|
Control Volume posted:So while you're bringing counters to their initial force, they're bringing more advanced units and counters to your initial force, and you're both still making blind decisions on what units to cram into the center until you can get a vision net set up; in practice it's just drawing out the initial rush without addressing the complaints. I get what you're saying but keep in mind that i'm not just advocating low resource games, i'm advocating a refund scheme. That means that the side that won the initial engagement has most of it's points tied up in the probably damaged and depleted units on the map, while the side that lost can mount a counterattack after the refund kicks in having decent idea what's there. Then the main advantage of the initial winner is that he gets the conquest points until the next skirmish, and he can continue to advance and move the line up, because if he just stays where he is at a disadvantage. Mange Mite posted:Starting unit budgets are set by the game mode, all they would need to do is set the number lower as many servers already do. Income and starting cash are already separate variables, why bother with a confusing mechanic? In a fixed income scheme the initial skirmish is pretty decisive because any unit lost means a permanent, irrecoverable disadvantage for the rest of the game. A refund scheme allows the economy to 'reset' after each skirmish and allows the side that lost to try again on an equal footing. The price for losing the engagement is losing the conquest points for the time it takes to refund + travel time, there is no need to also force them to play at a point disadvantage. Attacking in a equal size fixed point scheme is always going to be a bad idea, defense is inherently favorable tactically. What happens right now in Wargame is that the initial winner gets both a points advantage and gets to defend going forward, which is more or less insurmountable for an equal level opponent. Red Dragon tried to remedy it by making defense less advantageous tactically, but i think the answer lies more into making the offense advantageous strategically. You could even go further and have the side that holds less ground get a higher point cap, that may even end up with interesting stuff like purposely letting the enemy cap with only token contest so you can counterattack in force and overrun him, but that's hard to determine without playtesting. Kafouille fucked around with this message at 19:19 on Nov 28, 2015 |
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 18:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 17:34 |
|
|
Oh I missed the refund part, yeah I could see that making the game a lot more fun.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 19:16
|
|
|
It's not even particularly novel, as i said World in Conflict worked and as far as i can tell everybody loved that poo poo. Massive more or less invented the non base building RTS after all way back then with Ground Control, they were pretty good at it. Now they make phone games and Tom Clancy poo poo 
Kafouille fucked around with this message at 19:25 on Nov 28, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 19:21
|
|
|
Kafouille posted:Attacking in a equal size fixed point scheme is always going to be a bad idea, defense is inherently favorable tactically. There are lots of areas where the terrain limits the defender's advantage. There might not be enough cover to protect a larger force, while the attacker has a forest to hide gathering of units. I admit that I'm not the best at Wargame, and I have a tendency to throw away units foolishly. But I find an aggressive play to be personally more effective than a conservative play style. The huge maps means that there's usually an opening or flanking opportunity somewhere.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2015 17:50
|
|
|
You can make the conquest points harder to defend by manipulating the terrain around them, but the winner of the first clash will mostly get the chance to defend from where he wants, so it's rather hard to make a map do it consistently.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2015 18:44
|
|
|
World in Conflicts tug-o-war game mode was pretty interesting way to have come-back built in, if I recall correctly. Was a while since I played that though.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2015 18:52
|
|
|
Blasphemy from the mumble here. I thought I'd like to jump in ( read: sperg out ) on this wargame 4 suggestion train. Personally, of like to see quality of life changes instead of theatre or game formula changes, and here is why. Quality of life changes would apply to a whole bunch of the game's mechanics, but they'd also apply to those who want specific game types. I consider improved modding capability to be a quality of life change, and this would provide people with the ability to make new maps, units, scenarios, themes, and theatres. You want Vietnam? You want WWII? Mod it in. Secondly, I find the most frustrating part of the game is spending so much time on the interface, or fighting with the rules or the game itself. The spotting mechanic in particular. Often I lose my planes when I call them to strike something but it goes invisible, so they just fly over and die to aa. You can argue that staging or base building could change how these conflicts are played, but if the fighting itself is still tedious, is it really worth it? Here are a list of quality of life improvements I'd like to see. Loosely sorted by deck unit hierarchy. Logistics: *FOB: Be able to build a FOB anywhere on the map after the round starts. Can refill a FOB with supply vehicles. Make it start between 0% - 25% of its total supply. If you buy a FOB before game start, it will be full. *Supply vehicles: Be able to send supply vehicles off of the map to refill supply. This allows supply helos to be a real workhorse on large maps. *Supply vehicles: A button to automatically resupply at nearest FOB and then return to last position. Infantry: *When leaving a city block, force them to teleport to the center of the block before being allowed to leave. This should prevent that stupid loving leapfrogging. *When told to enter a city block, fix the pathing to they go there directly instead of roaming around. *If in a 2 block or more and told to attack move, automatically have the two ( or more ) squads perform a suppressing / bounding advance. *Have infantry lock to soft cover under normal move order. If told to fast move, ignore cover. *Laser spotting for artillery guided rounds and guided bombs. Recon: *If a spotted unit loses line of sight, show a ghost unit showing unit ID and their last known position. This is big on the Intel side of things as it forces spotted static units to move. Gives you a better gauge of the enemy force composition after they've hunkered down. If an attack is called before sight is lost, the attack will default to the ghost unit. Armor: *Toggle between barrage fire and free fire. *Tanks with thermals get optics like recon. Ability to have only that unit fire through smoke. *Deploy smoke if ATGM launch is detected by the unit. Give smoke a resupplyable ammo count. *AT countermeasures such as SHTORA and Trophy APS. *Laser warning system. Compass GUI showing source location. Support: *Static support options, towed howitzers, etc. *Static radar installations / EWR. Think clamshell. Big detection range, no offensive ability. *Radar always on like Dave suggested. *Give Tor and Osa ability to shoot down incoming missiles. Helicopters: *Better altitude toggling. *Move at low altitude. *Add a slow flight speed for right click and attack move. Change current flight speed to fast move only. A slower flight speed should mean less erratic pitching, meaning missiles won't be wasted as much. Planes: *Be able to see flight path the jet will take. *Draw the flight path across the terrain like we're in the war room with a red marker. *When dropping bombs on a moving unit, have the jet track the unit and drop it as close as possible to it. Lead if unit is still moving when pickled. Basically just make it so bombing units isn't so loving broken. *Like suggested above, when building a deck, just provide the aircraft and let players choose the loadout. In order to prevent F15C spaamraam builds, have the weapons cost a certain amount, and have them add up in price. An F15 with heaters will cost less than a boat full of slammers. This way, people will finally get the planes they want with the weapons they want. SEAD Frogfoot anyone? SEAD Hornets? F16 with mavs or 4x Paveway II? Amtranik fucked around with this message at 20:17 on Dec 2, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2015 12:21
|
|
|
A 2-round siege gamemode where one side gets to deploy their forces all over the map and place destructible fighting positions would be pretty cool. Score is based on how long you can hold out, then you switch sides to compare times.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2015 20:53
|
|
|
Amtranik posted:
e: oh nevermind.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2015 06:23
|
|
|
Amtranik posted:*Static radar installations / EWR. Think clamshell. Big detection range, no offensive ability. To that, I'd go with a different solution. Radars should turn off their radars automatically but only if they are in the range of an ARM-equipped unit and the time it takes them to turn it off and on depends on experience.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2015 10:26
|
|
|
I'd love a movement modifier hotkey such that when held, and issuing a movement order, all units in the group will move at the same speed.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2015 10:38
|
|
|
I've been playing 10v10 tacticals with some success recently. The advantage is that you're less prone to the information overload that is so much a part of Wargame, the disadvantage is that if you get all your men killed, you're out for a long time. I usually play as pact because I find the easiest way to start a 10v10 is to hop onto a server as pact and then fool around with decks for 10minutes. When people jump on a server with an empty redfor, they seem to assume the blue team is stacked and jump out again. I usually play around a start with a couple of ATGMs and AA infantry along with a recon inf and as many cheap recon vehicles as possible. Sometimes if I have little confidence in a team, I buy a buk or a fighter, but this puts a severe crimp in your other capabilities. I try and stake a area with lots of hedgerows if possible. It makes a good complement to the infantry or armour decks that most people bring. Once the game is on, it's very hard to buy expensive stuff, so cheap, effective things like the 30pt mortars are very handy.  tPgKy6F5HOwrG5Zkwgvqk6eLuErUyaBVUckySRJMC6hM1CWlITPpolIBiVPEnzTxoqEf6cyOSnJjiJy3H6K8 Still ironing out the kinks with this one, which is an attempt to get more konkurs available. With so few ATGMs available, getting regular logistics is an absolute must. Luckily, I've only been blocked from using a FOB once, so one of my own isn't really necessary. This deck loves eating a nice expensive recon helicopter for breakfast. Also people who send blocks of mech infantry or mid level tanks in. Players who buy a top level tank and micro it are tougher, I usually feign a retreat and try ambush them.  sogW6Tq10qdjphqZYFWo6DwRJNzEGUyE+fbRU7pTZ9mbEQNjFD3UaKhGMmjSPIolWad5iWjNZnMj2H7aJs8wXTwp4k78s6Rk5TSDooE5gb4t6XLTiA==  Here's a typical starting battlegroup. It's a bit like playing a company commander in a large battle. I try and deny a command zone, If I'm successful then I can either try capture it, or set up a defense and help out in another zone. http://alb-replays.info/rdbeta/php/api.php?download=1904 Replay from the other night where we come back from losing everything but the spawn, also notable for me waiting to reinforce instead of capturing a completely empty zone, then folding completely when the opposition finally turns up! Hey, I never claimed I'm a good player and it was a valuble lesson. 
Jaguars! fucked around with this message at 10:22 on Dec 9, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2015 10:11
|
|
|
Patch notes for Map Pack 2 up:Eugen posted:---------------------------------------------- I'm happy about the ADATS buff...but did they really need to slash it's availability to 4?
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2015 01:40
|
|
|
The Mirage 5F has needed that price buff literally since ALB came out.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2015 01:54
|
|
|
Their continued support of Red Dragon gives me hope for Wargame 4. Any news on Uralgraznomod?
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2015 17:55
|
|
|
There's an update in the works, but most of the work is being done by other members of the team.... Xerxes and I are a tad burnt out on it most of the time. Last I checked most of the work was in the form of reworking airforces. Aircraft load-outs etc. There was also some bug that was being a pain to track down with missiles though.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2015 19:13
|
|
|
Yeah I don't know if I updated you on it but that bug was fixed by making AGMs more maneuverable. I haven't had the opportunity to do much of anything because I've been busy with work, but the new version is probably 95% done. The main focus has been on planes, the goal being to promote more variety by fixing Eugen's retarded availability system (that punishes you for taking better planes) and introducing new options to replace ones that were redundant or irredeemably bad, either by changing their loadout or recycling lovely units into new ones. Availability was redone with two rules in mind: a) no plane should have rookie veterancy and b) elite veterancy should be heavily restricted. ASFs now generally come at hardened and veteran levels (only the high-end 50% ECM planes are Elite, but they only have one card now), making them very cost-effective but also extremely specialized. Same goes for ground attackers, though they are generally at lower levels to prevent one-click tank removal. There are also multiroles, planes whose loadouts allow for both air superiority and ground attack missions (think MiG-29S or Su-27M in vanilla). These are now cheaper, albeit with the tradeoff of having worse veterancy than specialized planes (thus being worse at ASFing than real ASFs and worse at ground attack than real ground attackers). So by taking a multirole you trade in-game cost efficiency for better card efficiency, getting a two-mission plane in one deck slot. Here's a comprehensive list that shows every plane in the game along with its veterancy: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1-32yjT7goePLBfP9NzMXDzEp9Fjhe6NL-mTbRZNiums/edit#gid=1111791682 The overarching principle we've tried to follow is that no unit should be a "no-brainer" whether by virtue of being too good to pass up or too bad to ever take. Aside from that, I've changed some loadouts to plug roster holes or get rid of reduncancies. The Soviets now get a MiG-29A in place of one of their crappy Fishbeds, it carries S-8 rockets and R-73s and serves the role of a budget multirole. The US now gets iron bombs on the F/A-18A and AGMs on the F-16C, as well as GBU-12 LGBs on the F-16C Block 52. Czechs get a MiG-21-93 that can perform both SEAD and ASF missions and Red Dragons get some additional bombers migrated over from the naval tab. ANZAC has a fighter variant of the Hornet now as well. We've also reworked factions a little bit. NORAD and SOVKOR are gone, replaced by AFNORTH Northern Norway (UK + Norway) and CHOPOL (Poland + NK). Bonuses have been adjusted too; the USA and USSR no longer receive any availability bonus. Coalitions now get 10%, and national decks are grouped into three tiers between 20% and 40%, depending on how strong we feel they are. You can see details on the sheet I linked above as well. Another cool thing we've figured out how to do is three-weapon loadouts on planes:   The gun is hidden now (since its stats aren't very important unless it's a GAU-8 or something) but still functional. This is still pretty new but it's an exciting development, since it lets us do cool things like the Russian three-missile loadout or add more multiroles with MRAAM capability without turning them into disgusting, overpowered monsters with four long range missiles. As you can also probably see, modeling the third weapon still hasn't been solved either, and Eugen have not made it easy. Edit: Oh yeah, also Cat B and C are now set in 1991 and 1986 respectively. This way a Cat C lobby lets you play a classic mid-80s game similar to ALB, while a Cat B lobby lets you play Red Dragon without any post-cold war units. This feature is only implemented for UK, US and USSR but it'll be extended to other factions in the future. RangerPL fucked around with this message at 09:04 on Dec 14, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2015 08:53
|
|
|
Hot drat those changes are awesome, I'm really impressed with you guys.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2015 10:54
|
|
|
Did norad and sovkor go because US and USSR are actually fully capable now? Also I might finally be getting a reasonable amount of time off work if it'd be worth getting me up to speed.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2015 14:20
|
|
|
xthetenth posted:Did norad and sovkor go because US and USSR are actually fully capable now? Yes, also because they made balancing a nightmare. Based on tests aand earlier versions there was overwhelming agreement that the superpowers are now top dogs so those coalitions no longer made any sense. Plus the new ones are a lot more interesting. Add rangerpl1322 on steam and I'll get you up to speed. Most of the theorycrafting nowadays is being done by Custard the pubbie and myself, with some occasional input by Xerxes and Shan.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2015 16:52
|
|
|
RangerPL posted:Yes, also because they made balancing a nightmare. Based on tests aand earlier versions there was overwhelming agreement that the superpowers are now top dogs so those coalitions no longer made any sense. Plus the new ones are a lot more interesting. Makes sense, considering the US' main weaknesses were slightly spotty AA picks for certain things and infantry loadouts that could only be considered reasonable by a MadMan and I know for a fact they're fixed. And I'll add you once I get home. I've been out of things enough I'll probably leave most of the fiddly theorycrafting to you guys.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2015 17:39
|
|
|
Is this some mod or a Eugene release?
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2015 17:46
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:Is this some mod or a Eugene release? It's for the mod you once called urzgaburzgamod.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2015 17:51
|
|
|
Urukburznamod -- not my fault you guys don't know a lick of Orkish.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2015 17:55
|
|
|
The Blackest Speech Also, gonna get my campaign mod out soon for its most recent release. Having to do it all by hand in Hob/Enohka's tool, since BGM just doesnt want to cooperate at all. 2nd Korean War will be the first campaign revised, with an added US presence at Day 1 using units stationed their during the period as well as deployment zones/starting areas for units already ingame revised in accordance with their historical basing areas. Also including UK forces who will come in with the French reinforcements, so you'll be getting Chally 2's and Leclercs and Eurofighters with Rafales rather than just the French options. Deployment points increased as well, and pre-battle call in points will be more generously scaled with a 2k minimum up from 1.5k Dandywalken fucked around with this message at 19:34 on Dec 14, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2015 19:31
|
|
|
Is that campaign mod intended for Uralmod or vanilla balance?
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2015 02:40
|
|
|
It's vanilla, but Dandy did say he might help with campaign edits for ural mod at some point.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2015 03:50
|
|
|
RangerPL posted:It's vanilla, but Dandy did say he might help with campaign edits for ural mod at some point. That'd be beautiful.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2015 04:27
|
|
|
Hoo boy it's been a while since i played this game. It ran like poo poo on my computer, so I'd usually get kicked out of the game whenever I got too far behind. Are there any good youtube guys commentating some games, that you guys know of? It would probably be cool to catch up on this game a bit.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2015 18:23
|
|
|
Top 3 wishlist for new Wargame: 1) Make infantry fun to play Now it's just terrible. Once it's out of vehicles it's pretty static, infantry to infantry combat is mashing lumps together until the more Excel-optimized lumps win and too much of the whole thing is hopping in and out of urban sectors. Would you kindly at least add some way of easily mounting everyone back into their APCs for further movement? It's a vehicle engine, either make infantry less important or change the game engine so they don't behave so much like vehicles. And kindly reconsider the relative destructive powers of RPGs in comparison to autocannons, tank guns, ATGM and other heavy weapons. 2) Figure out a fun game mode I hate conquest. The problems of destruction are well known but conquest magnifies the problem of five first minutes to the point it breaks the game. The game mode should be one that starts quietly and ramps up rather than the other way around. Also it's a criminal waste that the game engine has these huge, beautiful maps and you spend the entire game looking at the same loving forest where lumps are mashed against each other. This one makes or breaks the whole experience. 3) Scale the game correctly The game is so obviously a battalion-to-regiment-sized affair a blind man would notice it. Why do I have to micromanage lone tanks pumping in and out of forest edge? Why can't I use the platoon system at all? Why does my lone supertank and two platoons of infantry have an entire division worth of supporting systems in place? I wanted to play around with thirty tanks and a company of infantry. Now I typically have a couple tanks, a bunch of infantry and a stupid amount of support because going without is impossible. AA is the worst example. And while you're at it, fix the indirect fire support which smashes entire battalions of armor effortlessly into puke and paste. A large part of why people only have piddly amounts of force on the field is because it's impossible to mass a large force without creating an excellent target for all sorts of artillery, bombers and whatnot. EE had so much potential I want to cry. Old grog companies put out borderline unplayable poo poo in comparison to Wargame which was easy to pick up, beautiful and smooth to play. I still can't quite believe this ended up being such a mess. I want a game to replace Steel Panthers, goddammit!
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2015 04:36
|
|
|
I know it was always a weird opinion but I still think I had more fun with my USSR deck in destruction 1v1 ranked and 10v10s then I did in all the conquest games that followed. There were a few amazing ones in there but Conquest turned everything into a meat grinder whereas Destruction was WAYYYY more about out thinking people. It was hard as gently caress but it was exactly my poo poo. If they could make up a real game mode that had the good elements of both, it'd probably be my most played game ever. Mazz fucked around with this message at 04:51 on Dec 18, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2015 04:43
|
|
|
Easy fix for a less "mad rush" first 5 minutes: Start everyone with 0 Resources. Add a Card Category that consists of ~4-5 low unit number cards of recon or light assets that are free, and the category is unusable once the game starts.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2015 05:40
|
|
|
I'm tempted to give that a shot via modding. I also agree with hob that the ratio of frontoviks to support is all kinds of hosed.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2015 06:03
|
|
|
I can't get over the lack of + signs in Conquest, even if it's superior to Destruction quality-wise 
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2015 06:03
|
|
|
Xerxes17 posted:I also agree with hob that the ratio of frontoviks to support is all kinds of hosed. Do you mean to say a tank company doesn't have two STRELA , 2 Tunguska, 2 Smerch and a squadron of MiG 29s organically? Because, if so, wargame has led me astray.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2015 08:07
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:Do you mean to say a tank company doesn't have two STRELA , 2 Tunguska, 2 Smerch and a squadron of MiG 29s organically? Because, if so, wargame has led me astray. Tank Company, friend? That's my support assets for a tank platoon, at most!
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2015 15:05
|
|
|
I'd love to do the campaign tweaks discussed for Ural mod, if Ranger etc want me to. I think the plan was to move the first campaign "Bear vs Dragon" up to a 1991 setting, and immediately post Soviet collapse with appropriate BG's?
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2015 15:10
|
|
|
OctaMurk posted:Tank Company, friend? That's my support assets for a tank platoon, at most! You play with a whole platoon of tanks? Haven't seen anyone go that armor heavy in a while.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2015 15:23
|
|
|
I played a couple of rounds last month and going armor heavy was so impractical it wrapped back around and caught people off guard
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2015 17:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 17:34 |
|
|
It's still amazingly easy to kill armor pushes with helicopters and SEAD/attack planes. They have to be really on the ball with air defense to not fold after just a minute of that. I have had entire decks worth of radar AA wiped out supporting tank pushes and after that it's all over.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2015 17:57
|
|