Xerxes17 fucked around with this message at 15:07 on May 30, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 14:49
|
|
|
What prompted a change to that by the way? It seems really unimportant.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 15:16
|
|
|
Whimsy and fop from Shan.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 15:18
|
|
|
Wasn't the Rarden already quite competitive with other autocannons?
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 15:20
|
|
|
OctaMurk posted:Goons I have made it easier to install the Tanks Mod: I have updated the download link for the mod system with Uralgraznomod 1.4a. Just to clarify, extract the Uralgraznomod 1.4a folder into your MODS folder.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 15:26
|
|
|
For Napalm planes, do you guys prefer using cheaper ones (with usually 3 availability), or 2-availability ones with a larger radius?
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 17:18
|
|
|
Llyranor posted:For Napalm planes, do you guys prefer using cheaper ones (with usually 3 availability), or 2-availability ones with a larger radius? Kinda depends on what you're doing. If you're playing one of the terrible river maps/blocking bridges, it's better to have more of the cheaper ones to account for attrition and since your enemy can't avoid the flames whether it's 2 or 8. Everywhere else, more bombs equals more coverage, and more coverage means more time wasted evading or more time spent under the flames. With that in mind, it's best to use napalm in large groups, laying it out so the fire creates as large a firestorm as possible. Units get stunlocked and burn down under the flames, but automatically move out to the nearest safe zone. The longer they have to move in the flames, the more it works. Also, drop napalm so most of the fire is behind the line of units in cover to force them out forwards into the fire of your own units. This is the one thing the Buratino was really good at in ALB. Mazz fucked around with this message at 17:45 on May 30, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 17:34
|
|
|
https://www.dropbox.com/s/fufkd1bb3zy9ycg/UGNM1.4c.rar Stomer HVM now fixed to not be 5pts and have crazy availability. SHAN! 
Xerxes17 fucked around with this message at 17:48 on May 30, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 17:36
|
|
|
When's the minor nations dlc out?
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 18:04
|
|
|
No date yet as far as I know, but there's this thread: http://www.wargame-ee.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=155&t=45587 With revealed units so far. Seems to be going with PACT first, lots of MiG-29s and even a anti-ship missile launcher(!).
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 18:35
|
|
|
Uralgraznomod thoughts: *Leopard 2A1 is a little bit too cheap. It's 15 points more than the T-72B1 in vanila RD, and for good reason--it's better; it has 10 ROF and more armor. The Leo2A1 was probably priced when the AP was still 16; but right now it should probably be repriced to 85 or 90. *The T-80U, maybe -5 points, I'm not sure. *The T-80 and M1 could both stand to be 5 points cheaper. The T-80 is roughly equal in combat ability to a T-72M1cz, and the M1 is roughly equal to an MBT-70. Then again, 45 points might be too cheap for the M1; maybe 45 points with 0/6/4/0/0 availability? It would be a very cost effective tank, but cards limited so it's not an auto-take. *Pubbies love the tanks mod Overall I think we're in a pretty good spot. The Leo2A1 nerf is necessary IMHO, simply because it was balanced and priced assuming 16AP rather than 18AP. However my suggestions regarding the T-80s and the M1 may be entirely bad suggestions; I just feel that those tanks (especially the T-80) feel especially weak and I have no idea how they should be fixed. +5% accuracy on the T-80 would really fix that tank IMO.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 21:19
|
|
|
OctaMurk posted:The Leo2A1 was probably priced when the AP was still 16 Slander and lies! (it was priced when I didn't have access to RD)
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 21:22
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:Wasn't the Rarden already quite competitive with other autocannons? It's pretty bad, but gently caress that thing with the way it wants to make everything crash. Stupid stormer availability aside, how did people feel about inf? I'm expecting it to need tweaks but overall? Shanakin fucked around with this message at 21:40 on May 30, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 21:32
|
|
|
Yeah but weren't autocannons already mostly pretty bad? It seemed like the Rarden was in the middle of the pack despite its rate of fire.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2014 01:55
|
|
|
Should I follow the readme and stick the modified dat file in the old 43000319 folder or the new 43000339 folder?
Arglebargle III fucked around with this message at 02:33 on May 31, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 31, 2014 02:28
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:Should I follow the readme and stick the modified dat file in the old 43000319 folder or the new 43000339 folder? Yes.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2014 02:46
|
|
|
Shanakin posted:It's pretty bad, but gently caress that thing with the way it wants to make everything crash. This is weird as gently caress. Whats causing the crash? is it being fired? Hitting certain targets?
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2014 02:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2024 06:49 |
|
|
Pimpmust posted:No date yet as far as I know, but there's this thread: Can't lie; I'm really excited about that DDR Tunguska.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2014 05:02
|
|
