|
Well, if nothing else, the campaign mode has certainly turned me around on HE strike planes. Those F-4 bomb trucks and F-86 rocket carriers, jeez. Also I think "ban tank fagot" is supposed to be pronounced "Ban Tank Fah-Goh", so the internet rage pun doesn't really work.
|
#
¿
Apr 18, 2014 16:46
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 19, 2024 00:44 |
|
|
Shanakin posted:No idea what the N.Koreans actually call it but no, the T is not silent Huh. Could've sworn when it refers to a bassoon and not a sticks bundle, "fagot" has a silent T.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 18, 2014 17:24
|
|
|
Hubis posted:There aren't nearly enough Technicals in this game What do you call the recoilless rifle jeeps, then? WOMBATs and SPG-9s and the like? They're close enough, I'd say.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 18, 2014 17:34
|
|
|
Mukip posted:BTRs are great fun. After dropping off their troops, you can do great things with their high speed and crappy autocannons that you probably wouldn't dare attempt with other units. Persoanlly I'd rather pay 15pts per transport and get a bunch of raiding squads than a load of useless machine gun APCs. Hello, Afghanistan bronegruppa tactics!
|
|
#
¿
Apr 20, 2014 22:10
|
|
|
Shanakin posted:2 rookies @45% = 90% chance to kill Uhm...probabilities aren't additive like that. The 2 rookie scenario is better modeled as "chance to not miss", which is 1 - (.55^2) = ~70% EDIT: Actually, hang on, how many hits does the Pon'gae 2 need to score to kill? Somebody said it only needs one hit to kill a plane. Davin Valkri fucked around with this message at 17:34 on Apr 21, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Apr 21, 2014 17:32
|
|
|
DatonKallandor posted:Yeah seriously, these are people that genuinely think that Fallschirmjäger 90 were fine before the nerf. And that nerfing them was a personal insult to the german community.  That's like saying the reason Scandinavia and NSWP didn't get new units at game launch is because Eugen hates Swedes/Norwegians/Danes/Poles/Czechs personally. (I still want new Swedish and Polish units  )
|
|
#
¿
Apr 23, 2014 16:22
|
|
|
How's it stack up with the 
|
|
#
¿
Apr 23, 2014 16:46
|
|
|
No love for East Germany? Or are they waiting for their army upgrade to cry about them?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 23, 2014 17:11
|
|
|
DatonKallandor posted:Speaking of Minors, are there any big holes in those coalitions that need DLC units? Scandinavia and the eastern europe block seem pretty okay in Coalition form. Only thing I can think of is a heavier tank for the Nordic guys. Every other coalition has access to 100+ point tanks, even NSWP through Poland's T-72 upgrades!
|
|
#
¿
Apr 23, 2014 17:37
|
|
|
Schnaufer posted:
I'm guessing the intended target was that tank? Yowzas, no more baby nighthawks for us.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 23, 2014 20:55
|
|
|
Insert name here posted:I still think it's a little silly that a single tank shell can wipe out like 7/8 guys in a squad in a single shot. Per shot or per volley? Because I''ve only seen 7-8 guys go away when I have 4 squads of infantry in one group fired at by 4 tanks in one group.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 23, 2014 22:45
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:I fully support a minor expansion that introduces tactical nuclear weapons to the familiar units and gameplay elements. Did you know the US fielded nuclear-tipped air to air missiles? AIM-26 Super Falcons. If they are anything like their baby AIM-4 brothers, you'd probably nuke yourself.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 24, 2014 06:40
|
|
|
Panzarskytte '90 and Hemvarnsmen '90 that blow all other infantry out of the water. 
|
|
#
¿
Apr 24, 2014 15:04
|
|
|
But Centurions suuuuuuck. And how come France gets not one, but two pieces of counter-battery arty? That stuff seems slim on the ground as it is without one nation hogging the bestest ones.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 24, 2014 17:12
|
|
|
Kinda funny how when we talk about adding "Scandinavian" units most of the units that we come up with are pretty much "Swedish". Do Norway and Denmark seriously have nothing good to add in this era? If Sweden stole Norway's F-16 bombers and NOAH AA launchers could they stand on their own as "Super Sweden" or something?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 24, 2014 19:05
|
|
|
Holy...those 770 range LMGs are actually good?! Why did no one tell me?! Just for kicks, somebody should make just one last addition to the table: a column for which units use which machine gun. Most US infantry use that M60 at the bottom down there, right?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 24, 2014 23:20
|
|
|
Shanakin posted:The M60 and PKM, the two worst machine guns are both very common, and both very, very bad. And here I was thinking that 980m range on a machine gun was a good thing. Looks like aside from the MG3 it's a sign of low damage. Pfeh! At least I know my Hemvarnsman still rock the casbah!  Also, are the Minimi and stuff like it listed in the game files as 5.45mm, or is that just a typo?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 24, 2014 23:29
|
|
|
By the way, Shanakin, since I'm sure this would come up if you brought your data to the forums and stuff now, is the CtH/distance relationship such that you can tell the DPS for all the machine guns at 980, 875, and 770 meters? I mean, it's still good right now, but showing how bad the M60/PKM would still suck at 770 meters might help your case even more.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 25, 2014 01:21
|
|
|
Xerxes17 posted:Overnight MadMat messaged me on steam:"since you've became the new Myth Buster here, could you apply your science to the American M60. The RoF display is actually just a display, I'm pretty sure 99% of the people calling it the worst MG are only checking that stat and not using it ingame." Oh dear. Shouldn't the devs know how their system works? Or is MadMat not directly involved with the unit programming side of things?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 25, 2014 03:13
|
|
|
So I just finished the Bear vs. Dragon campaign by literally cramming every last pawn I had down the throat of the last objective...is it supposed to end so anti-climatically? I didn't even get a little "Victory!" message!
|
|
#
¿
Apr 26, 2014 07:07
|
|
|
TheDeadlyShoe posted:For me it said something like "Congratulations... General." That would be cool. It would also be cool if the AI knew how to use "refit" to give me a proper final battle! 
|
|
#
¿
Apr 26, 2014 07:15
|
|
|
Cimber posted:We can fix that. But what if your Wargame nation of choice doesn't match your actual nation? I want new units/buffs to Sweden, Poland, and Japan, and I'm "amurricun".
|
|
#
¿
Apr 26, 2014 20:24
|
|
|
General Battuta posted:Does Poland have any decent infantry ATGM options, or is the Konkurs vehicle where it's at? I think their ATGM planes are pretty good, the SU-20 and SU-22M3. But that just might be my opinions from spamming them in ALB carrying over.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 26, 2014 22:47
|
|
|
Tulip posted:Am i alone in thinking that RD feels like a beta for ALB? I played some ALB this afternoon and i can't think of anything mechanical i missed from RD while playing. Singleplayer for Red Dragon is definitely better, though. I like having the sub-units to move around and bolster where I need, and I don't feel lacking for units in battle.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 28, 2014 04:00
|
|
|
Mortabis posted:NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO Is THAT why Polish Airborne were so good before? It wasn't deliberate?!  
|
|
#
¿
Apr 29, 2014 18:05
|
|
|
DatonKallandor posted:No more Trucks is awesome. The whole 1 point empty trucks was bullshit, and the fact that it's gone is great. So is the transport card limit so you can't, in some cases, bring all your infantry in the same transport. The problem is they didn't price the transports with the card limit in mind. The most you should pay for a good IFV is 20 points - and you can do that even if the IFV is loving awesome for 20 points, because you can still balance it by giving it really low cards. They've implemented the transport card mechanic so they can use it for balance - but they're not using it for balance. So the Marder 1A3 isn't imbalanced due to being overpowered; it's perfectly balanced and everything else (Bradley M2A2, BMP-3, etc.) needs to be upgunned/uparmored/price cheapened to match?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 30, 2014 18:25
|
|
|
The location of the reinforcement arrows...?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 30, 2014 21:08
|
|
|
Mr Luxury Yacht posted:Got bored, made an all Gavin deck: Ditch the planes you've got, add more Skyhawks.
|
|
#
¿
May 1, 2014 05:21
|
|
|
So I made a couple of dumb decks for the heck of it! A US Airborne deck BrCxZMwEepbI9MD1EnEYBaAwDCqZ2FUzvJqneSsA8lqJ5LU7DKokbbAKQBdLs52mLjdaiqxZpSkzSZpSEJCEvaWM6aoOS/qDVRCohUEpKcnOUkspoV2YbiA= and a Polish Airborne deck. lrAtELQZmyEpPEJsg4TZBwmyEhNllCTLKg2ikJtFITk8Qk3tb2uCXBLeJvE3gQLlsS7yJhEwhHQjoly25ocvyZicnuOJGKihSogXTiuI04icRy2A Funnily enough, I feel like the Polish one is stronger than the US one. I know I must have made a bunch of silly choices in both decks, but is Polish Airborne really that good?
|
|
#
¿
May 3, 2014 06:53
|
|
|
Mazz posted:Is it worth 90 points? Probably not, but I'd say that all AA in RD (especially PACT) seems overpriced then the Tunguska specifically. Is it possible that this is deliberate, as a way to encourage the use of planes to counter planes and helicopters?
|
|
#
¿
May 5, 2014 17:05
|
|
|
DatonKallandor posted:I wish they'd go a little more abstract and give some sort of defensive bonus to platoons. Maybe a couple points of ECM/avoidance for every member of a group past the first one. Something to reduce the whole "buy everything in groups of 1" thing. Especially choppers really need some sort of bonus to counter the huge downside of the 2-chopper-squads. Hear hear to that! Being able to give 4 4-packs orders instead of 16 individuals goes a long way to making the game playable, and since military stuff rarely operates in singles, it should be encouraged, or at least not actively discouraged by cluster bombs and stuff.
|
|
#
¿
May 6, 2014 13:48
|
|
|
Shanakin posted:Mukips support doesn't count because Sparrow said he has bad micro. I thought the desired endstate of Wargame's design was that micro would be less important than good planning?
|
|
#
¿
May 6, 2014 17:34
|
|
|
Xerxes17 posted:So on the Eugen forums there's a thread where they have put some suggested decks ready for import. The deck does feel weak, but I can't quite put a finger on why. Maybe it's a lack of capability outside of the few high-end tanks? I don't really run armored decks, though. Can somebody who does post their own for comparison and explain where Sparouw goes awry?
|
|
#
¿
May 8, 2014 18:09
|
|
|
Xerxes17 posted:Yeah, he could make that deck again as a national one and loose nothing at all, it would even be better! TOR, MSTA-S, BTR infantry, etc. Wait, he's not even using the USSR prototypes? Then why make a pure USSR deck? Oh well, at least I noticed that the only strong point in the deck were those 6 high end T-80s. I'm getting better!
|
|
#
¿
May 8, 2014 18:20
|
|
|
Xerxes17 posted:Whoops, I mean't unspecialized. Calling it a national deck is a habit from ALB. Ah, okay. A dozen heavy tanks with few "very good" recon options. I wonder if he has difficulties with airborne or motorized decks, and how he rationalizes them?
|
|
#
¿
May 8, 2014 18:27
|
|
|
Wait, when did Li Jian become the special forces top end? I thought that was still West German Fallshirmjagers?
|
|
#
¿
May 9, 2014 03:57
|
|
|
Is there any sort of pattern on these guns that I'm missing? They look all over the map!
|
|
#
¿
May 12, 2014 06:19
|
|
|
Shanakin posted:They're sorted by HE/s. I meant like "what sort of gun gets a high HE/s". I mean, I wasn't expecting the best gun to be on a Swedish plane, for example. And apparently that 37mm cannon on some of the NSWP jets does practically diddly?
|
|
#
¿
May 12, 2014 06:23
|
|
|
That doesn't sound like much of a nerf, really... 
|
|
#
¿
May 13, 2014 03:20
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 19, 2024 00:44 |
|
|
I can't remember, does ANZAC get an equivalent to something like the F-16 Block 15? Granted, that's not a whole lot, but it's something to go with the HAWKs and Hamlets for Denmark.
|
|
#
¿
May 14, 2014 01:18
|
|