WG4 decks + gameplay discussion

User avatar
47andrej
Lieutenant
Posts: 1268
Joined: Sun 12 Feb 2012 19:22
Contact:

Re: WG4 decks + gameplay discussion

Postby 47andrej » Sat 15 Jul 2017 15:08

thelizardofdoom wrote:
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.

Well who said Wargame IV is getting rid of coalitions?

Also there aint a one completely unviable nation in WRD unlike WEE or WALB. NK, ANZAC, Norway and Danmark have most handicaps, sort of unviable for 1vs1. And even NK is easy fixed if devs would want it.

thelizardofdoom
Staff Sergeant
Posts: 91
Joined: Sat 2 Apr 2016 10:15
Contact:

Re: WG4 decks + gameplay discussion

Postby thelizardofdoom » Sat 15 Jul 2017 20:54

47andrej wrote:Well who said Wargame IV is getting rid of coalitions?

Also there aint a one completely unviable nation in WRD unlike WEE or WALB. NK, ANZAC, Norway and Danmark have most handicaps, sort of unviable for 1vs1. And even NK is easy fixed if devs would want it.


Their is no way to argue that minors should be able to compete with superpowers. That is strictly irrational, Poland will never beat USSR or USA in a fight. The only way that would work is by artificially needing superpowers.
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
nuke92
Lieutenant
Posts: 1042
Joined: Tue 14 Jun 2016 21:51
Contact:

Re: WG4 decks + gameplay discussion

Postby nuke92 » Sat 15 Jul 2017 21:14

Because every asset of a super power is concentrated in that part of the world and there are for sure no US/USSR forces clashing just 20k outside the map?
Image
"Spike MR is more accurate I'll give you that but Konkurs has more range and isn't prototype" - Warchat™ July 2017

thelizardofdoom
Staff Sergeant
Posts: 91
Joined: Sat 2 Apr 2016 10:15
Contact:

Re: WG4 decks + gameplay discussion

Postby thelizardofdoom » Sat 15 Jul 2017 21:43

nuke92 wrote:Because every asset of a super power is concentrated in that part of the world and there are for sure no US/USSR forces clashing just 20k outside the map?


What does that have to do with gaemplay? Either the superpower gets it's toys or it doesn't.
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
James-Bond
Sergeant First-Class
Posts: 138
Joined: Mon 9 Jul 2012 18:08
Contact:

Re: WG4 decks + gameplay discussion

Postby James-Bond » Sat 15 Jul 2017 21:58

thelizardofdoom wrote:
47andrej wrote:Well who said Wargame IV is getting rid of coalitions?

Also there aint a one completely unviable nation in WRD unlike WEE or WALB. NK, ANZAC, Norway and Danmark have most handicaps, sort of unviable for 1vs1. And even NK is easy fixed if devs would want it.


Their is no way to argue that minors should be able to compete with superpowers. That is strictly irrational, Poland will never beat USSR or USA in a fight. The only way that would work is by artificially needing superpowers.


Remember this is a game, not a simulation.
I'm not saying the extreme minors need to get super cool units, to make them work.
but I do think each nation should have units in each role, so that they are playable.
Eg NK has no decent long range ASF or Poland has no mortars.

I think East Germany is a good example, It may not the best in each category but still decent enough.
(although I want 2 cards of MiG-29)

User avatar
nuke92
Lieutenant
Posts: 1042
Joined: Tue 14 Jun 2016 21:51
Contact:

Re: WG4 decks + gameplay discussion

Postby nuke92 » Sat 15 Jul 2017 22:56

thelizardofdoom wrote:
nuke92 wrote:Because every asset of a super power is concentrated in that part of the world and there are for sure no US/USSR forces clashing just 20k outside the map?


What does that have to do with gaemplay? Either the superpower gets it's toys or it doesn't.


I'm trying to say that US and USSR shouldn't go godmode in the next installment, I mean you allready have the state of the art advantage + upcoming buffs/loadout changes I guess.
(and at least some coalitions are very realistic, both on Bluefor and Redfor, majority blue)
Image
"Spike MR is more accurate I'll give you that but Konkurs has more range and isn't prototype" - Warchat™ July 2017

thelizardofdoom
Staff Sergeant
Posts: 91
Joined: Sat 2 Apr 2016 10:15
Contact:

Re: WG4 decks + gameplay discussion

Postby thelizardofdoom » Sun 16 Jul 2017 03:35

This isn't a gameplay vs realism argument. This is an appeal to reasonableness. You keep saying that they need to work on minors as if there is a way to make them comparable to supers, and the only way to do that is to artificially nerf supers. Poland does not have a tank= to the m1a2, or a fighter=to the rafale. The only way to give balance them is to give them units that they have in 2000s while keeping supers in the 80s.

Usually im a die hard supporter of breaking realism for gameplay. But the implication that minors aren't viable because of lack of effort is unreasonable. Could they use more units? Sure, bit that still wont make them viable on their own. The coalition mechanic is a good one, without it we would see very few decks being used.
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
integ3r
Lieutenant
Posts: 1120
Joined: Mon 3 Jun 2013 03:10
Contact:

Re: WG4 decks + gameplay discussion

Postby integ3r » Sun 16 Jul 2017 12:02

I really oppose the philosophy of making minors equal to supers. There's nothing wrong with the concept of coalitions. Playing a minor nation SHOULD be a challenge or taunt like selecting Dan in street fighter. In real life it would be the underdog taking on goliath, which is exactly how it should feel ingame.
"How do into gaem of war? How 2 git gud?":
Spoiler : :

User avatar
James-Bond
Sergeant First-Class
Posts: 138
Joined: Mon 9 Jul 2012 18:08
Contact:

Re: WG4 decks + gameplay discussion

Postby James-Bond » Sun 16 Jul 2017 18:00

thelizardofdoom wrote:This isn't a gameplay vs realism argument. This is an appeal to reasonableness. You keep saying that they need to work on minors as if there is a way to make them comparable to supers, and the only way to do that is to artificially nerf supers. Poland does not have a tank= to the m1a2, or a fighter=to the rafale. The only way to give balance them is to give them units that they have in 2000s while keeping supers in the 80s.

Usually im a die hard supporter of breaking realism for gameplay. But the implication that minors aren't viable because of lack of effort is unreasonable. Could they use more units? Sure, bit that still wont make them viable on their own. The coalition mechanic is a good one, without it we would see very few decks being used.


I agree


integ3r wrote:I really oppose the philosophy of making minors equal to supers. There's nothing wrong with the concept of coalitions. Playing a minor nation SHOULD be a challenge or taunt like selecting Dan in street fighter. In real life it would be the underdog taking on goliath, which is exactly how it should feel ingame.


I agree


_____________

I understand minor : "lesser in importance, seriousness, or significance."
so they can't equal to Major nation, as that would mean they become a major nation.

Like Blufor Minors nations can be fun to play. (can pretty much play as any of them)
Usually they a decent ATGM platform to counter the super Heavy Tanks (TOW2) or ATGM Plane

I like E-Ger, China, CZ.
some reason i just don't find Poland as fun as CZ or E-Ger.
North Korea is painful to play.

_____

I think ASF card choice should be standardized. either 1 or 2.
I would like to be able to pick 2 cards of F-16/MiG-29, since F-15 / Su-27PU etc can be picked twice.

_____

Regardless of buff/nerfing nations & coalitions.

I think the bigger issue in the game is Unranked Multiplayer.
Stacking is Toxic.
Nobody cares about your stats, if you do care, it can be keep as a private thing under your profile.
Next wargame should have matching for unranked
don't really care how the algorithm decides; time played, level, win % etc.

with the usual Filters of preference; Faction, Map, Restrictions (national/ era/ ...)

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 32 guests