|
DumbparameciuM posted:While we're wishlisting, I have always wondered why there haven't been command planes with long loiters, AEW&C planes like the AWACS With Wargame's limited scope there's no way we get anything like that. If Wargame 4 was much larger in scale somehow, we could get things like that. Electronic warfare, cruise missiles, and strategic bombers would be in the picture though at a scale where AWACS would be presented.
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2016 14:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 20:24 |
|
|
I can see strategic bombers be an expensive thing for air support, mainly either as big-rear end bomb trucks or as ASM delivery platforms.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2016 14:36
|
|
|
That's pretty much out of the realm of tactical air support though, and therefore you start reaching into Patriot/S-300 territory as well. That was already a pretty poo poo addition since Buks and such really fit the scope of the game better. Give the US SLAMRAAM, not some lovely half assed patriot implementation. I'm of the definite opinion after ALB to RD that scope creep is a really bad idea for this game in its current form. It needs to focus on that company level more so than this grand war, since the gameplay just works better when focused on that level. Boats are the perfect example: sounded really cool on paper, not really fun at all past the first day. Mazz fucked around with this message at 16:45 on Apr 15, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2016 16:40
|
|
|
Out of the realm in WW2 but in Vietnam they sure as gently caress weren't afraid to call in a B-52 to flatten an inconvenient enemy position in a battle.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2016 17:14
|
|
|
If you want a bigger scope I think it would be best to add in a higher level command slot rather than jamming large scale assets into the bottom of the force org chart.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2016 17:16
|
|
|
Triple A posted:Out of the realm in WW2 but in Vietnam they sure as gently caress weren't afraid to call in a B-52 to flatten an inconvenient enemy position in a battle. Yeah and in GWOT the B-1B was/is one of the primary CAS assets via high altitude JDAM, still doesn't mean it fits in the scope of the game. A B-52 would be completely out of range of any PACT SAM that isn't the Buk. How do you model that in a fair and balanced way? What does it cost? Should it also have like 50% ECM since they carry a fuckton of EW gear? I'm not trying to be a dick about it but most of the grand ideas we see floated don't consider how out of scale and scope it would end up. Id rather they improve the faults we know exist than just try to shove more into the box like they did in RD. The best part of ALB was that the overall systems felt sound and logical, at least in the majority of cases. The only outlier was men in houses, and that was fixable by reducing the (insane) 70% HE reduction and view distance penalties. Mazz fucked around with this message at 17:52 on Apr 15, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2016 17:35
|
|
|
I'll be bummed if they move back to WW2, there are plenty of other WW2 RTS and I don't think that setting showcases the game's scale as well as the Cold War does. More nations and maybe balancing the era decks/ game modes better so people can go hog wild on whatever period of the Cold War they like is how I want them to move forward.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2016 18:04
|
|
|
Mazz posted:Yeah and in GWOT the B-1B was/is one of the primary CAS assets via high altitude JDAM, still doesn't mean it fits in the scope of the game. A B-52 would be completely out of range of any PACT SAM that isn't the Buk. How do you model that in a fair and balanced way? What does it cost? Should it also have like 50% ECM since they carry a fuckton of EW gear? Yeah, the box only fits so much, if they want bigger things the box needs reworking.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2016 18:09
|
|
|
I'd more or less put in the B-52 as massive ordinance delivery platform that's all about high risk with high reward. While it could be very useful, it's also a major target for the enemy while being quite expensive. The TU-95 can serve a similar role for Warsaw pact.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2016 19:16
|
|
|
Triple A posted:I'd more or less put in the B-52 as massive ordinance delivery platform that's all about high risk with high reward. While it could be very useful, it's also a major target for the enemy while being quite expensive. Just make it a callable artillery strike and not an actual plane. You have to pay per bombing run and not just a onetime fee
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2016 19:20
|
|
|
There's a laundry list of stuff I'd like to change in Wargame, but the setting and time period is not one of them. World War 2 sounds incredibly boring in a system that doesn't allow the tactical depth of Close Combat or any sort of larger scale control. If anything, it sounds very spammy and simplified even with AT guns added onto the field. I'm still salty this didn't fix Steel Panthers, thanks for asking. Why the gently caress you would develop this into a RTS, I've no idea. gently caress!
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2016 22:58
|
|
|
xthetenth posted:Yeah, the box only fits so much, if they want bigger things the box needs reworking. Yeah pretty much. I was toying around with the idea of making naval and air stuff much bigger than it currently is in RD, and then how you could make naval cards work more like instants, where you have BVH naval bombardment; Carriers which would allow for an expanded/secondary Airport Panel...Subs...AEW&C helis...then I realised by that point it was a totally different game
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2016 23:47
|
|
|
Warbadger posted:Even then tanks had their counters, you had to be very careful with urban and heavily forested areas. The worst change they made was giving tanks the first shot for free. In EE even the first tank shot had to go through the aim time, so forests were properly deadly. Now it's just "see infantry - get free shot - infantry now stunned".
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2016 18:55
|
|
|
You still have aim time, but it's been reduced so much as to be a non-factor
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2016 00:09
|
|
|
Following up on the sequel discussion, I would like to see a return to the 1960s/70s/early 80s, along with a dynamic campaign encompassing all of Europe. They don't even have to get super fancy, just expand the ALB campaign to include the entire continent. That, and force planes to target an enemy's last known location if they lose sight en route. I'd be really disappointed if the sequel was restricted to the Middle East. They can tack that onto an expansion.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2016 03:35
|
|
|
Yeah, I'd personally cut it off at 1982.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2016 03:37
|
|
|
reagan posted:Following up on the sequel discussion, I would like to see a return to the 1960s/70s/early 80s, along with a dynamic campaign encompassing all of Europe. They don't even have to get super fancy, just expand the ALB campaign to include the entire continent. That, and force planes to target an enemy's last known location if they lose sight en route. The late sixties to early eighties is the real prime-time for this engine. ATGMs are present, but inaccurate, and not invincible-death-rockets, and tanks are less accurate, and generally lack stabilizers as well. Drop boats entirely, refine the aircraft mechanics, and add some quality of life stuff that has been mentioned up thread, and I'd buy the gently caress out of it. RD's increased scale is pushing at the limits of what is fun in this engine, so make that the upper end, but focus most of your map design back down at the ALB-sized maps.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2016 14:15
|
|
|
Wargame: Vietnam '69 E:Cambodian and Laotian decks, oh my
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2016 14:43
|
|
|
reagan posted:I'd be really disappointed if the sequel was restricted to the Middle East. They can tack that onto an expansion. What's wrong with the Middle East? We've already had 2 in Europe, some desert maps would be a nice change of pace, especially if they keep pushing the timescale forward. Eugen doesn't seem to really do expansions in the same way for Wargame. I'm ambivalent to them pushing the timescale back but being restricted to earlier jets and having less of the instant-death ATGM planes would probably be cool.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2016 14:52
|
|
|
Desert maps would be good because this game sucks at true 3D terrain and LOS. Give me big flat expanses with towns, a few easily readable natural barriers, and patches of forest/cover.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2016 16:42
|
|
|
Koramei posted:What's wrong with the Middle East? We've already had 2 in Europe, some desert maps would be a nice change of pace, especially if they keep pushing the timescale forward. Eugen doesn't seem to really do expansions in the same way for Wargame. Also it gives you an excuse to have factions with a mix of Soviet and NATO equipment along with reasonable restrictions to the top end gear.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2016 17:01
|
|
|
The one thing I think is good about being later is stabilizers on tanks. Freeing up mobility helps attacking, and attacking needs all the help it can get.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2016 17:08
|
|
|
xthetenth posted:The one thing I think is good about being later is stabilizers on tanks. Freeing up mobility helps attacking, and attacking needs all the help it can get. Just playing keyboard general for a second here, in theory Wargame wants to loosely approximate the dynamics of modern combat, right. So the attacker's disadvantage should be the need for 4-to-1 superiority (is that still a thing?), but the attacker's advantage should be the ability to choose the time and place of the attack in order to concentrate force against weakness. Information helps you choose where to concentrate your force, which is why recon's such a big deal. The defender should expect to lose ground at the front line, so in theory the correct defense is a perimeter of sentries and roadblock units, and mobile reserves ready to push back at an attacker or counterattack. Also hardpoints (like towns) that the enemy has to either bypass or put a ton of effort into taking. But in practice most defense in Wargame seems like front line defense. Why is that? Is it because the defender also has a recon advantage? Or am I just bad.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2016 18:03
|
|
|
I kind of felt Wargame needs more objectives- designate one side as defender and give them less resources but the attacker is on a time limit to take out their positions or else they lose.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2016 18:17
|
|
|
General Battuta posted:Just playing keyboard general for a second here, in theory Wargame wants to loosely approximate the dynamics of modern combat, right. So the attacker's disadvantage should be the need for 4-to-1 superiority (is that still a thing?), but the attacker's advantage should be the ability to choose the time and place of the attack in order to concentrate force against weakness. Information helps you choose where to concentrate your force, which is why recon's such a big deal. I think it's that most defense is limited by having to protect those lovely boxes on the map. When you're within a tank gun's shot of a capture elastic defense seems a lot less worthwhile, especially when points balance is such that you don't really need to. StashAugustine posted:I kind of felt Wargame needs more objectives- designate one side as defender and give them less resources but the attacker is on a time limit to take out their positions or else they lose. Absolutely, Wargame is an engine for so many possible awesome scenario designs, especially asymmetric ones, and they just didn't do any of it. Something like the mutual attack mode from WiC would be amazing for instance. xthetenth fucked around with this message at 18:43 on Apr 17, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2016 18:26
|
|
|
General Battuta posted:Just playing keyboard general for a second here, in theory Wargame wants to loosely approximate the dynamics of modern combat, right. So the attacker's disadvantage should be the need for 4-to-1 superiority (is that still a thing?), but the attacker's advantage should be the ability to choose the time and place of the attack in order to concentrate force against weakness. Information helps you choose where to concentrate your force, which is why recon's such a big deal. In the classic era of wargame, defense in depth was definitely a thing
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2016 19:23
|
|
|
Defense depth is a thing since a front line defense can be picked apart by bombers and arty so you want some units spread apart that can react to a push from the attackers Especially useful in city fighting to hang some units in the back of the city
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2016 20:29
|
|
|
Mange Mite posted:In the classic era of wargame, defense in depth was definitely a thing It still is, it's vital to have recon out and recon hunters killing their recon and SPAAGs in front of your missile AA and guys to shoot at the positions that are good for shooting at your other guys. But a lot of the defensive advantage boils down to 'see them coming in a big clump and shoot them before they see your concealed guys' or 'they lost their recon and now they're blind as kittens' or 'I have ATGM planes, good luck with your breakthrough.' Arty is great for nibbling away at AA and poo poo but I do wish it fit the wizard paradigm better, debuff an area so your attack can punch through.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2016 21:38
|
|
|
If we're going for changes we'd like here's an idea I've been mulling over... Change the deck/card system and availability. Every card you take is a formation whose size varies with composition and deployment cost such that everything normalizes to the cost of one card. So instead of taking a card of 15 LAV-25's each of which you can call out for 25 points, your card might instead be a "light armored recon platoon (LAV-25)" of 4x LAV-25's, all of which you deploy at once, and which you command as an entire group. A similar card might be an entire company of 16x M113 ACAVs or 8x M114A2's, which you'd deploy all at once but is controlled in platoons of 4x. Air units could work similarly. For one card, I could buy an entire wing of MiG-21bis (which could be deployed in flights of 4), or a 2-ship element of Typhoons. This lets you play around with deployment point pricing without keeping it tied to "more advanced/better must cost more". It'd also give you a few more practical options for infantry in transports. Currently, for a given infantry unit I can pick from up to a half dozen or so different transports (and that's before 90's variants). Instead, each card would be a different combination of infantry/transport/unit-size to give you options at different points costs. So let's say I want Motostrelci in BVP-2 vz 86's. Currently that means I get 13 of them at 35 points each. Instead, we could have a card that costs 15 points, with only 8x squads/vehicles; or the exact same unit type but at 30 points for 16x. In all cases you have to deploy the entire card at once, and then you control them in groups of 4x. You then balance deck specializations/nationalities against each other by number of card slots available. You no longer need Cat. A/B/C bonuses because those now inherently exist within the card itself.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2016 08:56
|
|
|
Implement some extra commands for the platoons and improve unit AI so it can do some stuff semi-independently, then that system will work well.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2016 14:14
|
|
|
I figure id be nice to make heavy artillery an off map call in, like jets. Instead of 3 BKANS or whatever, you get a set number of barrages per card, with a cooldown between uses.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2016 14:23
|
|
|
Deserts only Wargame makes me thing of every map being Hop to Glory and I shudder in pain. At the moment I'd say that the current issues of Wargame rests with the rather hosed up scale that currently exists. You have recon sniper teams all the way up to theater-level assets like Patriot that are also tacked on to strategic naval poo poo like Battle-cruisers. I'd agree with those saying that EE was the most "congruent" experience. ALB was a good step forward, albeit with some issues that could have been solved with some more tweaking and more level-headed engineering on Eugen's part. RD however felt like it was straining under it's own weight from the beginning and from a game concepts point of view, it really did collapse in on itself as a result of having simply too much poo poo. I would personally enjoy a rewind back to 1983 to 1985 or so. It's the fulcrum point where thing feel the most fair between the nations involved and that everything is thus the most interesting. Also, no unicorn units. They seem to always make themselves into a balancing/thematic headache.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2016 15:54
|
|
|
Agreeing with Xerxes here, I'd really rather than they enormously limit the scope of the game rather than add new features or units. Cut out a bunch of the factions that are not interesting, cut out the unicorn units that cause balance problems and the old-era units, eliminate eras and focus the game entirely on units that were on the frontlines in Europe in the early 1980s. Move aircraft and heavy artillery to off-map call-ins. Overall, I think you'd end up with a much more tightly-focused and balanced game that's still very dynamic and thematic. IMO they did a lot of things right late in the lifespan of RD, such as the new tank balance. But there's a lot of bad ideas here too, such as all these gimmick units.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2016 16:04
|
|
|
lmao were basically describing world in conflict by this point
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2016 16:08
|
|
|
Agean90 posted:lmao were basically describing world in conflict by this point World in Conflict was goddamn amazing and I'd rather have WiC2 than WG4
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2016 16:09
|
|
|
It really was. Sadly the dev is stuck in mobile game hell from what I remember
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2016 16:11
|
|
|
Agean90 posted:lmao were basically describing world in conflict by this point World in Conflict with the asymmetry and detail of Wargame would be amazing.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2016 16:12
|
|
|
Agean90 posted:lmao were basically describing world in conflict by this point WG would benefit from a lot of things WiC did right, but the reverse is also quite true. My ideal game would be closer to WG than WiC but some of the things WiC did right would be huge.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2016 16:19
|
|
|
General Battuta posted:Desert maps would be good because this game sucks at true 3D terrain and LOS. Give me big flat expanses with towns, a few easily readable natural barriers, and patches of forest/cover. EE's clearly visually defined height markings made for less realistic looking maps, but they sure played a lot better.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2016 17:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 20:24 |
|
|
Another thing is that the KE and HEAT armor scales need to be separated too.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2016 18:03
|
|