Wargame Sequel, Wargame 4, Next Wargame, Expansion Directory

User avatar
steppewolf
Second-Lieutenant
Posts: 755
Joined: Mon 26 Aug 2013 10:38
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Contact:

Re: Wargame Sequel, Wargame 4, Next Wargame, Expansion Directory

Postby steppewolf » Thu 25 May 2017 15:51

Bougnas wrote:IMO we should just have the current deck system (but with no prototypes, a tighter 1980-1991 timeframe, towed weapons and new types of units added in SD) but with more realistic ToEs for specialized decks, for example being able to field wheeled vehicles in an armored/mechanized deck when they were in that spec for this particular nation.

This way we would still keep variety in deck building.


I'd like 1975-1992 maybe. I think it gives more options and the problem is with superior yearly cap, not the early ones. Besides, I think a potential WG 4 should develop campaign mode more, single player and multiplayer if possible because I feel it's a not enough develop part of the game and a wider time frame give you more options. Finally, naval side could be retained if it will resume to coastal/fluvial small ships.

Bougnas wrote:PS: Was this thread just pinned? Is Eugen preparing something?


hopefully they'll give us some hints soon

User avatar
47andrej
Lieutenant
Posts: 1265
Joined: Sun 12 Feb 2012 19:22
Contact:

Re: Wargame Sequel, Wargame 4, Next Wargame, Expansion Directory

Postby 47andrej » Thu 25 May 2017 16:09

Yes actual WRD timeline is pretty fine, we still have some cool theatres to cover, such as Africa, Mediterranean/Middle East. Theres quite some 85-hardcap-Fulda fans, but be honest it would be boring game, with 2/3 of WRD content cut away.

What is also really sweet is early CW, but i prefer to have late CW completed first.

User avatar
Bougnas
Major-General
Posts: 3625
Joined: Sat 26 Apr 2014 18:24
Contact:

Re: Wargame Sequel, Wargame 4, Next Wargame, Expansion Directory

Postby Bougnas » Thu 25 May 2017 16:35

steppewolf wrote:
Bougnas wrote:IMO we should just have the current deck system (but with no prototypes, a tighter 1980-1991 timeframe, towed weapons and new types of units added in SD) but with more realistic ToEs for specialized decks, for example being able to field wheeled vehicles in an armored/mechanized deck when they were in that spec for this particular nation.

This way we would still keep variety in deck building.


I'd like 1975-1992 maybe. I think it gives more options and the problem is with superior yearly cap, not the early ones. Besides, I think a potential WG 4 should develop campaign mode more, single player and multiplayer if possible because I feel it's a not enough develop part of the game and a wider time frame give you more options. Finally, naval side could be retained if it will resume to coastal/fluvial small ships.

Bougnas wrote:PS: Was this thread just pinned? Is Eugen preparing something?


hopefully they'll give us some hints soon


Well when I meant 1980 as lower limit it's basically "take the most recent units for each familybefore 1980 included". And anything that was withdrawn before 1979 included woudln't be in game unless they fill an important gap.

For example, the German Leopard 1 line would have Leopard 1A4s instead of basic 1A1s, the goal being to reduce the amount of units and instead focus on balancing existing ones so that nothing is useless.

Like in SD we can rely on the number of cards if we don't have enough different units for a particular unit type, like the Canadians only having the Leopard C1 for the entire timeframe.
Image

User avatar
chykka
Brigadier
Posts: 3266
Joined: Wed 28 Nov 2012 14:55
Location: Canada, Alberta
Contact:

Re: Wargame Sequel, Wargame 4, Next Wargame, Expansion Directory

Postby chykka » Thu 25 May 2017 16:44

Not a bad idea to cut out older equipment, especially if game size is a concern. Although some really old stuff can be fun to have for infantry support, but bunch of unit clones just bloats the game size.
Image

User avatar
FrangibleCover
Lieutenant
Posts: 1320
Joined: Mon 14 Nov 2016 21:34
Contact:

Re: Wargame Sequel, Wargame 4, Next Wargame, Expansion Directory

Postby FrangibleCover » Thu 25 May 2017 17:41

Considering how common and popular category games have been historically, I want A Year. You can cut out so much of the roleless bloat if you just pick a single year and run with it (with exceptions for stuff that was retired without replacement if needed). It doesn't matter to me so much which year it is, although I'd be a bit sad to go back from 1991 now that we've seen all of the cool stuff we can get.
[Non-included Nation] Belgium - Now with Spreadsheet!
[Non-included Nation] Pakistan

User avatar
Fade2Gray
General
Posts: 8036
Joined: Wed 1 May 2013 23:30
Location: IED proof in Iraq
Contact:

Re: Wargame Sequel, Wargame 4, Next Wargame, Expansion Directory

Postby Fade2Gray » Thu 25 May 2017 18:15

47andrej wrote:Yes actual WRD timeline is pretty fine, we still have some cool theatres to cover, such as Africa, Mediterranean/Middle East. Theres quite some 85-hardcap-Fulda fans, but be honest it would be boring game, with 2/3 of WRD content cut away.

What is also really sweet is early CW, but i prefer to have late CW completed first.

Indeed, the WG:RD of 1995ish is, IMO, perfect. It allows for all sorts of nifty equipment to be fielded that helps to balance out many of the minor nations. Only thing I'd like to see removed is Cat C. The majority of those units are utter trash and not worth fielding, at all. Removing them would help make balancing the rest a lot easier.
Image
Image
Think you have what it takes to enlist into the military? You sure about that?

User avatar
steppewolf
Second-Lieutenant
Posts: 755
Joined: Mon 26 Aug 2013 10:38
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Contact:

Re: Wargame Sequel, Wargame 4, Next Wargame, Expansion Directory

Postby steppewolf » Fri 26 May 2017 11:37

FrangibleCover wrote:Considering how common and popular category games have been historically, I want A Year. You can cut out so much of the roleless bloat if you just pick a single year and run with it (with exceptions for stuff that was retired without replacement if needed). It doesn't matter to me so much which year it is, although I'd be a bit sad to go back from 1991 now that we've seen all of the cool stuff we can get.


I was thinking to a earlier date mostly for single player purpose.

There is untapped potential there, at least from customers point of view and it seems single player is better in SD so I'd expect to look more into this side of the game in order to make the game more tempting for other categories. Not everybody is keen to go online and play multi.

Also I don't think the issue of balancing comes from Cat. C units, rather from top category units.

Comrade_Bane
First Sergeant
Posts: 229
Joined: Wed 16 Dec 2015 23:28
Contact:

Re: Wargame Sequel, Wargame 4, Next Wargame, Expansion Directory

Postby Comrade_Bane » Fri 26 May 2017 13:24

steppewolf wrote:
FrangibleCover wrote:Considering how common and popular category games have been historically, I want A Year. You can cut out so much of the roleless bloat if you just pick a single year and run with it (with exceptions for stuff that was retired without replacement if needed). It doesn't matter to me so much which year it is, although I'd be a bit sad to go back from 1991 now that we've seen all of the cool stuff we can get.


I was thinking to a earlier date mostly for single player purpose.

There is untapped potential there, at least from customers point of view and it seems single player is better in SD so I'd expect to look more into this side of the game in order to make the game more tempting for other categories. Not everybody is keen to go online and play multi.

Also I don't think the issue of balancing comes from Cat. C units, rather from top category units.


The issue(s) can be easier resolved by having a hard separation of each time frame. Like if you were to play Wargame, each battle you must select what timeframe the battle occurs in. In which your selection limits and adjusts the nits available and the amount available to you.

EG: If you select a 1985 battle, T-80Us are expensive and rare units(as they were just coming off the factory line). But it if you select a 1990 battle T-80Us are more moderately priced and common place. And if you were to select 1980 there are no T-80Us.

Someone i know made this very suggestion a while ago as a way to make all units worth something and better balance the game.

User avatar
HrcAk47
Colonel
Posts: 2652
Joined: Sat 3 May 2014 18:00
Contact:

Re: Wargame Sequel, Wargame 4, Next Wargame, Expansion Directory

Postby HrcAk47 » Fri 26 May 2017 14:49

I disagree with cutting off bottom tier units just for the sake of cutting something off.

T-55 and T-55A are total junk ingame, but what's the purpose of cutting them out? Half the world had them as mainstay, despite having better options available. Heck, they are common even today.

Same goes for early Leopards. Sure, the 1A4 is nice and very capable, but not all have been updated to the same level. They would likely see action as soon as the 1A4 batallions get knocked out.

It's more of an issue on the top side of the spectrum - Eugen ought to pick a year of shit going down and make it canon - like they did with SD. Let's get rid of all the handouts and see what remains.
The SEAD never bothered me anyway.

SMB Yugoslavia Retexture Mod, now released, v.1.0

User avatar
nuke92
Lieutenant
Posts: 1037
Joined: Tue 14 Jun 2016 21:51
Contact:

Re: Wargame Sequel, Wargame 4, Next Wargame, Expansion Directory

Postby nuke92 » Sat 27 May 2017 23:33

what's the general opinion about battle phases?
could you imagine playing a future wargame based on phases or is it too limiting?

it certainly stops early game cancer :P
Image
"Spike MR is more accurate I'll give you that but Konkurs has more range and isn't prototype" - Warchat™ July 2017

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 22 guests