|
OctaMurk posted:Something I notice a lot of people don't do is re-use their helicopters--you can send your helos back to the spawn and land them to pick up infantry that spawns in slow tracked transports. I'm sure a lot of people will complain that "it's too much micro" or "you don't save any time because you have to take the troops and put them in the helos" or whatever, but they're wrong. It really doesn't take that much extra work, and is still quite a bit faster than tracked transports despite having to move the troops into the helos, and gives you a lot of flexibility. It's not something you're going to do every game or even regularly, but it's an important option to have that I think people ignore or discount when it could make a difference. If it's an unarmed transport helo, I find it way more helpful to use them as a suicide scout. If it's got a minigun or better (but not rockets), I keep them behind my lines to use for taking out incursions from enemy helos without needing to commit as many AA helos. A couple of Phrogs or Blackhawks can lay waste to a rush of MD-500/AH-6s. Or they can be suicided as scouts; or they can be used to make MANPADS or SAMs waste their ammo. Obviously anything with rockets should be held onto and used as a proper gunship (Panthers come immediately to mind). quote:Not a bad idea to pick up injured squads and bring them back to a supply helo either, I've done the whole CASEVAC thing (makes me feel like a good general who cares about his men also). Also picking up troops that have been "left behind" because the front-line moved forwards, and moving them forwards or laterally to a weaker flank. Seriously people, re-use your transports; not just transport helos but also even Humvees or whatever. You save a ton of points when you re-use infantry--if you pick up and re-use say, four squads, that's easily 100+ points saved--i.e, almost a heavy tank, or a helo, or a plane, or a heavy SAM. Major problem to this is that an area with injured squads will rarely be safe enough for you to casevac a transport helo in, and even if you do get them on board, you risk the squad being wiped out by a passing SPAAG that looks at the helo the wrong way. Basically, if you can get a transport helo in, you could have gotten a supply helo or supply truck in to reinforce them in place, with less risk.
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2014 01:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2024 02:42 |
|
|
OctaMurk posted:On Deck Talk, here's a Soviet deck I've been playing lately, still refining it. But the Mi8T/TV/MTV rockets are good enough that they should be shooting things. Attack with enough of them and you can easily kill SPAAGs, which is pretty much the priority for Air assault decks, as once their 1-2 SPAAGS are out of action your Hinds and bombers can go to town on everything else until they are replaced. The way I see it you pay a premium for Soviet transport helicopters so you might as well use their extra fighting ability/Strength. You don't take the Mi24VP? Those Kokon-M are great, fast travel time and reload. OctaMurk posted:Not a bad idea to pick up injured squads and bring them back to a supply helo either, I've done the whole CASEVAC thing (makes me feel like a good general who cares about his men also). Just park the resupply helo close enough that you can resupply into the town, then warp your squads back during lulls in the fighting. This is pretty important if you split your infantry into single sticks, because they only have 6 RPGs each, which quickly get used up and can leave you stranded, and can confuse incoming bombing runs/artillery. It also has the advantage of refilling your IR AA, which I tend to embed into the towns. This overcomes the main disadvantage of the underrated BRDM2 Strela-1m, which is the only way to pair 100/150kmph speed with IR AA. Think of it like the Avenger for US airborne. Here's my current airborne deck  and a recent replay http://alb-replays.info/rdbeta/php/api.php?download=661 Flaky fucked around with this message at 09:04 on Aug 14, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2014 01:53
|
|
|
Pro Tip: Instead of resupplying directly from a Chinook or Mi-6, leave a few trucks there to fill up from the helicopter so your chopper spends less time in danger.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2014 02:15
|
|
|
DOCTOR ZIMBARDO posted:Pro Tip: Instead of resupplying directly from a Chinook or Mi-6, leave a few trucks there to fill up from the helicopter so your chopper spends less time in danger. Works especially well if you're lucky enough to have armored supply trucks.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2014 02:38
|
|
|
OctaMurk posted:On Deck Talk, here's a Soviet deck I've been playing lately, still refining it. I would lose a plane (su 25), and use the five points on another card of command units and another vehicle card. I'd probably switch out the VDV for a different infantry unit. For the new vehicle/infantry, your deck seems to lack (ground) ATGMs and might need more oomph for an infantry push, so I'd pick moto90 in BMP3s with flame tanks, or motos in BMPDs with BTR90s.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2014 02:54
|
|
|
Azran posted:Hey, so, I never played with ships during the beta. What would be the ideal Navy tab composition for a normal game? ASW missile planes for fighting ships. Otherwise boats that actually help with the land war rather than spending 500 points to be the round's dick fencing champion. Po Hangs don't do well against ships, but they have two deck guns that shred soft enemies near the coast. STRBs are fast recon riverboats with hellfires and grenade launchers. Zippo monitors are slow but tough, dirt cheap and pack a bunch of autocannons and a flamethrower. Monitor 105s are passable artillery that doesn't use the support tab and takes half an hour of nonstop firing to run out of shells. They had a ludicrously oversized splash radius a while back but I imagine it was fixed at some point. Grab a couple of cards of rookies and party like it's 1917. Redfor I haven't used naval as much but they've got lots of AA gunboats and a couple of rocket artillery boats. Their supply boats are also literal floating FOBs. If you go with amphibious units, remember that they don't get deck bonuses for XP but they're also not affected by deck restrictions. Soviet landing craft are more expensive but come with a dinky rocket artillery. You also don't actually need these units to launch an amphibious attack. Ground units with amphibious move can also use naval spawn points.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2014 05:05
|
|
|
Flaky posted:
This is an interesting build, but have you run into anyone yet who just fields nothing but layered AA once they realize you have no tanks? I see you have a lot of SEAD and everything, but I still feel I can make you hit a brick wall once the MiG-25 is gone because Su-24s are not difficult to shoot down and Ka-52s are still limited by LoS like ground units. It feels very focused on SEAD and the cheap clusters. I guess the better question is have you actually had to push someone out of a position with this deck instead of just playing defensively after helo rushing something? Also, Octa, I'd recommend trying the MiG-29S in place of the Su-24M, you get slightly less bomb coverage but you get 40% ECM for 135 points. It's a better bomber at the role then even the ANZAC F/A-18s. Mazz fucked around with this message at 05:33 on Aug 14, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2014 05:17
|
|
|
Mazz posted:This is an interesting build, but have you run into anyone yet who just fields nothing but layered AA once they realize you have no tanks? I see you have a lot of SEAD and everything, but I still feel I can make you hit a brick wall once the MiG-25 is gone because Su-24s are not difficult to shoot down and Ka-52s are still limited by LoS like ground units. It feels very focused on SEAD and the cheap clusters. The key is to stop them from focusing on your (relatively fragile) initial advantage. Players will bomb you in response to you rushing the town, so you have to one-up them by shooting the bomber down on the first pass, and for that you need lots of speedy AA that can be in position on time (Mi-24v, Igla-N, BRDM2 Strela-1m, plus adequate fighter cover). This is what is so great about the Mig-29 variants, being multirole, reasonably cheap and quite survivable. Doing things like attacking AA with lots of 'spare' Mi-8s, maybe a Hind in support, sure you might lose it if their micro is good, but you probably won't and that is just one more thing wearing down their AA capability. If they spam cheap AA you can respond with cheap SEAD, cheap clusters, the NONA and Grads which can be used to stun or kill lightly armoured AA. Or just punch them in the face with more VDV. SEAD is really just a precaution, but it has to be available at two different price/quality points, one for radar AAA and one for long range missiles. I rarely use the Ka-52. You can definitely attack, which also helps to distract them from recapturing the town. Unless your opponent manages to regain initiative, eventually you just stop worrying about reinforcing the town/defensive point and focus on using your aircraft and attack helicopters or organising airborne flanking attacks/CV hunting. The deck isn't some sort of super gimmick, you can definitely beat it if you bring enough AA and take it apart piece by piece. By the time they are done dealing with the town/flank attacks it is usually too late to recover though. That replay is a reasonable example. Flaky fucked around with this message at 10:09 on Aug 14, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2014 08:50
|
|
|
I think rocket helicopters are more useful if you keep them around rather than suicide them; mine sometimes even live long enough to go back to a FOB. After the choppers have dropped off their troops, a lot of people seem to just throw them away in kamikaze attacks for little gain, but if you wait for an opportunity to use them after dealing with the opposing AA they are pretty handy. Furthermore, people often go all or nothing with helicopters, but they are useful even if you aren't rushing. For Soviets, Gornostrelki 90 in a Mi-17 are pretty good for just bringing on normally like any other unit; the extra HE power of the MI-17 means they work just fine when used singly. Generally, air rushing to grab territory has been superseded by highly vetted armoured & mechanized decks. A lot of tryhards won't even try to stop you from getting to a sector first, they are happy to let the opponent overspend on expensive helicopters & planes while they field a much larger ground force. I think the only good marine/airborne deck is USA because they also have some decent regular units beyond the things you normally expect in those decks and bring loads of AGM planes.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2014 09:57
|
|
|
Azran posted:Hey, so, I never played with ships during the beta. What would be the ideal Navy tab composition for a normal game? For Blufor you want the La Fayette, for Redfor you want the Hujian (I think it's called that, it's one of the Chinese frigates that's actually good). Then you want the 4-missile planes and possibly the F-15/Su-27 for multi-purpose. Having some good riverboats can be handy depending on the map. The Swedish one for Blufor. Redfor just use whatever, none of them are great. Don't bother with the expensive ships (Udaloy, Kongo etc.) unless you're using a Marine deck and your team expects you to handle all of the naval fighting. Remember to put most of your ships broadside to the enemy, as that'll let them use the most CIWS.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2014 11:51
|
|
|
Yeah, I can definitely see how it works, just kinda curious about the details. The 24V helped the rest of the deck come together, and s-13s have always been real dangerous when people understood how valuable the helos can be past moving the infantry. It's a shame the USSR doesn't have something like the Sprut-SD available instead of the zhalos. Can you put Gorno in that deck? Might be worth having a bit more denial ability past the konkurs. Mazz fucked around with this message at 14:07 on Aug 14, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2014 14:05
|
|
|
Tbh it's not really worth it. It is what it is, a mediocre deck built around 24AP RPGs. Still more fun than my Mech deck that is played the gently caress out. Is it just me or is the player pool generally worse than in ALB?
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2014 14:10
|
|
|
Am I wrong to assume that EE is more of a sim while Red Dragon is more arcadey for the sake of gameplay?
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2014 16:29
|
|
|
reagan posted:Am I wrong to assume that EE is more of a sim while Red Dragon is more arcadey for the sake of gameplay? Yeah, EE didnt have any features that made it more simlike so far as I can see.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2014 16:40
|
|
|
reagan posted:Am I wrong to assume that EE is more of a sim while Red Dragon is more arcadey for the sake of gameplay? Not really. The games play more or less the same, its just that the sequels have more units and quality of life improvements.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2014 19:24
|
|
|
OctaMurk posted:Yeah, EE didnt have any features that made it more simlike so far as I can see. EE included things like frontal of armour only being applied in the first 30/45? degrees, anything greater and hits were registering against side armour values. Not fixed to 90 degrees till ALB. They're different as they've made improvements and made things more discrete but i'm not sure you can describe EE as more simlike when EE artillery was all HE and now you have flame/he/ap arty.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2014 00:41
|
|
|
EE also explicitly painted the landscape to look like the fake grass of tabletop wargaming. It could be called a 'sim' not of 'cold war'but of 'tabletop games.'
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2014 01:33
|
|
|
The last two posts are more what I meant. Bad choice of words on my part.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2014 18:00
|
|
|
Which reminds me, I'm redownloading EE just to see how far we've come since then. We should play a match or something. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2014 19:28
|
|
|
I am terrible, but maybe we could. I don't have any microphone or anything, though. E: This Ramstein mission is some primo bullshit. reagan fucked around with this message at 20:47 on Aug 15, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2014 20:08
|
|
|
reagan posted:I am terrible, but maybe we could. I don't have any microphone or anything, though. The single player of EE is pretty garbage now because the multiplayer patches changed the unit balance completely. I really wish they could release a patch that brought it back to release state because those campaigns were pretty fun whn they made more sense.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2014 21:24
|
|
|
Yeah, is this what several of you guys were talking about? I've had a few tough missions before this in the first Soviet campaign, but this is above and beyond. I understand that anti-tank missiles should destroy tanks in real life, but for the sake of game balance it just seems like a bad decision to have missiles that one shot most tanks consistently.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2014 21:48
|
|
|
Against humans you can use smoke, misdirection, and concealment as well as either shelling the ATGMs or bypassing the area completely. No idea if this works in the campaign though.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2014 21:53
|
|
|
StashAugustine posted:Against humans you can use smoke, misdirection, and concealment as well as either shelling the ATGMs or bypassing the area completely. No idea if this works in the campaign though. Smoke in EE? But yes, most of the problems I am having arise from the fact I'm playing single player. I'll shut up if you guys want to keep the thread strictly Red Dragon. I'm just waiting for the next sale to pick it up.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2014 22:02
|
|
|
There's no smoke in EE. It was an ALB innovation. I have a vague memory of EE's balance actually being pretty good by the last patch. I think they buffed medium tanks so they were better or something. It's funny now that I think about it. Every game in the series has needed a "buff medium tanks" patch to make them viable. You'd think Eugen would have learned by the end of AlB.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2014 06:01
|
|
|
In ALB they were well aware that most tanks were useless; they just didn't feel the need to fix them. They thought it was fine for T-80U tanks to dominate every battle in ALB, because they were "supposed to be good" or something like that; ignoring that it was an out-of-timeframe prototype so it was hardly fair for the opposition. RD's tank changes were more of a grudging response to the playerbase, which has of course improved Red Dragon considerably. They also have weird attitudes to where they devote their efforts; they would say that tanks were too much effort to sort out in ALB and then a couple months later they'd come out with a large patch consisting of hundreds of petty changes. There's another set of changes they want to work on right now that nobody asked for or cares about; something about tank optics. That's not to say that they never listen to community feedback, and they've consistently done a lot of post-game support for the Wargame franchise over the years, but it seems to be very scatterbrained.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2014 06:42
|
|
|
Mukip posted:In ALB they were well aware that most tanks were useless; they just didn't feel the need to fix them. They thought it was fine for T-80U tanks to dominate every battle in ALB, because they were "supposed to be good" or something like that; ignoring that it was an out-of-timeframe prototype so it was hardly fair for the opposition. RD's tank changes were more of a grudging response to the playerbase, which has of course improved Red Dragon considerably. They also have weird attitudes to where they devote their efforts; they would say that tanks were too much effort to sort out in ALB and then a couple months later they'd come out with a large patch consisting of hundreds of petty changes. There's another set of changes they want to work on right now that nobody asked for or cares about; something about tank optics. That's not to say that they never listen to community feedback, and they've consistently done a lot of post-game support for the Wargame franchise over the years, but it seems to be very scatterbrained. This in turn has led to a weird "Oh USSR tanks are SUPPOSED to be best" and "Oh NATO planes are SUPPOSED to be best" mindset that comes up in balancing now and then (as I'm sure you know :P) that just kind of leads to the current weird situation where nobody seems to have a unified mindset on what things should be changed, or what the end-goal should be. Getting those new Marshalls on board was a loving good move though at least. They've had a ton of solid feedback so far I dare say. And didnt the tank optics get canned? It was more of a "hey what would you all think if we implemented this?" thing, and everyone shot it down as being unnecessary and trying to fix a non-existant problem :P Agreed on the final point though, its just been a really inconsistent focus thats missed just as much as its hit and led to some loving weird situations.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2014 06:53
|
|
|
Or how about the official policy of "the NSWP exists to be a punching bag" from ALB? That was so dumb.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2014 07:00
|
|
|
Xerxes17 posted:Or how about the official policy of "the NSWP exists to be a punching bag" from ALB? That was so dumb. Triaging sections of the game as "not actually something we're going to fix" is probably the closest thing thye've ever come to anything resembling 'editing' or even 'admitting they've bitten off more than they can chew,' and probably the least dumb thing i've seen them do. A wiser studio would have completely removed NSWP or never have made them in the first place, but this is the studio we have.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2014 07:10
|
|
|
Xerxes17 posted:Or how about the official policy of "the NSWP exists to be a punching bag" from ALB? That was so dumb. Yeah this is a very noticeable part of the whole hit/miss balancing mindset. I think the NSWP patch helped though in making them much more competitive, and hopefully the same behavior will happen in the Scandinavian DLC.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2014 07:10
|
|
|
Tulip posted:Triaging sections of the game as "not actually something we're going to fix" is probably the closest thing thye've ever come to anything resembling 'editing' or even 'admitting they've bitten off more than they can chew,' and probably the least dumb thing i've seen them do. A wiser studio would have completely removed NSWP or never have made them in the first place, but this is the studio we have. Honestly, I kinda agree here. Plus they could play it up as a MASSIVE DLC release when they do fix or bring the faction up to RD standards (current NSWP as an example here) instead of just a small one. Word it right and you could make it a "Free faction DLC wink wink" sort of thing.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2014 07:14
|
|
|
Ostensibly, it was a logical point; the Soviets were stronger then East Germany. But when the gameplay involved your army being one recon jeep, one T-80U and four divisional anti-aircraft assets then there was clearly more to it than that. NSWP was actually pretty viable in ranked 1v1, but that was because in a 1v1 you didn't have the points to spend on sugar-coating your heavy tanks with layered defences.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2014 07:16
|
|
|
quote:Po Hangs don't do well against ships,
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2014 07:37
|
|
|
Tulip posted:Triaging sections of the game as "not actually something we're going to fix" is probably the closest thing thye've ever come to anything resembling 'editing' or even 'admitting they've bitten off more than they can chew,' and probably the least dumb thing i've seen them do. A wiser studio would have completely removed NSWP or never have made them in the first place, but this is the studio we have. Why would you want them to remove NSWP? As it stands they're pretty good and honestly they could have been alright back in ALB with only some really minor changes (slightly better AA really). I never quite understood Eugen's reaction to the "buff NSWP" requests. I think they thought that what everyone wanted was for each nation to be every bit as good as the USSR and US and they recognized that that was neither possible nor realistic, but honestly nobody was asking for that. It was more about small things like letting IR AA actually outrange the things that they're supposed to kill so that they could do their job and protect ground units etc. I think contrary to Eugen's beliefs most of the playerbase knows full well that some nations are always going to be better than others, and are OK with that. What's frustrating is when nations end up being way worse than they need to be for no particularly good reason, and when reasonably small suggestions about how to improve them a little get rejected out of hand because the devs seem to think that any concessions in this regard will lead to some sort of slippery slope where players end up outranged because cat B Polish motorised can't beat a US deck or whatever. That said the DLC has been a bit step in the right direction.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2014 14:39
|
|
|
quote:...frustrating is when nations end up being way worse than they need to be for no particularly good reason... I think this is an outgrowth of players not understanding why countries like the US and USSR are stronger than their allies and Eugen's insistence of "flavoring" the nations in game by selective roster pruning. Players seem to think that a superpower means you have a full range of weaponry that covers all roles and that the allies should have massive gaps in their rosters because not being a superpower makes your army forget how to have things like HE bombs or manpads. The ability to project power world-wide and having a wealth and variety of high-end units is the hallmark of a superpower, not having figured out the arcane technology of HE bombing. At the scale this game takes place, power projection isn't going to be a factor.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2014 15:35
|
|
|
Yeah, I've seen threads on the official forums where more or less sensible suggestions about how to make x nation a little stronger get pounced upon by posters because "the game is balanced around superpowers and coalitions" and if Eugen implemented the suggestion then nation x would be at risk of actually being competitive with the superpowers. I guess in Eugen's defense it's hard when you've got players like that. Plenty of them are only interested in using whatever the current top tier deck is, whether that's mixed NATO, USSR or eurocorps and reject any suggestions that maybe a bit of dev time should be spent making other decks more interesting and viable. Then you've got the nationalists who basically want their own country to be borderline overpowered but couldn't give a poo poo about any other nation in the game. There are plenty of posters who take the "I just want as many nations as possible to be fun and interesting to play as" line, but sadly I think they're still a minority and tend to get lost in the crowd.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2014 16:03
|
|
|
Realistically, considering just how bad Eugen is at balancing on a basic conceptual level (such as doing one-big-patch over iterative work) saying you want all nations to be balanced is doing more harm than good. Only Coalitions and National US/USSR being balanced is a somewhat achievable goal - every national or even worse (what some pubbies on the Eugen forums are whining for) every national with every sub-specialization being viable is a pipedream that'll never happen.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2014 16:27
|
|
|
Full national balance died with coalitions as well, they basically went that route since it cut down on the assets they would have to add. They also don't reuse variants within a nation, its always some name/variant requirement like the yak-38 and 38M. Is a weird rule but they've stuck to it, and hence nations like Denmark get 1-2 F-16 variants instead of 3-4 with decent loadout options. Looking back I wish instead of getting Japan, Australia and Korea they just finished up the NATO options they already had in. There's very little in those decks that's original/organic (we can give AMRAAM F-16s to anybody), unlike what the Chinese brought to PACT. We got 500 units in RD, but the actual list just feels kind of bland and dumb because its so spread out. I completely understand the catering to a large audience, especially in Asia, but RD always felt to me like they tried to widen the scope without really thinking everything through. The dynamic terrain and ships being the biggest aspect, they had to exist even though the games camera/scale don't really allow them to work.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2014 17:35
|
|
|
Mazz posted:I completely understand the catering to a large audience, especially in Asia, but RD always felt to me like they tried to widen the scope without really thinking everything through. The dynamic terrain and ships being the biggest aspect, they had to exist even though the games camera/scale don't really allow them to work. well noted on the terrain in particular, thats something I've never really voiced my annoyance over. Terraced maps kind of... were a necessity.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2014 19:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2024 02:42 |
|
|
I imagine marketing departments respond much better to having NEW SHINY SHIPS to sell than to relatively unshiny roster expansions and new nations. I imagine they also did tests where they asked people whether ships were an interesting selling point or not. On the note of national/coalition balance, I've long thought that the way availability national bonuses works is really screwed. For example before the DLC East Germany only had 3 cards of motoschutzen even in full mech decks. But you do get 'free' availability of stuff which is what made the old Cat C Gimmick decks so overpowered with Tomcat spam and such. Eugens solution has been to steadily trim bonuses and cards to fix the problem in a really clunky way. It woulda been a lot better if they just did like... reduced cards available of everything, coalition decks get +1 cards available, nationals get +2 cards available, strip all percentage availability bonuses. Protos only get card bonuses in appropriate deck types. Stuff like that.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2014 20:21
|
|