|
Thermobaric boats？
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2014 01:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 22:19 |
|
|
Agean90 posted:This is my main issue. I can deal with everything else, but a few smaller maps would be lovely, if only so I dont have to wait 30 minutes for reinforcements to show up. Not just smaller maps but more maps with reinforcement zones halfway up the battlefield. That was a big factor in making ALB battles faster-paced, as well as making some of these low-autonomy vehicles viable. In a lot of the current maps, vehicles and tanks run out of fuel before getting close to the front line.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2014 02:03
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:Do you have any reason behind this opinion? Sure. The new system is supposed to give players more reasons to take national and specialized decks. Anything that takes the focus away from USA, USSR and mixed NATO is a good thing in my book. Ok, right now it's not really working but the idea is there. I think as a bonus availability is actually better than extra AP, since in ALB the extra AP you got from taking a national deck was often just used to tack on a few extra bits and bobs and take a few extra "OK" units that you probably wouldn't bother with if you didn't have the AP to blow on them. Either that or it was used to double down on infantry. In RD the availability bonus should give smaller nations a good boost to everything, from infantry to their best units. The problem is just that it's not high enough to make enough of a difference at present. We know from the popularity of cat B/C decks in ALB that availability is a good bonus when it's high enough. The difference is that in ALB availability bonuses started at 40%, whereas in RD 40% is the high end. Obviously it wouldn't make sense for national bonuses in RD to start at 40% since then major nations like the US would get them. Instead, the main reason for taking a major nation or coalition should be the slew of good prototypes that you're given, with the small availability bonus on top of that just an added extra. The problem at present is that there aren't enough units that are prototyped, but that would be easy to fix. The idea would then be that you'd take major nations and coalitions for the prototypes, minor nations for the large (up to 80%) availability bonuses, while mid tier nations like France would be kind of a half way point between the two. The other thing that's better about the RD system is that there are big incentives for taking specializations. in ALB, most of the time you were better off just making an unspecialized deck and spending a few extra AP in one particular category if you wanted to "specialize". In RD it's different because the extra slots you get are actually a pretty big deal. Of course it doesn't work that well at present because as big as the bonuses are, they're cancelled out by problems with specialized decks that are just as huge. But that just means that Eugen needs to find ways to mitigate the downsides of specializations a bit. It doesn't mean that the concept is bad. Mechanized is a great example of what a specialization should look like, particularly if you imagine how a mechanized deck will play with the higher IFV availability. One thing I'll admit is that cat B/C is probably worse off now than in ALB, and it's less obvious how that could be fixed, since the issue is just that in cat A decks there isn't really a ton of AP pressure. Lowering the base AP would help but they'd have to be pretty careful there. In the end though I feel like ALB had two good bonus categories and one pretty questionable one (specializations), while in RD it's the same except that now it's cat B/C that's of marginal usefulness. If they can tweak specializations to make them more playable I honestly won't mind that cat B/C isn't really viable since in my mind specializations are a bit more interesting.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2014 03:16
|
|
|
There's no AP pressure because there aren't the slots in the infantry and support tabs to actually spend AP on. Hell my British deck took 5 planes just because I couldn't spend the points on any other useful items. I would sacrifice 2 of those plane slots for 2 infantry or support slots. I just have a hard time taking any of your arguments seriously because the ALB system worked so well (with minor nations seeing a lot of play) and the RD system works so badly. It's not really about AP or availability, its about lack of slots. I don't really see anything that would get worse, and a lot of things that would get better, if you just rolled straight back to ALB's system. I don't understand how you can say the current system is supposed to steer people away from USSR, USA and NATO because it buffed those nations and nerfed all the minors in terms of AP compared to ALB.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2014 03:32
|
|
|
I see the lack of slots as an incentive to take a national and/ or specialized deck. You want more slots? Then you need to pick a specialization. You want to get more out of the slots that you have? Then take a national deck. I think we can both agree that right now that isn't what's actually happening, but I think it's because the current system is all stick and no carrot. It does a good job of making mixed decks less appealing, but it needs to work on the other side of the coin which is the bonuses. My memory of minor decks in ALB was that they were mainly for fun and flavour rather than because they were actually competitive with mixed decks. I played them for fun in ALB and I play them for fun now. If they're a little bit worse in RD I don't think it's because availability is a terrible bonus or anything, but just because the current numbers are way too low. Arglebargle III posted:I don't understand how you can say the current system is supposed to steer people away from USSR, USA and NATO because it buffed those nations and nerfed all the minors in terms of AP compared to ALB. Because they're trying to balance the game differently I think. In ALB AP was a big deal because you had the slots to spend it. AP was important but slots less so. Now AP is less important but slots and availability are what counts, and slots and availability are supposed to be what pushes you towards nationals and specializations. No it isn't working right now but it could without them tearing up the new system and going back to ALB's. sgnl05 fucked around with this message at 04:06 on Jun 20, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2014 04:00
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:There's no AP pressure because there aren't the slots in the infantry and support tabs to actually spend AP on. Hell my British deck took 5 planes just because I couldn't spend the points on any other useful items. I would sacrifice 2 of those plane slots for 2 infantry or support slots. I actually really like the RD system. It is in fact the only thing that i like about RD. It's still poorly implemented. Hard caps means actual decision making. In RD, taking manpads and AT infantry means forgoing a deep bench of fighting infantry, and taking tons of artillery means not having enough AA (and thus needing to take manpads). There was some decision making in ALB with the soft caps, but they were a lot less meaningful and every deck had the same "skeleton" that covered about 30AP. Outside of these particular interactions its not very meaningful, because it requires there being partial overlaps between unit categories, and for unit categories to cover multiple options, so "tanks," "helicopters," and "planes" will all not actually do anything good unless you do something like fold tanks into vehicles and fold heli and plane into each other or something. I'd think a deeper commitment to the hardcap system would be better: remove AP entirely, either category or national restrictions get +x to all slots and the other gets +availability. I feel that the "type" restrictions, like navy, indirectly caused major harm to Wargame, because both of those wound up using significant development resources while providing no actual meaningful benefit to the game, and everybody would be better off if they were just cut.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2014 04:27
|
|
|
Tulip posted:I feel that the "type" restrictions, like navy, indirectly caused major harm to Wargame, because both of those wound up using significant development resources while providing no actual meaningful benefit to the game, and everybody would be better off if they were just cut. I don't think so. There's plenty of specialized decks that are already fun and interesting to play, even if they're not exactly that competitive. For example USSR airborne is a great change of pace with all those VDV in BMDs to play with, and it's interesting having to make use of the plane bonuses to cover for the lack of decent ground AA. Is it a good deck? No, not really, but then neither were ALB's minor nations and they proved pretty popular with a lot of players. I reckon with a bit more work there's loads of those kind of decks that could be made at least passable balance wise, even if they'd never be quite up there with more conventional decks.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2014 05:19
|
|
|
The lack of slots isn't the only thing. The fact that almost all the slots are worth 2 points means that you only start facing "hard" choices when you get to the fifth slot. It's mostly about what planes and infantry you take and whether you go heavier in arty or AA. You only really have to choose between units in a category, not between categories. The deck building would not really change much of all the slots were worth only one point.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2014 05:22
|
|
|
I think one of the major problems with deck building now is that there is more then one disconnect to overcome on top of all the rest stated about specifics. 1. Casual decks vs tryhard decks are basically impossible to balance at this point. The aspect of needing to keep mixed alive so people can make side nations, poo poo like Singapore or Turkey or whatever has horribly affected the whole ranked/tryhard scene. Conversely, balancing strictly with the tryhard scene in mind will probably lead to a lot more specific restrictions that don't really work, like prototyping huge swaths of national units just because (I would loving love hardline national decks only, but its not going to happen). You'll also always have a min/max problem because that's how this poo poo works. You need to really know how your game is played to fix this, and Eugen has never really been able to do that in the 3 games they've tried now. Especially as they refuse to remove assets once they are in. 2. Conquest vs Destruction. You cannot price things the same for both game styles and have it work in the long run. You just can't. In destruction, I can take my overpriced USSR deck every single game and smash motherfuckers into the ground with it, simply because I'll never lose more then I gain leveraging my qualitative advantages. Taking that same deck into a good Conquest game and I'll be spending my rear end off just trying to compete with a dude who can throw handfuls of reservists and 10 point TDs at me. My biggest problem when trying to figure out what I found wrong with RD (and at points, late ALB problems like the way ranked played late conquest era) was that there is simply a ton of little problems mixed together that made it hard as gently caress to know where to start or how things would pan out when changing. Mazz fucked around with this message at 05:40 on Jun 20, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2014 05:32
|
|
|
Tulip posted:Hard caps means actual decision making. In RD, taking manpads and AT infantry means forgoing a deep bench of fighting infantry, and taking tons of artillery means not having enough AA (and thus needing to take manpads). There was some decision making in ALB with the soft caps, but they were a lot less meaningful and every deck had the same "skeleton" that covered about 30AP. The only place the hard caps create these kind of choices in infantry, and to a much lesser extent support because there's so many different infantry roles all trying to get jammed into 5 slots. Otherwise RD decks are just as much a skeleton as they were in ALB if not more, it's just a different skeleton.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2014 05:39
|
|
|
Right now the specializations that give you more infantry or support slots, which, incidentally, are the only ones worth considering, also restrict other areas a bit too sharply. Nothing makes up for the lack of super heavy tanks, or attack helicopters, or top-end AA. Really; in the current meta people are opting for these things over the infantry that we can all agree we would always want more of in a mixed deck. I think the only way to keep the RD model is to transition to an "all carrot" approach, where mixed decks don't even exist and you choose your specialization to unlock extra slots according to specialty, with no unit restrictions. Or you could go back to the ALB system. The deck system with its soft caps and minors balanced on AP was never something I considered broken in the first place. If people were mad about mixed NATO dominating the game, why not --remove-- mixed NATO instead of breaking the entire deck system in an rear end-backwards attempt to get people to not do one specific thing? Was anybody upset about competent decks having a similar core of units back in ALB? This is the first I've heard about it. It's a logical outgrowth of finding optimal strategies. Optimal deck construction plus personal choices sounds a lot nicer than everybody struggling to reach an optimal point that we all know exists but can't reach. In the meantime while this approach "fails in execution" (when will it ever be fixed? Can it?) it's killing the meta and squeezing out the middle in ways that have already been well-documented in this thread. Meanwhile, there's a successful model that was abandoned just a few months ago. Why tweak RD's deck system while the game dies when you could just put ALB's back in?
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2014 05:39
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:Right now the specializations that give you more infantry or support slots, which, incidentally, are the only ones worth considering, also restrict other areas a bit too sharply. Nothing makes up for the lack of super heavy tanks, or attack helicopters, or top-end AA. Really; in the current meta people are opting for these things over the infantry that we can all agree we would always want more of in a mixed deck. This is a good post.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2014 05:42
|
|
|
Also, FYI Mixed NATO is still the dominant deck type in ranked play, despite all the coalition buffs.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2014 05:46
|
|
|
Is there a date I should look forward to for DLC? I should actually have time to play again week after next.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2014 05:54
|
|
|
Napalm is less frustrating in RD for a number of reasons: It's availability has been cut by about 70% between the removal of Category bonuses and the changes to planes per card / number of cards. Larger maps make it harder to napalm block at the start, amphibious capability has reduced the effectiveness of blocking at bridges. As far as deck building goes: What I like about RD vs. ALB: Category availability bonus removal: Especially for aircraft, meaning aircraft can be balanced at CAT A instead of being worthless in CAT A so they aren't completely broken in CAT C. Coalitions: Coalitions make more viable decks, period. Denmark is always going to be a handicap, whereas Sweden and friends is actually viable. I like that mechanized is an Infantry deck now, I'd prefer it to be +INF Slots/XP, +Support and Veh XP. What I like about ALB vs. RD: Soft Caps: If AP Pressure was more evenly distributed then soft caps are a clearly superior choice. Hard caps do force you to make "hard choices" mainly because you get so much AP and there are so few places worth spending it (Infantry, and Support basically) spending more than 5 AP on helicopters without it being a complete gimmick deck/strat is basically impossible. Typed Decks: I feel typed decks were overall better off. At least the primary ones I used (Mech, Mot and Armored) because they didn't have such limited access to units outside their primary unit type, IE: NSWP/USSR Motorized had access to decent tanks, USSR mech and armored had access to BMPT's and BMP3's. National decks: While they weren't necessarily competitive in all cases, they were at least thrown a bone in terms of AP. I'd prefer a system where choosing a national deck would give you additional cards, but not additional availability. In general the RD system is salvageable if they improve the bonuses to further squeeze out Non National and Non Specialized decks. As I suggested earlier: Infidelicious posted:The combination of a 5 unit limit per type, and turning most deck specializations into steaming piles of poo poo has reduced variety heavily.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2014 06:17
|
|
|
The nation thing is being considered for revision. Its sort of a bitch to do though, as if we do stuff like "West German tanks get +1 xp!" then people will infer that West German armor is the only armor deck worth playing etc.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2014 06:20
|
|
|
The number one failure of Red Dragon is making deck names private so I can't share my unbelievably witty deck names with the world.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2014 06:44
|
|
|
I've made less specialized decks in RD than I did in ALB.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2014 06:59
|
|
|
DOCTOR ZIMBARDO posted:The number one failure of Red Dragon is making deck names private so I can't share my unbelievably witty deck names with the world. I made an Australian deck called "Personally I support open immigration" but no one can see it. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2014 07:00
|
|
|
DOCTOR ZIMBARDO posted:The number one failure of Red Dragon is making deck names private so I can't share my unbelievably witty deck names with the world. This might actually be the single weirdest decision they made. They still allow you to rename yourself to other player names after 2 games worth of abuse, but you can no longer display deck names publicly. 
Mazz fucked around with this message at 13:01 on Jun 20, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2014 07:17
|
|
|
http://www.wargame-ee.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=187&t=45797&p=602707#p602707 Updated the mod again.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2014 07:25
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:Nothing makes up for the lack of super heavy tanks, or attack helicopters, or top-end AA. You definitely don't need super heavies in your deck. Lower end heavies can do most things about as well, and the things that they can't do just as well can usually be done by ATGM units. Not having attack choppers can be a pain but they're not absolutely essential. As for top end AA I think it depends. You probably don't want to be using anything other than top end radar AA since the middle of the spectrum is too vulnerable to SEAD right now, but if you get stuck using crotales or something like that it isn't so bad. Arglebargle III posted:In the meantime while this approach "fails in execution" (when will it ever be fixed? Can it?) it's killing the meta and squeezing out the middle in ways that have already been well-documented in this thread. Meanwhile, there's a successful model that was abandoned just a few months ago. Why tweak RD's deck system while the game dies when you could just put ALB's back in? I can see why you might prefer the ALB system but Madmat said that it's never coming back, so pragmatically it makes more sense to discuss tweaks to the current system because they actually have a chance of getting implemented. Dandywalken posted:The nation thing is being considered for revision. Its sort of a bitch to do though, as if we do stuff like "West German tanks get +1 xp!" then people will infer that West German armor is the only armor deck worth playing etc. I read about that on the forums. I guess stuff like +1 xp would be ok as long as it stacks with specialization bonuses, but please don't let them do extra slots since if you combine that with a specialization you'll just be losing the bonus.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2014 08:24
|
|
|
John Charity Spring posted:Not just smaller maps but more maps with reinforcement zones halfway up the battlefield. That was a big factor in making ALB battles faster-paced, as well as making some of these low-autonomy vehicles viable. In a lot of the current maps, vehicles and tanks run out of fuel before getting close to the front line.  Mid-map reinforcement zones aren't universally bad but the way ALB did it you just couldn't advance through the middle of the map because it was instant counterpick territory. They did the right thing when they removed most of them in a patch. The lower tier autonomy ratings are way too low to ever be viable though.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2014 08:48
|
|
|
That is true, of course, but I still feel I had more dynamic attacks/defences in ALB even when the sectors being attacked were ones that had reinforcement zones directly on top of them.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2014 09:01
|
|
|
Xerxes where can I find those replays you commentated recently?
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2014 15:10
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2014 15:23
|
|
|
Mazz posted:This might actually be the single weirdest decision they made. They still allow you to rename yourself to other player names after 2 games worth of abuse, but you can no longer display deck names publicly. Truth. Elukka posted:This was also a big factor in making ALB maps bad. Yeah, it's not just the reinforcement times of the bigger maps (which could be mitigated by forward call-in points) that is the problem, but the maps with enormous amounts of unusable space across the borders encouraging lovely helicopter sneak rushes and forcing you to waste valuable recon to have eyes hundreds of kilometers away from any control point. ALB was actually quite a bit worse than RD in that regard (RD maps have generally less wasted space on the borders, I feel), but RD is quite a bit worse in the fact that it takes you a million years to get anything up to the front. Smaller map sizes solve both of those problems.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2014 15:33
|
|
|
That is also a function of the road networks in RD being completely labyrinthine, as well as the introduction of dirt roads that don't give speed bonuses.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2014 16:14
|
|
|
tbh: there's something to be said for small forces relative to the map size. The campaign has been kinda neat in that respect, you absolutely cannot be strong enough everywhere to withstand AI force concentration and often times its points advantage. You need strong local firepower to keep casualties down. On a related note: A lot of the maps in the wargame series have encouraged a "Strong Everywhere" lockdown. Recon is largely unimportant except in the magical stealth spotting sense. It was not too difficult to establish interlocking ATGM killzones coupled with planes and frontline reinforcements that would pounce on anything that would try to mass. Bigger maps with longer reinforce time have been vastly helpful in promoting local concentrations of force that allow attacks. Frontline reinforcement is complete poo poo for trying to attack through. The big discouragement for attacks has been the proliferation of extremely capable high-accuracy LAWs and extremely capable ATGM teams. The capability jump in infantry's ability to completely wreck attacks has been seriously ridiculous, even before you consider the shock/elite meta. (And of course the high power artillery, but frankly that ends up being a wash unless you are focussing your attack through a narrow corridor.) Carl Gustavs used to be considered good AT weapons and now they are poo poo tier - what is it, 50% accuracy at 475m vs a good LAW with 70% accuracy at 875m? Plus high AP, plus (if rumors are to be believed) an experience damage bonus. Also in ALB though there ended up being a flow to the game where forces would keep getting stronger over the course of the game and often culminate in battle royales. I really don't know why this dynamic doesnt really exist in RD although paradoxically it might be because the stronger HE has resulted in more infantry meatgrinders (rather than one side or the other conceding a particular bunker complex).
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2014 16:29
|
|
|
That's actually quite an interesting point. In RD, you generally (water features excepted) control an entire frontal battle line, as the borders of the map don't really allow enormous flanks like EE and ALB did. However, the road layout DOES allow for some penetrating thrusts that avoid control points (which tend to be heavily fortified) entirely -- usually going directly from spawn to spawn. RD encourages placing some forces in forests and other strongpoints that don't contribute to covering a control zone, in order to protect those points -- even if it's just a small strongpoint of a MANPADS, an IFV with autocannon and ATGM, a cheap tank, and a recon unit. Plus pubbies still haven't figured out that amphib units can cross rivers and lakes. If you didn't do this you were vulnerable to gaps in the line that recon units could sneak through, or light pushes could get through (Ferret Entacs especially with fast movement and fire-on-move ATGMs) and cause havoc. Greater infantry stealth helps with this. And the much longer reaction times due to the map size mean you need a mobile reserve (aka rocket helos or apaches) to address these pushes or they will turn into a salient that can quickly flank you. In ALB, there were fewer of these routes, but it didn't matter as much because you couldn't control an entire frontal battle line -- the map borders were just too wide, so you'd get the standard "Mi-24 + VDV wide-out flank, drop them off, and walk them into the call-in point" tactic. (Or Deltas as NATO). However, in the "center" of the map, the control points seemed much more close together, with much less capability to sneak in between one point or the other. Unless your recon infantry got through in the opener, they weren't going to be doing backfield shenanigans unless you made a breakthrough. And, the ability to quickly put artillery rounds wherever you wanted (rather than RD's more powerful/longer aim/salvo times forcing you to think about your shots) made it more likely that you'd just try to force a breakthrough rather than make a daring flanking maneuver. I made a megapost back in the old thread about covering avenues of approach and the importance of maneuver warfare over static battle lines. RD seems to reward bold moves in that regard, but also punishes mistakes more severely. -e- If it's not clear, I'm counting this as a plus to RD. Though I do want the airfield map from EE back cause it was loving awesome.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2014 19:30
|
|
|
Leif. posted:Though I do want the airfield map from EE back cause it was loving awesome. not empty quotin this
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2014 19:53
|
|
|
Maybe you should all reinvigorate yourselves with a nice Cat C Japan Armored deck, 180 10 point tanks really gets the spirits up.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2014 20:16
|
|
|
God, Uralgraznomod is awesome. Got into a great 4v4 Conquest match today with a WGER Armored deck* on Korea Rocks. Bravo turned into one hell of a meatgrinder of combined-arms attacks and counterattacks as we were very slowly forced back; by the end of that nailbiter, I had run through something like two thirds of my armor and pretty much all my supplies. Never seen that many tanks in a regular match and it really is awesome how the mod turns the center of attenttion back to armored and mechanised forces. Also kinda fun air war with loads of ground attack runs and constant activity as well as a few lörge raids until towards the end, when everyone started running out of planes slowly. Here's the replay: https://www.mediafire.com/?b0j511donz66pxz *On that note, holy poo poo is it awesome to have 28 hardened Leopard 1A5 that cost only 35 points each.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2014 21:43
|
|
|
Agean90 posted:not empty quotin this bring back TMI and Rivers of Blood fix navy so I can bring riverboats on a non-naval map
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2014 21:43
|
|
|
Hubis posted:bring back TMI and Rivers of Blood Some sort of naval spawn for the maps with lots of rivers but no connection to the ocean would be nice. There are a few maps that look like they're screaming for riverboats. Would need to alter the deck system somehow so you don't have people bringing the Sovriminy up creeks though.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2014 23:22
|
|
|
Being somehow able to use riverine boats on non-naval maps would be fantastic.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2014 23:31
|
|
|
ArchRanger posted:Some sort of naval spawn for the maps with lots of rivers but no connection to the ocean would be nice. There are a few maps that look like they're screaming for riverboats. Would need to alter the deck system somehow so you don't have people bringing the Sovriminy up creeks though. I don't think you need to change the deck system as long as there's no deep water on the map. You can't place units in illegal positions when deploying them. As for the rest: http://s1097.photobucket.com/user/Anders_Ryndel/media/editor.png.html
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2014 00:30
|
|
|
Somebody update the mod manager thing for UGM, because my friends are lazy and worthless and won't bother dicking around with file names. Also, I am lazy as well.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2014 04:36
|
|
|
Been playing some actually good vanilla games over the last week.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2014 02:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 22:19 |
|
|
Infidelicious posted:Somebody update the mod manager thing for UGM, because my friends are lazy and worthless and won't bother dicking around with file names. Also, I am lazy as well. Uralgraznomod 1.6a for JSGME
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2014 02:43
|
|