|
See to me what would make sense is something simple like having more units in a group = better morale for the group (because you can see your buddies or some command bonus thing or something), with the trade off being the more units in a group the easier they can be spotted (because it's a lot harder to hide fourty dudes than ten).
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2014 04:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 00:10 |
|
|
The most sensible thing would be to make additional units in a platoon have a discount, but make it impossible to split and join.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2014 04:48
|
|
|
You could link platoons to availability, where each unit beyond the first in the platoon didn't impact availability, or was discounted somehow. Linking Activation and Availability points would be a very good thing, right?
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2014 05:46
|
|
|
 Anyone know what this is? I don't recognize the hull. Some kind of Scorpion?
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2014 06:07
|
|
|
Looks like an FV432 chassis with a turret of some kind. -e- apparently Australia converted some M113's to carry the Scorpion turret. But that very definitel looks like an FV430/432 chassis, not an M113 (the front hatch as well as the position of the headlights is a dead giveaway). My guess is that it's either a reconditioned FV432 with a homemade "turret" on top, or the entire thing is homemade (but it looks way too high quality for that). I represented a paintball field once that had a "tank" that was basically a golf cart chassis with "armor" on top, driven around with players piled dangerously on top. Paintball and airsoft mil-sim nerds occasionally fail to understand the concept of liability. Leif. fucked around with this message at 06:29 on Aug 5, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2014 06:20
|
|
|
Ug, I think I'm done with this until they put some fixes in. The fact that multiple Pact decks have pretty much every critical unit, whereas NATO decks tend to be weak in a few areas makes this very tedious to play.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2014 06:24
|
|
|
I blew my own mind in a game earlier tonight when I realized if you have room to maneuver you can beat supertanks with really cheap ones, if you get one tank to scoot in and out of cover to distract it while another busts out for a shot at the side. That part is obvious. But you can use a HEAT tank like an AMX-30B to force it to respect you even at max range, then go in on the side with whatever you want. Conversely, if you don't have much room to maneuver you can get probably stuck in with cheap, accurate tanks at point blank range. The French tanks are really quite good at this because they are so fast and can shimmy around, have autocannons for easy stunning at short range, and tend to be quite accurate.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2014 06:34
|
|
|
Goddamn NATO tanks have good accuracy. I haven't played NATO in a while so I made a deck and my cheapest 40 pt tanks do 60%.Adventure Pigeon posted:Ug, I think I'm done with this until they put some fixes in. The fact that multiple Pact decks have pretty much every critical unit, whereas NATO decks tend to be weak in a few areas makes this very tedious to play.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2014 13:52
|
|
|
I liked ALB and EE. And like ALB and EE i'm getting on this poo poo late. Are you still playing this enough to get in on Goon Platoons?
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2014 17:33
|
|
|
Adventure Pigeon posted:Ug, I think I'm done with this until they put some fixes in. The fact that multiple Pact decks have pretty much every critical unit, whereas NATO decks tend to be weak in a few areas makes this very tedious to play. Curious for some examples too, outside of a couple things like the BMPT and napalm artillery, most people still put NATO ahead, in small and big games.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2014 18:08
|
|
|
DOCTOR ZIMBARDO posted:I blew my own mind in a game earlier tonight when I realized if you have room to maneuver you can beat supertanks with really cheap ones, if you get one tank to scoot in and out of cover to distract it while another busts out for a shot at the side. That part is obvious. But you can use a HEAT tank like an AMX-30B to force it to respect you even at max range, then go in on the side with whatever you want. Conversely, if you don't have much room to maneuver you can get probably stuck in with cheap, accurate tanks at point blank range. The French tanks are really quite good at this because they are so fast and can shimmy around, have autocannons for easy stunning at short range, and tend to be quite accurate. The cheaper M1 variants are amazing for this. They have great armor, a pretty good gun, are fast enough to exploit a flank, and have some of the better stabilizers in the game. If you have the logistics to support them, they can turn an assault aside if placed correctly (big L shapes are your friend, lure them into your jaws, and then pincer-gently caress them,) and then they have the mobility to make a very strong counterattack.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2014 19:12
|
|
|
Good, mid-cost (~100pts) fighters are showing up in a lot of games, especially as an opening. Cluster artillery is a big thing, especially the smerch. Napalm artillery is a big thing - it's good for damaging units in a forest, but what it really excels at is panicing units while causing a smoke screen. Throw napalm artillery down at enemy tanks and it won't kill them, but it'll be perfect for advancing your own. It's an amazing advantage when pushing that NATO just doesn't have. For NATO, if you want good, mid range fighters, you basically have the F16 block 30 in the Korean deck, which is 100 points. USSR and Warsaw Pact has the MiG-23 ML and MLD. Cluster artillery - The US has the ATACMs and Germany has the MARS, but neither of them is anywhere near as good as the Smerch and Grad, which is once again USSR and Warsaw Pact. So USSR has excellent mid range fighters, the best cluster artillery, and napalm artillery, but they also have good infantry, good low, mid, and high end tanks, arguably the best helicopters. So they have the critical units of the current meta combined with a solid foundation. Warsaw pact seems to largely be the same thing, the Czech especially. On the other hand, some NATO factions have one or two critical strengths. Korea has good mid range fighters, but crap artillery and meh tanks. Germany has good tanks, meh cluster artillery, no mid range fighters. The US has okay cluster arty (not as good as the Smerch), no real mid range fighter options, and so on. Which brings me to my next point - unless you play as the US you basically have to play as a coalition to get what even approaches a semi-complete set of strong units. With the pact, you can play as the Czech or the USSR, which gives you those nifty 5 extra activation points and an overall stronger deck than NATO. I wrote this up pretty fast, so it's nowhere near a detailed analysis and is probably incoherent in some parts, but I think this summarizes my thoughts.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2014 23:59
|
|
|
What NATO have that Pact don't is a strong selection of 2nd-rate heavies such as the Challenger 1 mk.2, Leopard 2A4 and so on to back up their top-end tanks; whereas the Pact gets a couple of top-tier tanks and then a bunch of 3rd-rate heavies (T-72S), which have inadequate frontal armour for tank brawls and are less cost-effective due to the ATGM tax. NATO lacks goods tools for infantry fighting, but W.German mechanized troops kinda make up for it with brute force.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2014 00:48
|
|
|
Mukip posted:What NATO have that Pact don't is a strong selection of 2nd-rate heavies such as the Challenger 1 mk.2, Leopard 2A4 and so on to back up their top-end tanks; whereas the Pact gets a couple of top-tier tanks and then a bunch of 3rd-rate heavies (T-72S), which have inadequate frontal armour for tank brawls and are less cost-effective due to the ATGM tax. NATO lacks goods tools for infantry fighting, but W.German mechanized troops kinda make up for it with brute force. It doesn't feel like second rate heavies count for much at the moment with all the other pact advantages, especially now that atgms are fixed.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2014 00:54
|
|
|
Illegal Username posted:I liked ALB and EE. And like ALB and EE i'm getting on this poo poo late. Same question here, except that I played ALB during its entire life. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2014 00:57
|
|
|
It counts in big skirmishes where NATO can present a wall of 19-frontal armour while most of the Pact tanks are caving in to frontal hits; their ATGMs don't fire fast enough to even the odds. Redfor have the better tools for individual duels between units, whereas Bluefor generally has the highest rates of fire, best armour, best guns and best price points, giving up special abilities like missiles. So they work best as 'mass brawlers', using these attributes to concentrate force and win localized skirmishes.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2014 01:00
|
|
|
Adventure Pigeon posted:Which brings me to my next point - unless you play as the US you basically have to play as a coalition to get what even approaches a semi-complete set of strong units. With the pact, you can play as the Czech or the USSR, which gives you those nifty 5 extra activation points and an overall stronger deck than NATO.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2014 02:47
|
|
|
Mukip posted:It counts in big skirmishes where NATO can present a wall of 19-frontal armour while most of the Pact tanks are caving in to frontal hits; their ATGMs don't fire fast enough to even the odds. Redfor have the better tools for individual duels between units, whereas Bluefor generally has the highest rates of fire, best armour, best guns and best price points, giving up special abilities like missiles. So they work best as 'mass brawlers', using these attributes to concentrate force and win localized skirmishes. The problem is that napalm and cluster arty can screw big pushes up pretty effectively. When half your tanks can't fire because they're behind fire and the rest are getting hit by atgms or SU25s, numbers don't count for as much
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2014 02:55
|
|
|
Azran posted:Same question here, except that I played ALB during its entire life. Yes, any given night there's 4-10 goons playing, despite all the wankery in here about balance and sides. E: also, for good midrange fighters you can get two elite ANZAC phantoms in a card for 110/ea that have Sparrows. I'll have to put them side-by-side with a -23MLD in the armory when I get home.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2014 03:12
|
|
|
Nato has lots of excellent ~100pt fighters. Except instead of putting on a bunch of the best short range IR missiles on the airframe, they tend to put on a few of the second-tier ones and some long range semi-actives. They also tend to have much better guns, optics and sometimes ecm.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2014 03:58
|
|
|
Tonight we had two games with 4 goons vs 4 tryhards and we won both, the second time handily, using the following general strategy: Send 1 goon to bog down the opponent in each of the three lanes. Remaining goon has a general support deck and buys 8 FOBs to start the round, and buys mostly artillery during the match. Since the enemy is bogged down at each point, cluster artillery, HE, and napalm wear down opponents until Goons can exploit a breakthrough to win back points and win the round. The support deck is able to focus on counter-battery fire and air superiority as well. I say we run this into the ground. That's the only way to get Eugen to nerf something, right?
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2014 04:30
|
|
|
Shanakin posted:Nato has lots of excellent ~100pt fighters. Except instead of putting on a bunch of the best short range IR missiles on the airframe, they tend to put on a few of the second-tier ones and some long range semi-actives. They also tend to have much better guns, optics and sometimes ecm. Which ones? We were looking at a handful yesterday and the Korean F16 was the only one with high accuracy missiles. For most, even the long range semi-actives I saw had below 50%
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2014 04:46
|
|
|
Adventure Pigeon posted:Which ones? We were looking at a handful yesterday and the Korean F16 was the only one with high accuracy missiles. For most, even the long range semi-actives I saw had below 50% You realise the MIG-23 MLD is as much as an oddball for redfor as it is for bluefor's (better) clone, the F16b30 right?
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2014 04:58
|
|
|
Adventure Pigeon posted:Korea has good mid range fighters, but crap artillery and meh tanks Speaking of korean airforce, I really really like their sead. I accidently bought one the other day instead of my fighter and sent it at enemy planes. With its 7000m f&f missiles, it served as a pretty good fighter too (and with better ecm/stealth)! I'm toying with the idea of using 2 of those instead of the typical fighter + sead
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2014 13:51
|
|
|
Adventure Pigeon posted:The problem is that napalm and cluster arty can screw big pushes up pretty effectively. When half your tanks can't fire because they're behind fire and the rest are getting hit by atgms or SU25s, numbers don't count for as much That's why you need to mass forces, so that an AGM plane knocking out a tank doesn't ruin your day. NATO can equally destroy Pact heavies with planes, and when the dust has settled and all the top-tier tanks have been knocked out by AGM planes, it's the Bluefor 2nd-rate heavies that are going to clean up what remains. The effect of artillery can be minimized by good spacing and micro, annoying as it is. Veterancy is important for fighters. You can only tell how good they are by opening the deck creator to see their veterancy and availability, rather than checking the armoury which does not display those attributes. Some fighters with inferior missiles can be bought in pairs as veterans which can make up for it. Mukip fucked around with this message at 15:33 on Aug 6, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2014 15:23
|
|
|
Which Wargame installment would be the best if I was looking to play single player? AirLand Battle?
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2014 18:46
|
|
|
reagan posted:Which Wargame installment would be the best if I was looking to play single player? AirLand Battle? There is a good goonmade LP about it. It is linked on the OP. Check it out and see if you like it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2014 18:49
|
|
|
reagan posted:Which Wargame installment would be the best if I was looking to play single player? AirLand Battle? Combat Mission
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2014 18:51
|
|
|
Michaellaneous posted:There is a good goonmade LP about it. It is linked on the OP. Check it out and see if you like it. Requires archives, but I have seen LPs of European Escalation and I think I'd like it. At this point should a person just stick with the latest installment or is there a reason to buy the first two?
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2014 18:55
|
|
|
reagan posted:Requires archives, but I have seen LPs of European Escalation and I think I'd like it. At this point should a person just stick with the latest installment or is there a reason to buy the first two? EE is the only one with scripted story campaigns, but from what I recall they're basically unplayable now because they never edited them after all the balance patches leading to impossible matchups.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2014 18:59
|
|
|
Mr Luxury Yacht posted:EE is the only one with scripted story campaigns, but from what I recall they're basically unplayable now because they never edited them after all the balance patches leading to impossible matchups. EE: Scripted, campaign based SP where your units in each campaign would retain losses and veterancy throughout that campaign. I think there were like 4 total campaigns? Hob Gadling did an excellent LP of them. However right around the time of his LP, there was a patch to the game meant to update the balance in multiplayer; in the process it made single-player essentially unplayable due to (among other things) ATGM fingers of death. ALB: "dynamic" campaign, marred by intractably bad AI that cheats and makes terrible decisions. At easier difficulty levels it will literally sit and do nothing for tens of minutes before maybe lightly probing your defenses. At harder difficulty levels, it just sends hordes of tanks at you while artillery sniping your valuable units and CVs because the computer cheats and knows exactly where you are and what you have. RD: Dynamic campaign in which you get a bit more flexibility for how to situate your troops compared to ALB; AI is still terrible but slightly less so than ALB. Definitely more tolerable than ALB, otherwise not hugely different.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2014 19:27
|
|
|
I would not recommend buying any Wargame for the single-player experience.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2014 19:59
|
|
|
I legit like the Red Dragon campaigns. The AI isn't good in individual battles but it can still be challenging to win the campaigns, as they're much more about conserving units over multiple days of combat. It's also really satisfying to destroy enemy battalions.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2014 20:08
|
|
|
Shanakin posted:You realise the MIG-23 MLD is as much as an oddball for redfor as it is for bluefor's (better) clone, the F16b30 right? It's an oddball, but it's also part of the Soviet deck which has everything else you need. The F16b30 is in the Korean deck which isn't quite as good. Regarding the Korea/Japan deck tanks, I agree they have decent high end and good low end tanks, but high end availability isn't that amazing. That kinda throws things off. Mostly it's the lack of any good artillery that I dislike. quote:
Yes, you can theoretically do a good push if you do A B C followed by X Y Z assuming that the cluster artillery doesn't take out/panic too many tanks or they aren't just throwing MLDs to take out your airstrikes or napalm artillery (remember they can do 2 x grads plus a burrito pretty easily, so you need a lot of micro there). There are all sorts of things you can do to try to counter redfor abilities. The problem is that to beat your push or promote his own the Soviet player has better tools and has to do a lot less things at once. What it all comes down to is, player skill being equal, a Soviet or Czech player pushing into a Blufor has a lot better chance of winning than a Blufor pushing into a Soviet or Czech. And veterancy is important, but high accuracy IR missiles means that you need lower skill pilots to get a hit, which means you can go for higher availability. In these days of crazy AA, being able to take a loss or two counts for as much as veterancy. Adventure Pigeon fucked around with this message at 20:33 on Aug 6, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2014 20:23
|
|
|
Higher tier planes have lower veterancy and/or availability, so not necessarily. For instance, compare the following: British Tornado F.2 cost: 110 best availability: 2 at elite missile accuracy: 50% (+32%) ECM: 30% American F16 Block 52 cost: 160 best availability: 2 at trained missile accuracy: 60% (+8%) ECM: 40% The Tornado F.2 is worse in several respects, but clearly accuracy is not it's problem. Seems like a very cost effective buy to me.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2014 21:22
|
|
|
Mukip posted:Higher tier planes have lower veterancy and/or availability, so not necessarily. For instance, compare the following: You're reading accuracy wrong. The bonus is multiplicative, not additive, so the tornado F.2 is has 66% accuracy, while the F16 has 64.8% accuracy after bonuses at the listed availabilities. There are two relevant comparisons with the F.2. The Warsaw pact MiG 23ML and the Soviet MLD. The Soviet MLD has higher accuracy, slightly slower speed, the same availability, and costs 20 points less. The biggest difference is the lack of 7000m missiles. The Warsaw pact MLD is almost identical to the F.2 in missile loadout, just a bit slower, and costs 10 points less.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2014 23:05
|
|
|
Soviet power I get, but what makes a Czech deck so powerful?
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2014 23:09
|
|
|
Today's little patch:quote:Campaigns :
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2014 23:19
|
|
|
Minenfeld! posted:Soviet power I get, but what makes a Czech deck so powerful? It's not so much the Czech as it is the warsaw pact. They have good high end tanks, cluster artillery, napalm artillery, good mid range fighters (which I'm seeing a lot of), and overall good flexibility. My big argument is that it's hard to find a hole in the Soviet and Warsaw pact decks, aside from the mid range tank issue which is part of the whole atgms vs improved armor and accuracy thing that soviet vs NATO has going. With NATO decks, it seems like there's almost always a hole or two in them. Certainly, I don't think any NATO deck has napalm artillery, unlike the Soviet deck where not only can you buy two grads, you can throw a burratino in the vehicle slot as well.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2014 23:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 00:10 |
|
|
Their infantry pricing for anything quick pretty much starts at usurious. They don't have much raw atgm power from ground units. Their infantry is structured so that good anti-infantry per point infantry and the ability to deal with armor well are pretty much never on the same unit or particularly cheap or easily available. I run a lot of infantry and I'd kill for pgren 90 or fsj 90. Lstr 40 are good but specialists and really expensive.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2014 00:03
|
|
