Suggestions

User avatar
DelroyMonjo
Colonel
Posts: 2604
Joined: Sun 6 May 2012 19:20
Contact:

Re: Suggestions

Postby DelroyMonjo » Sat 12 May 2012 12:06

Night Battles.....Snow......Rain.......Mud......
Illegitimi non carborundum.

Bluecewe
Sergeant Major
Posts: 261
Joined: Sat 11 Feb 2012 13:29
Contact:

Re: Suggestions

Postby Bluecewe » Sun 13 May 2012 00:34

I was discussing naval warfare implementation alongside the established gameplay mechanics with friends recently, and discovered that it could be done relatively simply.

Currently players deploy reinforcements through Deployment Zones which are held by command units, and are essentially one of two current Command Zone types; the other type being a Command Zone which simply provides the player with the most command units in that zone which an increased rate of Deployment Points.

The idea that I theorized built upon this system by adding a third type of Command Zone, a Sea Deployment Zone, which would be the same as the other Command Zones in that control of it benefits the player with an increased rate of Deployment Points and can be captured and held by a land-based command unit. The difference would be that these zones would be positioned alongside large rivers near the edge of maps, providing a deployment route for new naval units to enter the map.

These naval units would not be large aircraft carriers, but instead reasonably sized frigates and destroyers which would fulfil the roles of artillery, anti-aircraft, anti-sea, and supply. Ground-based supply units would also be able to resupply sea-based units if those sea-based units were positioned on the coastline, within the resupply range of ground-based resupply units. The same would be true for sea-based supply units being able to resupply ground-based units.

In summary, I feel that this idea integrates itself well into the way that Wargame gameplay mechanics currently function, placing naval warfare on equal footing with ground and air warfare, allowing it to essentially play the role of "just another unit type", being able to be compared with other units in the same way that aircraft can be compared with ground units.

My apologies if this idea has already been suggested, but I could not find any evidence of that being the case in several forum searches I attempted.

User avatar
Torrisco
Colonel
Posts: 2665
Joined: Wed 28 Mar 2012 04:10
Contact:

Re: Suggestions

Postby Torrisco » Mon 14 May 2012 03:11

Bluecewe wrote:I was discussing naval warfare implementation alongside the established gameplay mechanics with friends recently, and discovered that it could be done relatively simply.

Currently players deploy reinforcements through Deployment Zones which are held by command units, and are essentially one of two current Command Zone types; the other type being a Command Zone which simply provides the player with the most command units in that zone which an increased rate of Deployment Points.

The idea that I theorized built upon this system by adding a third type of Command Zone, a Sea Deployment Zone, which would be the same as the other Command Zones in that control of it benefits the player with an increased rate of Deployment Points and can be captured and held by a land-based command unit. The difference would be that these zones would be positioned alongside large rivers near the edge of maps, providing a deployment route for new naval units to enter the map.

These naval units would not be large aircraft carriers, but instead reasonably sized frigates and destroyers which would fulfil the roles of artillery, anti-aircraft, anti-sea, and supply. Ground-based supply units would also be able to resupply sea-based units if those sea-based units were positioned on the coastline, within the resupply range of ground-based resupply units. The same would be true for sea-based supply units being able to resupply ground-based units.

In summary, I feel that this idea integrates itself well into the way that Wargame gameplay mechanics currently function, placing naval warfare on equal footing with ground and air warfare, allowing it to essentially play the role of "just another unit type", being able to be compared with other units in the same way that aircraft can be compared with ground units.

My apologies if this idea has already been suggested, but I could not find any evidence of that being the case in several forum searches I attempted.


well i really just meant some boats, not frigates lol... little coastal patrol, amph and light and fast little boats... more tactical than fire power...

and with the bo105 variant suggestion, is because if you want an aa helo you must use 1 deck slot for it in nato side but if the bo105 a2a variant arrives you have 1 unit in deck with 3 variants, in pact side you have the mi-2 urp with 2 variants 1 with atgm and cannon and other with same weapons and also 4 igla while in nato only has 4 stinger. may be im wrong but seems that Nato is underpowered in anti aircraft, igla is better than stinger, roland 2 is cool but tunguska has 700m more of range, and buk m1 accu 10 vs chaparral 4 both with 4 missiles but bukm1 usually hit at first shot while chaparral needs at least a couple of missiles, mi2 urp gniewozs fire a2a and 23 mm cannon if run out of iglas and if some ground unit appear you can try to destroy it with atgm but the OH56 once fire its 4 stingers must run away.
Image

Bluecewe
Sergeant Major
Posts: 261
Joined: Sat 11 Feb 2012 13:29
Contact:

Re: Suggestions

Postby Bluecewe » Mon 14 May 2012 20:16

Torrisco wrote:well i really just meant some boats, not frigates lol... little coastal patrol, amph and light and fast little boats... more tactical than fire power...


Sorry, I didn't see your idea. I was focusing more on the core concept of how ships could be implemented in a mechanical sense, rather than the specific units, as I have no expertise in naval history.

Also, frigates and destroyers aren't really that big. For instance the modern-day Type 45 destroyer seems as though it would fit well with a lot of room to spare in a reasonably-sized river. I would imagine frigates to be smaller.

Whistler118
Sergeant Major
Posts: 276
Joined: Mon 30 Apr 2012 13:56
Contact:

Re: Suggestions

Postby Whistler118 » Mon 14 May 2012 23:57

Another thought and again apologies if this has already been said:

1. Transport helicopters (ones without weaponry) are useless once the infantry unit it was carrying is destroyed. Being able to use these helicopters as resupply helicopters by the automatic switch or by a button would make a pointless asset useful. It has to be remembered that helicopters are not organic to infantry units but rather attached, meaning that they would be used as resupply helis if not used as transport.

2. Along similar lines, Infantry and their transport are bought and fight together which means when either gets destroyed in fighting it makes the other pretty much useless. Having a system where you could resupply a vehicle or infantry section to the group, which moves immediately (without orders from player) to were the unit, is would solve this. To be clear not an automatic spawn but rather costs point and then from a reinforcement area drives automatically to the group. Perhaps having it so it cannot be selected until it has reached the group would stop players from re-routing reinforcements to support another area.

User avatar
Torrisco
Colonel
Posts: 2665
Joined: Wed 28 Mar 2012 04:10
Contact:

Re: Suggestions

Postby Torrisco » Thu 17 May 2012 15:37

another suggestion is to add a new variant of chaparral which uses MIM-72G developed in 1980's with the same guidance as MIM-92 stinger to balance the differences between BUK-M1 and chaparral. in several rounds as NATO i could see chaparral firing its 4 missiles and no one hit... would be really dissapointing in RL if you se a recon helo and all your missiles miss, what are you going to do next while you wait for reload and there are a couple of incoming attack helos? even purchasing 2 chaparral i've seen only 1 of 8 missiles hit, while bukm1 at least has 2 hits of 4 missiles... I know in cold war missiles weren't so accurate as the present day but chaparral system was developed to work and has been 30 years in service so i think it should work better.
Image

Hegemon
Chief Warrant Officer
Posts: 532
Joined: Mon 19 Mar 2012 07:33
Contact:

Re: Suggestions

Postby Hegemon » Thu 17 May 2012 15:41

Torrisco wrote:another suggestion is to add a new variant of chaparral which uses MIM-72G developed in 1980's with the same guidance as MIM-92 stinger to balance the differences between BUK-M1 and chaparral. in several rounds as NATO i could see chaparral firing its 4 missiles and no one hit... would be really dissapointing in RL if you se a recon helo and all your missiles miss, what are you going to do next while you wait for reload and there are a couple of incoming attack helos? even purchasing 2 chaparral i've seen only 1 of 8 missiles hit, while bukm1 at least has 2 hits of 4 missiles... I know in cold war missiles weren't so accurate as the present day but chaparral system was developed to work and has been 30 years in service so i think it should work better.

Chaparral has the same hit probability point-to-point as BUK-M1 :roll:
REDDQ wrote:T-80U shoots AP rounds made of pure Communism... any more questions?

User avatar
OpusTheFowl
General
Posts: 6660
Joined: Sun 26 Feb 2012 19:52
Location: White Rock, Canada
Contact:

Re: Suggestions

Postby OpusTheFowl » Thu 17 May 2012 15:42

A fully vetted M48A1 has the same to-hit chance as the BUK and still costs 15pts less...

User avatar
Torrisco
Colonel
Posts: 2665
Joined: Wed 28 Mar 2012 04:10
Contact:

Re: Suggestions

Postby Torrisco » Fri 18 May 2012 03:49

Hegemon wrote:
Torrisco wrote:another suggestion is to add a new variant of chaparral which uses MIM-72G developed in 1980's with the same guidance as MIM-92 stinger to balance the differences between BUK-M1 and chaparral. in several rounds as NATO i could see chaparral firing its 4 missiles and no one hit... would be really dissapointing in RL if you se a recon helo and all your missiles miss, what are you going to do next while you wait for reload and there are a couple of incoming attack helos? even purchasing 2 chaparral i've seen only 1 of 8 missiles hit, while bukm1 at least has 2 hits of 4 missiles... I know in cold war missiles weren't so accurate as the present day but chaparral system was developed to work and has been 30 years in service so i think it should work better.

Chaparral has the same hit probability point-to-point as BUK-M1 :roll:


Sorry but....

M48A1 CHAPARRAL
NAME MIM-72F
TYPE SAM
CALIBER Infrared
RANGE 4200 m
ACCURACY 4
AP POWER 0
HE POWER 7
ROF 9/min
AMMO 4 missiles

VS.

BUK-M1
NAME 9M38M1
TYPE SAM
CALIBER Radar
RANGE 4200 m
ACCURACY 10
AP POWER 0
HE POWER 10
ROF 6/min
AMMO 4 missiles

ACCU 4 vs 10 is not the same, HE power 7 vs 10 is not the same. also BUK-M1 is 10km/h faster. is no matter of numbers i have played hundreds of rounds and seen hundred of times both systems in action and seriously is not the same.
Image

User avatar
FLX
Lieutenant General
Posts: 4008
Joined: Fri 16 Mar 2012 10:43
Location: Paris
Contact:

Re: Suggestions

Postby FLX » Fri 18 May 2012 06:46

Acc 4 = 19% vs normal target
Acc 10 = 50% vs normal target

Vet4 chaparralA1 = 70 points
Acc4 with vet 4 = 52% vs normal target 57% vs big target (most PACT helo are big)

Chaparral real rate of fire is more than twice BUK's RoF becaus it shoots a burst of 4 missiles before reloading. Most of the time it can fire 3 or 4 missiles before the helo can react.

Conclusion chaparral has more chance to shoot down a helo than BUK but needs more supply.

PACT helo have 10HP which makes them more resilient but as said a thousand of time : faction are not mirrored and are not meant to be.
(+use search function)
Image
Be nice or I nerf your favorite unit !

Return to “Wargame : European Escalation”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests