WG4 Vision: What works, what doesn't, what needs improved?

User avatar
Eiya
Sergeant
Posts: 51
Joined: Fri 10 Mar 2017 15:33
Location: 台灣省, 中華民國 R.O.C.
Contact:

Re: WG4 Vision: What works, what doesn't, what needs improved?

Postby Eiya » Sun 14 Jan 2018 01:58

keldon wrote:I fail to see in what significant way taiwan differs from USA CAT B. If we assume "DLC circumstances" and using the stuff you posted, then we are at "gimme OOTF units" stage. Of course certain OOTF units can and should be expected given what eugen already done, but even with the stuff you posted i would still rate it lower than dutch, which many people regard as an ok middle ground for paid content.


Well here, what you're telling me is that this deck

Is appropriately representative of all the potential units that could be added in? We can even forego what you consider as OOTF units in this case and it still isn't a good representation.

Something like this would be slightly closer in capability IMO, but even this is a gross misrepresentation.
(E.G. ROK prototype M48A5K WRSA would be better here, along with other unit choices that would be more appropriate but are locked behind prototype status and all the other simply 'not in-game' units)

Both decks lack the potential APC-mounted MLRS systems, Kungfeng MLRS systems (Incl. potential incendiary rockets, and the AP Cluster Kungfeng VII), the KM900'ish CM-31, and also doesn't appropriately potray the APC options, MBT quirks and so on so on.
Last edited by Eiya on Sun 14 Jan 2018 03:12, edited 4 times in total.

urogard
Brigadier
Posts: 3058
Joined: Sun 4 May 2014 13:31
Contact:

Re: WG4 Vision: What works, what doesn't, what needs improved?

Postby urogard » Sun 14 Jan 2018 02:31

Eiya wrote:
urogard wrote:
Eiya wrote:
But units in-game currently do cut off at 1996 though.

how do you figure that? because that's most certainly not the cutoff date.
And I really hope your reasoning is a lot better than some weird illusion along the lines of "because the armory says so" .


I'm aware that's not the 'official' cutoff date but currently, yes, because the armory says so.
By the way, you might just find a few people who might also think the same way.

what you seem to not be aware of, is the commonly known fact that the information given in the armory are closer to what people would call "guidelines" as opposed to actual rules/stats/data.

but anyways, point remains, if you set a claim that units get "cut off at 1996" only basing it on what the armory feeds you as opposed to actual RL information ....
.... you're going to have a bad time around here.

cut off date has always been highly flexible.

User avatar
Eiya
Sergeant
Posts: 51
Joined: Fri 10 Mar 2017 15:33
Location: 台灣省, 中華民國 R.O.C.
Contact:

Re: WG4 Vision: What works, what doesn't, what needs improved?

Postby Eiya » Sun 14 Jan 2018 03:01

urogard wrote:what you seem to not be aware of, is the commonly known fact that the information given in the armory are closer to what people would call "guidelines" as opposed to actual rules/stats/data.

but anyways, point remains, if you set a claim that units get "cut off at 1996" only basing it on what the armory feeds you as opposed to actual RL information ....
.... you're going to have a bad time around here.

cut off date has always been highly flexible.


I don't see the issue, that was what I meant. My point was that the current highest 'stated' cutoff date is at 1996 in-game currently, I know some of the units are not exactly introduced/developed/etc on the date the armory gives.

User avatar
chykka
Brigadier
Posts: 3377
Joined: Wed 28 Nov 2012 14:55
Location: Canada, Alberta
Contact:

Re: WG4 Vision: What works, what doesn't, what needs improved?

Postby chykka » Sun 14 Jan 2018 04:00

Maybe GPS and GLONASS can make an appearance :)
Image

User avatar
HrcAk47
Colonel
Posts: 2788
Joined: Sat 3 May 2014 18:00
Contact:

Re: WG4 Vision: What works, what doesn't, what needs improved?

Postby HrcAk47 » Sun 14 Jan 2018 05:17

Most OOTF unit (well, a weapon) that I know of in WG is Arkan missile, from 2012.
The SEAD never bothered me anyway.

SMB Yugoslavia Retexture Mod, now released, v.1.0

User avatar
chykka
Brigadier
Posts: 3377
Joined: Wed 28 Nov 2012 14:55
Location: Canada, Alberta
Contact:

Re: WG4 Vision: What works, what doesn't, what needs improved?

Postby chykka » Sun 14 Jan 2018 05:52

when was nimrod active in service?
Image

User avatar
Markenzwieback
Captain
Posts: 1707
Joined: Tue 27 Oct 2015 17:06
Contact:

Re: WG4 Vision: What works, what doesn't, what needs improved?

Postby Markenzwieback » Sun 14 Jan 2018 11:27

chykka wrote:when was nimrod active in service?

Considering the LAHAT (Nimrod-SR) was in service starting from roundabout, the base Nimrod missile should be earlier. Gonna search for a photo we had on here real quick.

Edit: Okay, here we go:
Image

Most sources put this image at around 1991, test flights. The IAF homepage details the project was launched during the 1980s, but was canceled and only relaunched during the 1990s. In WG:RD timeline, this axing of a promising project would have probably never happened during a wartime environment, so I'd say 1991 or 1992 as a date would actually be realistic.
Image

urogard
Brigadier
Posts: 3058
Joined: Sun 4 May 2014 13:31
Contact:

Re: WG4 Vision: What works, what doesn't, what needs improved?

Postby urogard » Sun 14 Jan 2018 12:07

Eiya wrote:
urogard wrote:cut off date has always been highly flexible.


I don't see the issue, that was what I meant. My point was that the current highest 'stated' cutoff date is at 1996 in-game currently, I know some of the units are not exactly introduced/developed/etc on the date the armory gives.

But the "stated" is a complete fantasy, because "armory 1996" is NOT "RL 1996" but rather "eugen-balancing" which depends a lot more on which country you're talking about and what other units they already have (due to the hypothetical "what-if" reality WG is taking place in).

So again, don't ever refer to armory dates for anything beyond 1990 because nobody will take you seriously in a discussion. All you do is hurt your own argument. Refer to actual RL documents and developments.

User avatar
Eiya
Sergeant
Posts: 51
Joined: Fri 10 Mar 2017 15:33
Location: 台灣省, 中華民國 R.O.C.
Contact:

Re: WG4 Vision: What works, what doesn't, what needs improved?

Postby Eiya » Sun 14 Jan 2018 12:11

urogard wrote:
Eiya wrote:
urogard wrote:cut off date has always been highly flexible.


I don't see the issue, that was what I meant. My point was that the current highest 'stated' cutoff date is at 1996 in-game currently, I know some of the units are not exactly introduced/developed/etc on the date the armory gives.

But the "stated" is a complete fantasy, because "armory 1996" is NOT "RL 1996" but rather "eugen-balancing" which depends a lot more on which country you're talking about and what other units they already have (due to the hypothetical "what-if" reality WG is taking place in).


That is what I meant though.

User avatar
keldon
Lieutenant Colonel
Posts: 2044
Joined: Tue 16 Sep 2014 16:38
Location: Liebe Grüße aus Stuttgart
Contact:

Re: WG4 Vision: What works, what doesn't, what needs improved?

Postby keldon » Sun 14 Jan 2018 15:46

Eiya wrote:Well here, what you're telling me is that this deck

Is appropriately representative of all the potential units that could be added in? We can even forego what you consider as OOTF units in this case and it still isn't a good representation.

Something like this would be slightly closer in capability IMO, but even this is a gross misrepresentation.
(E.G. ROK prototype M48A5K WRSA would be better here, along with other unit choices that would be more appropriate but are locked behind prototype status and all the other simply 'not in-game' units)

Both decks lack the potential APC-mounted MLRS systems, Kungfeng MLRS systems (Incl. potential incendiary rockets, and the AP Cluster Kungfeng VII), the KM900'ish CM-31, and also doesn't appropriately potray the APC options, MBT quirks and so on so on.


You still don't get it? The deck you posted is still mostly US hardware (second tier, i might add), albeit under different flags. Even if we get all the OOTF units to have a favorable representation of taiwan, you still get a severely downgraded USA, that is bland, lacks character and anything special. In gameplay you are very likely to get shit on by the majority of decks out there, imagine you have paid like 6 euro for this, if this is not pay to lose, i don't know what is.

I would also refrain to sell taiwan as a naval powerhouse, aside from the fact that naval is poorly received and has major problems concerning gamemechanics, other nations like japan could legitimately bring more stuff to the table, and japan is an asian power.

Like i said thematically taiwan shoul not be a problem, since there are plenty of scenarios of chinese civil war to continue. This also shouldn't be a problem in China, since you can freely purchase wargame in mainland. The control body for electronic entertainment doesn't give a shit when you keep a low profil and rename nation pack into faction pack. Technically nothing prevents taiwan to be there from the beginning.

From gameplay perspective it is most sensible to regard it as the ticket to power for BD, since they literally only needs 1 high AP infantry and some costeffective AT plane, which taiwan can provide. The taiwan deck can just consist of those 2 units padded out with stoneslinging neanderthals everywhere else and the coalition would still be great.

Also for the last time, official cutoff date is 1991. Everything later depends on many factors, including but not limited to the mood of eugen; what the candidate can offer in terms of kits/game machanics; how far OOTF the interesting/necessary units are and what coalition partners offer. The best you can hope is for eugen to make wargame 4 and as incentive i would recommend you write to governor Tsai and tell that cabbage there exist a semi realistic game where you can beat those 426 to death with our glorious elite troops. She would prolly consider it as a top priority and bribe the shit out of eugen. Problem solved and everyone of us would be happy.
Image
> Sources for tuning Red Dragons --- Sources for tuning Blue Dragons <
亲们!大国梦哦!
小钱钱,真心甜,鼓钱包,放腰间,大国梦,早日圆 。啷个哩个啷♪

Return to “Wargame : Red Dragon”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 27 guests