Future Wargame sequel request.

User avatar
Crotou
Colonel
Posts: 2559
Joined: Thu 12 Apr 2012 20:36
Location: DM's keep
Contact:

Re: Future Wargame sequel request.

Postby Crotou » Thu 6 Oct 2016 11:54

A 1955-1980 era would please me. Something more like WEE settings.
Image

Kangamangus
Corporal
Posts: 34
Joined: Thu 26 Jun 2014 17:36
Contact:

Re: Future Wargame sequel request.

Postby Kangamangus » Thu 6 Oct 2016 21:19

molnibalage wrote:
steppewolf wrote:
Kangamangus wrote:Your lack of imagination is handicapping potential variety and fresh gameplay.


This is one of the most laughable things I read here. How the heck you can fit an engine based on mechanized warfare into war of terror with hunting individuals in caves beats me. Play a first person shooter if you lack the imagination to observe that current engine doesn't fit to what you suggest.


Exaclty.



...if you read above, you'd see scenarios involving potential conventional conflicts. Do you forget that Chechen rebels were appealing to the U.S. government for assistance pre-9/11? What if Iran decided to oppose U.S. occupation of Afghanistan or Iraq with conventional forces...or even the Chinese?

What if Latin America goes hot, and local countries start asking for assistance from Russia, China, or America?

The only laughable thing here is the dogma, and demand to keep things 'black and white.' It would be way better with more tech options, encompassing all of the old tech, to a new age range, and the ability to mix and match East and West tech. A NATO deck with Poland, Ukraine, the Czech Republic, etc. would be neat.

But please, keep insisting your opinions are facts, and limiting the potential of this game.

User avatar
Killertomato
More than 10 000 messages. Soldier you are the leader of all armies!
Posts: 13630
Joined: Mon 9 Jul 2012 02:46
Contact:

Re: Future Wargame sequel request.

Postby Killertomato » Thu 6 Oct 2016 21:50

...if you read above, you'd see scenarios involving potential conventional conflicts. Do you forget that Chechen rebels were appealing to the U.S. government for assistance pre-9/11?


Implying the US would've helped them in any circumstance.

What if Iran decided to oppose U.S. occupation of Afghanistan or Iraq with conventional forces...or even the Chinese?


Iran partnered with us in Afghanistan and they were thrilled when we knocked Saddam off his throne.
orcbuster wrote:USSR gets prototype marsupials, why would you need moose when you got stuff with kickers like that AND transport capability? And I'm not even gonna START on the french Marsupilami, I don't even think thats a real animal! Why no trolls for Norway?

Kangamangus
Corporal
Posts: 34
Joined: Thu 26 Jun 2014 17:36
Contact:

Re: Future Wargame sequel request.

Postby Kangamangus » Fri 7 Oct 2016 10:34

Killertomato wrote:
...if you read above, you'd see scenarios involving potential conventional conflicts. Do you forget that Chechen rebels were appealing to the U.S. government for assistance pre-9/11?


Implying the US would've helped them in any circumstance.

What if Iran decided to oppose U.S. occupation of Afghanistan or Iraq with conventional forces...or even the Chinese?


Iran partnered with us in Afghanistan and they were thrilled when we knocked Saddam off his throne.


Actually, that's not implying that we would help them in ANY circumstance. Just a hypothetical what-if.

If Iran was so thrilled, why do they still arm, fund, and train insurgents fighting the U.S. in Afghanistan? They also contributed to a lot of the violence in Iraq before the U.S. pulled out:

http://www.rferl.org/a/1074426.html

Kangamangus
Corporal
Posts: 34
Joined: Thu 26 Jun 2014 17:36
Contact:

Re: Future Wargame sequel request.

Postby Kangamangus » Fri 7 Oct 2016 10:37

Killertomato wrote:Iran partnered with us in Afghanistan and they were thrilled when we knocked Saddam off his throne.


http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/23/world ... d=all&_r=0

http://www.wsj.com/articles/iran-backs- ... 1434065528

User avatar
steppewolf
Second-Lieutenant
Posts: 775
Joined: Mon 26 Aug 2013 10:38
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Contact:

Re: Future Wargame sequel request.

Postby steppewolf » Fri 7 Oct 2016 15:38

Kangamangus wrote:...if you read above, you'd see scenarios involving potential conventional conflicts. Do you forget that Chechen rebels were appealing to the U.S. government for assistance pre-9/11? What if Iran decided to oppose U.S. occupation of Afghanistan or Iraq with conventional forces...or even the Chinese?

What if Latin America goes hot, and local countries start asking for assistance from Russia, China, or America?

The only laughable thing here is the dogma, and demand to keep things 'black and white.' It would be way better with more tech options, encompassing all of the old tech, to a new age range, and the ability to mix and match East and West tech. A NATO deck with Poland, Ukraine, the Czech Republic, etc. would be neat.

But please, keep insisting your opinions are facts, and limiting the potential of this game.


So you are basically saying when refering to War on terror that it would develop in a high intensity conflict with highly mechanized forces & stuff and not that ; than why to have Chechens in game if it will be still an US vs USSR which is anyway a better playground years back due to better balance, bigger investments in weapons etc? ; problem is the recent times when after Cold War many nations chose to avoid investing in their armies; you'll basically have like 5 - 6 nations up to date, the rest will be heavily outdated in most areas due to heavy spending cuts; weapons race is resumed only recently, few years back...I get that you'd like an Raptor in the game but where's the fun if it'd only shot to 80s - 90s planes, well, most of them?

There isn't any dogma here but the fact that this is a niche game about a scarcely modeled period in PC games which features a rich environment due to weapons race compared with other eras and some sort of balance in conventional war that was never attained since than. Mix East and West (except some obvious situations) is again boring, you won't be able to differentiate between playing styles and such; What it would be neat in a NATO deck featuring Ukraine and Poland? It would be an unrecognizable mix not to speak that Ukraine and Czech Rep are nowhere near the level of Polish armed forces after the 2000s...it'd be one OP nation in a coalition. Of course you can model a lot of stuff but really, what'd bring new to Wargame, just more Bluefor factions with lots of Soviet stuff?

You mentioned if I recall corectly (tl;dr) South America...did you look at what they have there? I think the best tank is a Leopard 1 , maybe an early version of Leopard 2. Argentina still have Skyhawks as main ASF :lol: they're trying to replace them for a decade... problem is if WG goes too far in timeline we will discover how low was the investment in military forces after the end of Cold War and in asymetricall stuff (Iran, War on terror, Afghanistan etc) there's no point to go since the engine is made for another type of warfare.

This is as tedious as a WWII Wargame because you'd lose a lot of features (guided weapons, all of them, precision arty, helos, AA missiles...)

User avatar
Killertomato
More than 10 000 messages. Soldier you are the leader of all armies!
Posts: 13630
Joined: Mon 9 Jul 2012 02:46
Contact:

Re: Future Wargame sequel request.

Postby Killertomato » Fri 7 Oct 2016 15:41

Kangamangus wrote:
Killertomato wrote:Iran partnered with us in Afghanistan and they were thrilled when we knocked Saddam off his throne.


http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/23/world ... d=all&_r=0

http://www.wsj.com/articles/iran-backs- ... 1434065528


Check the dates on those stories.
orcbuster wrote:USSR gets prototype marsupials, why would you need moose when you got stuff with kickers like that AND transport capability? And I'm not even gonna START on the french Marsupilami, I don't even think thats a real animal! Why no trolls for Norway?

Kangamangus
Corporal
Posts: 34
Joined: Thu 26 Jun 2014 17:36
Contact:

Re: Future Wargame sequel request.

Postby Kangamangus » Sat 8 Oct 2016 05:44

Killertomato wrote:
Kangamangus wrote:
Killertomato wrote:Iran partnered with us in Afghanistan and they were thrilled when we knocked Saddam off his throne.


http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/23/world ... d=all&_r=0

http://www.wsj.com/articles/iran-backs- ... 1434065528


Check the dates on those stories.


Provide evidence that Iran helped us.

The fact that these actions happened well into the campaigns in either nation, it shows that the Iranians aren't the biggest fans of American presence in the Middle East. Hamas and Hezbollah, long known to be arms of Iranian influence, have the removal of U.S. bases from the Middle East in their mission statements.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karbala_p ... rters_raid

User avatar
Killertomato
More than 10 000 messages. Soldier you are the leader of all armies!
Posts: 13630
Joined: Mon 9 Jul 2012 02:46
Contact:

Re: Future Wargame sequel request.

Postby Killertomato » Sat 8 Oct 2016 05:47

Kangamangus wrote:
Provide evidence that Iran helped us.

The fact that these actions happened well into the campaigns in either nation, it shows that the Iranians aren't the biggest fans of American presence in the Middle East. Hamas and Hezbollah, long known to be arms of Iranian influence, have the removal of U.S. bases from the Middle East in their mission statements.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karbala_p ... rters_raid



http://www.cbsnews.com/news/iran-gave-u ... fter-9-11/

http://foreignpolicy.com/2014/07/10/the ... ghanistan/

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/wor ... iban_x.htm

http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/st ... ally-2002/

As for Iraq, we were de facto on their side because we took out Saddam. They armed the Shiites because they wanted to create the situation that currently exists on the ground now- Shiite control in Iraq.
Last edited by Killertomato on Sat 8 Oct 2016 05:49, edited 1 time in total.
orcbuster wrote:USSR gets prototype marsupials, why would you need moose when you got stuff with kickers like that AND transport capability? And I'm not even gonna START on the french Marsupilami, I don't even think thats a real animal! Why no trolls for Norway?

Kangamangus
Corporal
Posts: 34
Joined: Thu 26 Jun 2014 17:36
Contact:

Re: Future Wargame sequel request.

Postby Kangamangus » Sat 8 Oct 2016 05:49

steppewolf wrote:
Kangamangus wrote:...if you read above, you'd see scenarios involving potential conventional conflicts. Do you forget that Chechen rebels were appealing to the U.S. government for assistance pre-9/11? What if Iran decided to oppose U.S. occupation of Afghanistan or Iraq with conventional forces...or even the Chinese?

What if Latin America goes hot, and local countries start asking for assistance from Russia, China, or America?

The only laughable thing here is the dogma, and demand to keep things 'black and white.' It would be way better with more tech options, encompassing all of the old tech, to a new age range, and the ability to mix and match East and West tech. A NATO deck with Poland, Ukraine, the Czech Republic, etc. would be neat.

But please, keep insisting your opinions are facts, and limiting the potential of this game.


So you are basically saying when refering to War on terror that it would develop in a high intensity conflict with highly mechanized forces & stuff and not that ; than why to have Chechens in game if it will be still an US vs USSR which is anyway a better playground years back due to better balance, bigger investments in weapons etc? ; problem is the recent times when after Cold War many nations chose to avoid investing in their armies; you'll basically have like 5 - 6 nations up to date, the rest will be heavily outdated in most areas due to heavy spending cuts; weapons race is resumed only recently, few years back...I get that you'd like an Raptor in the game but where's the fun if it'd only shot to 80s - 90s planes, well, most of them?

There isn't any dogma here but the fact that this is a niche game about a scarcely modeled period in PC games which features a rich environment due to weapons race compared with other eras and some sort of balance in conventional war that was never attained since than. Mix East and West (except some obvious situations) is again boring, you won't be able to differentiate between playing styles and such; What it would be neat in a NATO deck featuring Ukraine and Poland? It would be an unrecognizable mix not to speak that Ukraine and Czech Rep are nowhere near the level of Polish armed forces after the 2000s...it'd be one OP nation in a coalition. Of course you can model a lot of stuff but really, what'd bring new to Wargame, just more Bluefor factions with lots of Soviet stuff?

You mentioned if I recall corectly (tl;dr) South America...did you look at what they have there? I think the best tank is a Leopard 1 , maybe an early version of Leopard 2. Argentina still have Skyhawks as main ASF :lol: they're trying to replace them for a decade... problem is if WG goes too far in timeline we will discover how low was the investment in military forces after the end of Cold War and in asymetricall stuff (Iran, War on terror, Afghanistan etc) there's no point to go since the engine is made for another type of warfare.

This is as tedious as a WWII Wargame because you'd lose a lot of features (guided weapons, all of them, precision arty, helos, AA missiles...)



Actually, you wouldn't be losing any features with my suggestion. It would allow greater customization in coalitions, and would allow a blend of BLUFOR and REDFOR tech in a deck. Not to mention the addition of counter-mortar systems, APS systems on tanks to supplement reactive armor, tandem charge anti-tank infantry weapons, thermobaric bombs from planes and warheads for infantry platforms...

To suggest technology or features would be lost is idiocy. Even right now, there is talk and speculation of armored warfare in Eastern Europe, as was during the setting of Red Dragon. The next engine should naturally include advances in technology. Your dogma (which it is, you exclude any other ideas or thoughts except the rigid belief that Wargame or conventional battles could only happen in the time frame you insist upon) is the only thing that says these things shouldn't happen.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest