What nations would you like to see in Red Dragon?

User avatar
Broth3r
Chief Warrant Officer
Posts: 627
Joined: Mon 10 Mar 2014 19:25
Location: Lisbon, Portugal
Contact:

Re: What nations would you like to see in Red Dragon?

Postby Broth3r » Thu 15 Dec 2016 10:34

I really should break my posts a bit more...

FrangibleCover wrote:A further question: Which specialisations do you consider the Fuzilieros are likely to fit in and what stats would you recommend for the LGFs on the Armada 90? I'm interested to know just how far I can push the fire support cheese :D.

Marine and Moto. Perhaps Airborne thanks to the Super Lynx, but the Paras have that covered. The potential "problem" I'm faced with here is that all units have good reason to be in Moto.

As for the LGFs, I honestly have no idea. All I was able to find is they're 90mm, but not simply repurposed Super Bazookas or Instalazas. Yet they're probably not a lot more effective than that. Something in the 10-12 AP range would probably be suitable.

FrangibleCover wrote:The Boinas Verdes quote was merely an example of the mangling that Google Translate likes to do, it's not a real source.

Didn't interpreted it as such, but simply that it's telling that the first quote you found at random mentions them.

FrangibleCover wrote:Unless, of course, the V-x00 chassis fits into the airborne specialisation like the V-150 does, in which case Treaty of Windsor Airborne becomes top-tier!

I happen to make some excellent Nutella crêpes.

FrangibleCover wrote:
Broth3r wrote:As for the SNEB launcher, here's a good article on it, albeit in Portuguese: http://www.operacional.pt/lanca-foguete ... errestres/

Thanks. Definitely an interesting option, although the low power is possibly worrying for a dedicated FIST squad. Would it do anything against vehicles except bounce off? Maybe it should be a tertiary weapon for CIOE since the SPAS is liable to be a little difficult to use given its low effective range.

Any AT capability would be marginal at best - I see them as the Portuguese flavor of anti-infantry team. The M40 and the MILANs are there for vehicles.

They were retired too early for the CIOE. In all likelihood, they'll indeed require a different tertiary weapon - an Arctic Warfare (suppressed!), or my favorite, passing the Stinger down from the DAE. But I found the SPAS-15 interesting. There's fairly good reasons for shotguns not being in Wargame, but a semiautomatic, box-fed shotgun could provide enough firepower to make it worth it.

FrangibleCover wrote:
Broth3r wrote:On the other hand, the FTB-337G is... different.
[snip]
The kind of aircraft many would say has no place in Wargame, but it's a concept I'm legitimately curious to put to test. It's my little pet unit, if you will. :lol:

I'm going to be honest, I have absolutely no idea if/how it would work. The first challenge, I suppose, is that it's the first propeller plane in Wargame so something fancy would have to be done using the code for the helicopter rotors. Then it's all down to the pricing and availability, it'd be brokenly good at 20 points and 16/card so we simply adjust until viable. Do we make it 8 or 6 HP since it's civilian construction and very light indeed?

All of the above? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
I'd leave that testing to those more knowledgeable in the area than me, and if unfeasible, it could simply be cut. But it's worth a shot.

molnibalage wrote:Instead requesting new nations community maybe shoud start try play era games. It gives totally different meta than Cat A games. And BTW, it is for free... Is no top tier arty sniping, no more unicorn units, no more top tier tanks issues, etc.

Not you again.

argybargy wrote:
HrcAk47 wrote:I honestly have too many "favorites".

Besides, any new nation is great!
No new nations are great. Trying to squeeze the additions we already got into in-game viability already looks enough of a farce compared to the pre-DLC unit roster and the "rules" applied to balancing, and does nothing for the long term replay value unless you have some sort of a perverse connection to the new nations like being from there and really really caring about it.

New maps now. But realistically, no more content now.

I'm an interested party, so I'll wear that bias on my sleeve. But I disagree.

I understand I'm in the minority - in the forum at least. After all, this is the one active thread discussing new additions, where the front page is full of balance discussions large and small (some important, some straight-up metafagging) and Razzman meming on people. But the addition of new nations has great potential at least for anyone who uses minors. South Africa, Italy, Romania and Bulgaria all have the potential to be mid-tier powers, and if I may say that for myself, despite the limitation of my work with Portugal, I believe I created something that'd be quite fun to play.

Of course, I know this has no interest to people who use minors once, then go back to their USSR unspecs. And I'm aware this is a larger section of the player population that I desire. But I cannot in good faith base my proposals on their wishes, because that would be detrimental to this game I love.

Xeno426 wrote:
ST21 wrote:Maybe Austria as well since they have a few interesting indigenous units but they might be too weak as a standalone nation, especially in the Air and Anti-Air departments. :!:

So would Switzerland, TBH. Best hope would be to have them together with Austria.

Eukie posted a great joint proposal a while back. Yet another one - she truly deserves a medal at this point, for services to minors.

User avatar
argybargy
Sergeant First-Class
Posts: 124
Joined: Tue 18 Feb 2014 20:13
Contact:

Re: What nations would you like to see in Red Dragon?

Postby argybargy » Thu 15 Dec 2016 13:24

Broth3r wrote:
argybargy wrote:
HrcAk47 wrote:I honestly have too many "favorites".

Besides, any new nation is great!
No new nations are great. Trying to squeeze the additions we already got into in-game viability already looks enough of a farce compared to the pre-DLC unit roster and the "rules" applied to balancing, and does nothing for the long term replay value unless you have some sort of a perverse connection to the new nations like being from there and really really caring about it.

New maps now. But realistically, no more content now.

I'm an interested party, so I'll wear that bias on my sleeve. But I disagree.

I understand I'm in the minority - in the forum at least. After all, this is the one active thread discussing new additions, where the front page is full of balance discussions large and small (some important, some straight-up metafagging) and Razzman meming on people. But the addition of new nations has great potential at least for anyone who uses minors. South Africa, Italy, Romania and Bulgaria all have the potential to be mid-tier powers, and if I may say that for myself, despite the limitation of my work with Portugal, I believe I created something that'd be quite fun to play.

Of course, I know this has no interest to people who use minors once, then go back to their USSR unspecs. And I'm aware this is a larger section of the player population that I desire. But I cannot in good faith base my proposals on their wishes, because that would be detrimental to this game I love.
And no shadow on you for that. I read your army list with interest when it first popped up. What I miss is a discussion about how this game is to survive with a player base from the inevitable point in time when Eugen withdraws support from the game up to the release of an eventual next game in the series. What adds multiplayer replay value? In a game like this, that value is obviously potentially immense, and Eugen really have made the finest RTS ever.

But a while back, I think we as a community started to realise that even with the unit roster being huge, we were really only calling in a fraction of these units because we wanted to win matches. Hence the Minor nations tournaments, hence the demand for nation DLC and hence the need to make these new minors competitive. There is surely a limit on how much fun can be had shoving MG3 infantry down the old forest of Plunjing Valley. In that context, it makes sense to overbuff, overmodel and dish out equipment to nations without the same concern for authenticity and immersion they previously had. Playing Finland, for example, should reasonably be closer to playing pre-NSWP DLC East Germany than anything else: an endeavour for masochists and enthusiasts. Israel's position as LGB kings of the world is completely arbitrary, and their most meta unit is an abomination. Any new nations at this point, and even before, require this reading of unit stat source material and Eugen unit inclusion "rules" like Satan reads the Bible, if we want these man hours Eugen spent on making the models to translate in-game into something other than mediocrity and a life of sitting unused in the armory. This pisses the people of who had just as much emotion invested into the pre-DLC nations now left behind as the Finns, for example, show in their thread.

And let's be honest, all we're doing with nation DLCs are tweaking the models of Centurions and T72s slightly, giving them new voices and then driving them down the same old lanes of the same old maps for the 987th time this week. The man hours spent supporting Red Dragon are of course appreciated and the community's appreciation for that was monetized for the first time in Wargame history, which shows that we care and want new content. I can't help feeling that those man hours would've been better spent on making new maps, if the long term survival of the game was the goal.

ALEX8
Sergeant Major of the Army
Posts: 387
Joined: Thu 23 Jan 2014 01:04
Contact:

Re: What nations would you like to see in Red Dragon?

Postby ALEX8 » Thu 15 Dec 2016 15:47

Red: India, Iran
BLue: Italy Spain, Iraq, South Africa, Brazil, Greece

User avatar
molnibalage
General
Posts: 6706
Joined: Thu 1 Aug 2013 22:54
Location: Hungary
Contact:

Re: What nations would you like to see in Red Dragon?

Postby molnibalage » Thu 15 Dec 2016 16:07

Broth3r wrote:Not you again.

So, your only reason is "just because"... Rather new and mor and more funny DLC it would great to see a new game... The origin of WG now is almost 5 years old....

User avatar
Mitchverr
More than 10 000 messages. Soldier you are the leader of all armies!
Posts: 10646
Joined: Sat 24 Mar 2012 18:08
Contact:

Re: What nations would you like to see in Red Dragon?

Postby Mitchverr » Thu 15 Dec 2016 16:21

argybargy wrote: And let's be honest, all we're doing with nation DLCs are tweaking the models of Centurions and T72s slightly, giving them new voices and then driving them down the same old lanes of the same old maps for the 987th time this week....


... I can't help feeling that those man hours would've been better spent on making new maps, if the long term survival of the game was the goal.


Thats why i mostly jump for south africa, though sure, the tanks are reskinned/turreted centurions(which is different at least in the latter) and their airforce will mainly be reskins, pretty much everything else in their armoury is going to have something unique/different about it, mixed in with a different way to play the game which is always a nice way to keep the game interesting.
Image

User avatar
Eukie
Chief Warrant Officer
Posts: 547
Joined: Wed 23 Apr 2014 16:22
Contact:

Re: What nations would you like to see in Red Dragon?

Postby Eukie » Thu 15 Dec 2016 16:49

Broth3r wrote:Eukie posted a great joint proposal a while back. Yet another one - she truly deserves a medal at this point, for services to minors.


Aw, thanks! ^_^

User avatar
Admiral Piett
Colonel
Posts: 2910
Joined: Sun 12 Feb 2012 22:04
Location: Canada
Contact:

Re: What nations would you like to see in Red Dragon?

Postby Admiral Piett » Thu 15 Dec 2016 21:57

Personally? Iraq, Vietnam and Taiwan. From a gameplay perspective, only Iraq really has anything interesting to offer.

User avatar
Killertomato
More than 10 000 messages. Soldier you are the leader of all armies!
Posts: 13730
Joined: Mon 9 Jul 2012 02:46
Contact:

Re: What nations would you like to see in Red Dragon?

Postby Killertomato » Thu 15 Dec 2016 22:14

Let's kill the game.

GCC coalition. If we don't want to call it that, we can call it the Coalition of the Blinging or Money Talk$ or something.
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?

User avatar
chykka
Brigadier
Posts: 3387
Joined: Wed 28 Nov 2012 14:55
Location: Canada, Alberta
Contact:

Re: What nations would you like to see in Red Dragon?

Postby chykka » Sat 17 Dec 2016 02:51

If the time frame gets extended I'd jump on Greece and Turkey.
Image

User avatar
Xeno426
Carbon 13
Posts: 11965
Joined: Tue 13 Mar 2012 21:27
Location: Acheron, Hadley's Hope
Contact:

Re: What nations would you like to see in Red Dragon?

Postby Xeno426 » Sat 17 Dec 2016 06:25

chykka wrote:If the time frame gets extended I'd jump on Greece and Turkey.

No, time frame is already stretched to breaking.
Image
CloakandDagger wrote:And you're one of the people with the shiny colored name. No wonder the game is in the state it's in.

Return to “Off-Topic”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Majestic-12 [Bot] and 9 guests