WG4 decks + gameplay discussion

RedFive
Warrant Officer
Posts: 400
Joined: Wed 6 Jan 2016 15:22
Contact:

Re: WG4 decks + gameplay discussion

Postby RedFive » Sun 9 Jul 2017 15:09

Regarding mixed vs coalition vs national decks: I'd like to see player-made coalitions. Choose two nations and have an activation point penalty vs national, choose three and have a bigger AP penalty. Mixed should go away altogether, IMO.

captaincarnage
Major
Posts: 1855
Joined: Sat 29 Mar 2014 23:50
Contact:

Re: WG4 decks + gameplay discussion

Postby captaincarnage » Sun 9 Jul 2017 16:04

hmm, UK and USA coalition would be totally cancer free or USSR and Finland 8-)
I hope your buratino's die screaming.

User avatar
McNash
Lieutenant
Posts: 1182
Joined: Sun 15 Apr 2012 18:06
Contact:

Re: WG4 decks + gameplay discussion

Postby McNash » Sun 9 Jul 2017 18:47

Due the hint MadMat gave us some days ago I think first they will add the soviets to SD, still, before WG4 they can always use SD as a guinea pig.

I do agree with OP units should have more options, smoke launchers is something a lot of people has been requesting for a long time and it will add to the survivability of tanks in open space, stuff like flashbangs for commando units would be awesome (I don't those should affect tanks).

As ever I want units to consume less fuel because seriously that's awful, I understand there were some oil crisis back during the Cold War but come on, 15 minutes of movement for a MBT? Seriously fix that.

Regarding mixed vs coalition vs national decks: I'd like to see player-made coalitions. Choose two nations and have an activation point penalty vs national, choose three and have a bigger AP penalty. Mixed should go away altogether, IMO.


SovNorK shall rise again! :lol:
Image

Gen3ralAustria
Master Sergeant
Posts: 157
Joined: Fri 21 Feb 2014 19:47
Location: Gramastetten, Mühlviertel, Upper Austria (OÖ), Austria
Contact:

Re: WG4 decks + gameplay discussion

Postby Gen3ralAustria » Mon 10 Jul 2017 12:53

My intention in this reply it to talk about the coalitions.

Some time ago I had a discussion about the idea of the coalition that was somehow steered by another discussion I had when the game came out in 2014 about the certain topic of the coalition itself.
In 2014 we had the following coalitions: Eurocorps, Commonwealth, Eastern Bloc, Red Dragon, Blue Dragon and Scandinavia.
Afterwards: SovKor formerly, Norad, Landjut, Dutch-German Corps, FinPol, Entente.
All in all 12 coalitions (SovKor counting), for these Nations:
- BLUE: USA, Great Britain, France, West Germany, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Canada, Japan, South Korea, ANZAC, Netherlands, Isreal -->13 nations with 7 coalitions.
- RED: USSR, East Germany, Poland, Czechoslovakia, China, North Korea, Yugoslavia, Finland --> 8 nations in 4 coalitions (5 before SovKor destruction).

Going into detail, it it easy to see how nations are included in these coalitions.
On the example of BLUE:
- West Germany: participates in Eurocorps, Landjut, Dutch-German Corps --> 3
- Great Britain: Commonwealth --> 1
- France: Eurocorps --> 1
- USA: Norad --> 1
- Denmark: Scandinavia, Landjut --> 2
- Norway: Scandinavia --> 1
- Sweden: Scandinavia --> 1
- Canada: Commonwealth, Norad --> 2
- ANZAC: Commonwealth --> 1
- Japan: Blue Dragons --> 1
- South Korea: Blue Dragons --> 1
- Netherlands: Dutch-German Corps --> 1
- Isreal: --> 0

RED:
- USSR: formerly SovKor, now none --> 0(1)
- East Germany: Eastern Bloc --> 1
- Poland: Eastern Bloc, FinPol --> 2
- Czechoslovakia: Eastern Bloc, Entente --> 2
- PRC (Peoples Republic of China): Red Dragon --> 1
- DPRK (Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea): Red Dragon, formerly SovKor --> 1(2)
- Yugoslavia: Entente --> 1
- Finland: FinPol --> 1

West Germany participates in three coalitions, the only country to do so. That is a high number, considering only four (five) nations are present in two coalitions and 14 (15) nations in one coalition. Only two countries do not take part in any coalition.
The number for West Germany is from my perspective too high.
It may come out of historical options but still. And from what I see this it is one of the reasons why West Germany as a nation remained weaker than the other greats from EE times.
In this case coalitions may ruined a nation.

Personally I agree on the point that specialzed nation decks are the thing.
In these you have obvious strengths and ways to use them but weaknesses too, which you have to compensate with team mates.
The general deck seems not bad but you are limited in the options of selecting.
Austria for Wargame:RD as National Pack!

User avatar
FrangibleCover
Lieutenant
Posts: 1365
Joined: Mon 14 Nov 2016 21:34
Contact:

Re: WG4 decks + gameplay discussion

Postby FrangibleCover » Mon 10 Jul 2017 22:51

Gen3ralAustria wrote:West Germany participates in three coalitions, the only country to do so. That is a high number, considering only four (five) nations are present in two coalitions and 14 (15) nations in one coalition. Only two countries do not take part in any coalition.
The number for West Germany is from my perspective too high.
It may come out of historical options but still. And from what I see this it is one of the reasons why West Germany as a nation remained weaker than the other greats from EE times.
In this case coalitions may ruined a nation.

West Germany was ruined by France getting all of the good units in Eurocorps. As an example, try building an imaginary Entente Cordiale deck instead, combining the UK (a pretty decent nation) with France. A meta Entente Cordiale deck will probably have less than five British units. France's power meant that Germany had to be limited heavily from the start. Additionally West Germany was always a deck that lived on how OP the MG3 was and right now it's probably the closest to reasonable it's ever been.

Landjut was never going to be a particularly good coalition because Denmark is fated to be terrible and Dutch-German doesn't work because it's Germany^2, with the Dutch units mostly being better than German units or redundant with them. Neither provide the good radar AA that's so sorely needed, neither really fill Germany's gaps. If you removed both from the game Germany would probably still be too limited by Eurocorps balance to get the buffs it would need to become good solo. Having said that, I don't think asking for a non-[RAD] FRR Roland 2 is too much.
[Non-included Nation] Belgium - Spreadsheet
[Non-included Nation] Hungary - Spreadsheet
[Non-included Nation] Pakistan

User avatar
integ3r
Lieutenant
Posts: 1136
Joined: Mon 3 Jun 2013 03:10
Contact:

Re: WG4 decks + gameplay discussion

Postby integ3r » Tue 11 Jul 2017 10:04

For sake of discussion...

I sort of miss the spam-tank meta. Where an attack would have a heavy tank with a screen of light tanks in front to absorb ATGMs and other hits.

I understand this was nerfed for two reasons, too many tanks lead to lower performance in 10v10 and centurion spam was too powerful.

Maybe the solution is to just limit the amount of tanks in a card. So you can pull off the spam attack maybe once per card with 12 cheap tanks. So you'll have to really commit or play armored by taking multiple cards to get the real crapload of tanks by taking multiple cards. It would make attacking more viable.

Not to mention it would give a more intuitive option of attacking to new players. "Just get a load of tanks and attack." Makes for more of a fun experience for new players I think.
"How do into gaem of war? How 2 git gud?":
Spoiler : :

Gen3ralAustria
Master Sergeant
Posts: 157
Joined: Fri 21 Feb 2014 19:47
Location: Gramastetten, Mühlviertel, Upper Austria (OÖ), Austria
Contact:

Re: WG4 decks + gameplay discussion

Postby Gen3ralAustria » Tue 11 Jul 2017 16:57

FrangibleCover wrote:West Germany was ruined by France getting all of the good units in Eurocorps. As an example, try building an imaginary Entente Cordiale deck instead, combining the UK (a pretty decent nation) with France. A meta Entente Cordiale deck will probably have less than five British units. France's power meant that Germany had to be limited heavily from the start. Additionally West Germany was always a deck that lived on how OP the MG3 was and right now it's probably the closest to reasonable it's ever been.

Landjut was never going to be a particularly good coalition because Denmark is fated to be terrible and Dutch-German doesn't work because it's Germany^2, with the Dutch units mostly being better than German units or redundant with them. Neither provide the good radar AA that's so sorely needed, neither really fill Germany's gaps. If you removed both from the game Germany would probably still be too limited by Eurocorps balance to get the buffs it would need to become good solo. Having said that, I don't think asking for a non-[RAD] FRR Roland 2 is too much.


Asking for anything now is useless. Multiple tries were made by the german speaking community but all somehow were either ignored or just given a maybe.
The things we wanted were mostly small things, as you said the non radar Roland 2, better tube artillery, a HAWK (didn't matter if weak or not) and an ASF alongside some other stuff added later.
As said before these went down because of at first West Germany being part of Eurocorps and the tension to give France the better stuff overall which Germany lacks. This buildup around coalitions is the worst that happened to this game from what I see it.
And West Germany has to suffer, such a shame really.

I have given up on hoping something could come or be implemented as this systems hinders all ideas, everything!
Austria for Wargame:RD as National Pack!

thelizardofdoom
Sergeant First-Class
Posts: 126
Joined: Sat 2 Apr 2016 10:15
Contact:

Re: WG4 decks + gameplay discussion

Postby thelizardofdoom » Thu 13 Jul 2017 11:08

Why are you guys so eager to go back to the 3 or 4 country model? Without coalitions we would endlessly play America and USSR plus maybe 1 other.
Yes im aware my grammar and spelling are dreadful. Email complaints to android for having terrible software or eugen for having a mobile unfriendly site.

User avatar
47andrej
Lieutenant
Posts: 1281
Joined: Sun 12 Feb 2012 19:22
Contact:

Re: WG4 decks + gameplay discussion

Postby 47andrej » Thu 13 Jul 2017 17:52

thelizardofdoom wrote:Why are you guys so eager to go back to the 3 or 4 country model? Without coalitions we would endlessly play America and USSR plus maybe 1 other.

Well some are. Most ppl dont want to see WRD unit content cut.

thelizardofdoom
Sergeant First-Class
Posts: 126
Joined: Sat 2 Apr 2016 10:15
Contact:

Re: WG4 decks + gameplay discussion

Postby thelizardofdoom » Fri 14 Jul 2017 11:46

47andrej wrote:
thelizardofdoom wrote:Why are you guys so eager to go back to the 3 or 4 country model? Without coalitions we would endlessly play America and USSR plus maybe 1 other.

Well some are. Most ppl dont want to see WRD unit content cut.


They have a finite amount of time and resources to make the game. If something gets added that is faking away from other things. And regardless it doesn't change the fact that getting rid of coalitions means that most nations will be completely unviable and therefore not used. No coalitions means less choices not more.
Yes im aware my grammar and spelling are dreadful. Email complaints to android for having terrible software or eugen for having a mobile unfriendly site.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 31 guests