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

User avatar
Eiya
Corporal
Posts: 49
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 » Tue 16 Jan 2018 15:04

urogard wrote:Keep in mind I'm not saying a word about your sources or information being wrong, inaccurate or somehow flawed. I'm merely pointing out the weaknesses in your presentation. It's free advice, take it or leave it.

Eiya wrote:Info is cross-checked when possible with multiple sources, and I note when something is questionable, and also have removed units that later I found out were OOTF (post-2000).

As you know, EUG is VERY flexible with OOTF. Especially with the arguments along the lines of "cold war gone hot, developments accelerated".

Eiya wrote:Information about this is just simply scattered and hard to find as I've noted, and is pretty much non-existent or severely lacking in English. Which I also have noted in the thread I made.

As a rule everyone posts foreign language information directly in the nation thread as it's written in the original (for the few people who can understand it) and a decently accurate translation.
So something not being in english is not even an exception, it's actually a fairly common occurrence.

Eiya wrote:And I have included some (but not all; I lost my bookmarks a while ago) of the more notable sources I've used in the same thread.

Piece of advice for when you go to university and/or do a job where you need to write reports which get distributed to other people/get published.
(Source: globalsecurity.org & Wikipedia )

Is not a source. You need to write the full link, or the name of the book or anything [and optionally add a date when it was accessed]

Eiya wrote:With no offense to Keldon, I have noted the things said and I have given my counterpoints, I do not feel like there was much real advice (or what I feel is advice at least, and for the record I don't mean absolutely all the stuff he said is meaningless or whatever).

Whether you agree with him or not is your choice. As long as everyone deals with different opinions in a reasonable way.
After all, opinions are not equal because they are subjective. Even from the same person, some opinions will be valuable and some will be worthless.


My response is to your statement that "Usually there's a significant amount of research backed by decent amount of verifiable documents/information."

And I didn't put full links in certain cases because the idea is that if anyone wants to, they could just look it up as it's an English source, In unit descriptions I generally put links to sources that are not in English or for extremely obscure systems in the thread.

When I mentioned 'notable sources I used' I was referring mostly to the section titled SOURCES before the unit list but welp.

urogard
Brigadier
Posts: 3046
Joined: Sun 4 May 2014 13:31
Contact:

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

Postby urogard » Tue 16 Jan 2018 15:17

Eiya wrote:My response is to your statement that "Usually there's a significant amount of research backed by decent amount of verifiable documents/information."

And I didn't put full links in certain cases because the idea is that if anyone wants to, they could just look it up as it's an English source, In unit descriptions I generally put links to sources that are not in English or for extremely obscure systems in the thread.

That's LITERALLY not how research works.

User avatar
Eiya
Corporal
Posts: 49
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 » Tue 16 Jan 2018 15:18

urogard wrote:
Eiya wrote:My response is to your statement that "Usually there's a significant amount of research backed by decent amount of verifiable documents/information."

And I didn't put full links in certain cases because the idea is that if anyone wants to, they could just look it up as it's an English source, In unit descriptions I generally put links to sources that are not in English or for extremely obscure systems in the thread.

That's LITERALLY not how research works.


If it makes you happy I could try to fish all the sources back and put them together again, funny how you nitpick those specific ones while disregarding how I did note sources w/links and the like in other sections, but I'll say it's a valid concern. I'll try improving that.

And as you've seemed to misunderstand my reply, I was addressing all the things you've mentioned, namely
1. Apparently "how well-fleshed out other non-included nation threads are" :
Which I've already mentioned in my own thread that my list is probably not fully complete, I do not know for sure, and again the information is really scattered and hard to find so that's also a factor. And I can say with some amount of certainty that my thread is at least more fleshed out than previous threads proposing the ROC (excluding some sections like small-arms and NAV currently).

2. "Usually there's a significant amount of research backed by decent amount of verifiable documents/information." :
Ditto on the scattered information part. I cannot vouch for how verifiable some of the information is due to conflicting information and as noted how its generally hard to find certain info in the first place so cross-checking is not always possible.

User avatar
keldon
Major
Posts: 1990
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 » Tue 16 Jan 2018 17:11

Eiya wrote:With no offense to Keldon, I have noted the things said and I have given my counterpoints, I do not feel like there was much real advice (or what I feel is advice at least, and for the record I don't mean absolutely all the stuff he said is meaningless or whatever).


Since urogard is still trying to give you pointers, maybe a few last things from me. Now with 90% less trolling and 100% more advices.

Thematically i do believe nobody here have anything against taiwan being included. As for that fear of banning, you should have known wargame can be banned simply due to that british campaign and eugen blacklisted, but it isn't. However this is a entire different topic that eugen needs to deal with if they seriously want to tap into the gigantic mainland market.

So what are the possibilities for taiwan to be there? 1) Wargame 4 2) paid DLC. In case of wargame 4 you'll need to hope for an asian setting (thematical), but otherwise no big issues. As for paid DLC you need to convince eugen of flavor and what taiwan can offer better than Iran for example.

And keep in mind the reason why i said mood of eugen employee matters is because if things get serious you'll need to deal with MadMat. Generally there are 2 versions of him, the "rejective" one and "DLC" one. The best chances of success is to adhere to rules they themselves have set (even if they like to break them) and hoping you get him in his DLC stage. However since the most of us proposing faction/units/balance adjustments are mostly dealing with "rejective" Mat, therefore you should regard what we have posted as a traing simulation of a sort.

With this in mind i hope you will finally understand things like "taking coalition partners into consideration" since Mat will most probably say: "1996? OOTF! And you have this and that in a coalition! REJECTED!"

As for your research, you keep trying to sell taiwan as have some sort of trump card in flavortown or even capability competition. But it really isn't and that's what many people are trying to tell you, including me (ANd i have a solid grasp on what taiwan has to offer). And don't get me wrong, i understand the enthusiasm one can get coming from "i don't even know that existed". But let's be real here, stuff like Kunwu ATGM is basically CAT C trash, and XT-69 will be abstracted to a 75pts CAT B arty piece unless you can provide info on digital arty FCS from 1981. Bottomline is you are getting a CAT B deck in capability, hence the pay to lose jab. You may also want to think about a deck theme i.e. what the taiwan deck should be good at in order to argue for flavor.

You also may want to base your research more on taiwanese sources, since the imports are easier to research than what the army themselves may have done. Are you actually subscribed to 尖端科技? They are always a safe bet, and you may want to ask your local library if they have issues from the 80s-90s. Or just buy their digital compendium. Anyway, good luck and hf again.
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♪

urogard
Brigadier
Posts: 3046
Joined: Sun 4 May 2014 13:31
Contact:

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

Postby urogard » Tue 16 Jan 2018 22:21

Eiya wrote:If it makes you happy I could try to fish all the sources back and put them together again, funny how you nitpick those specific ones while disregarding how I did note sources w/links and the like in other sections, but I'll say it's a valid concern. I'll try improving that.

People were trying to explain to you how EUG MadMat can be very difficult when national armories get discussed. If your presentation is not close to perfect everywhere, they'll point out the bad thing and ignore the rest of it. Of course by definition I'll point out the flaws in the parts which have problems.
That's almost like saying the architect should not be picked on only on the one half of his bridge which collapsed.

Eiya wrote:And as you've seemed to misunderstand my reply, I was addressing all the things you've mentioned, namely
1. Apparently "how well-fleshed out other non-included nation threads are" :
Which I've already mentioned in my own thread that my list is probably not fully complete, I do not know for sure, and again the information is really scattered and hard to find so that's also a factor. And I can say with some amount of certainty that my thread is at least more fleshed out than previous threads proposing the ROC (excluding some sections like small-arms and NAV currently).

If it's better than previous threads then that's a great step forward. But ultimately even if information is hard to find and you're the only one performing the difficult task of looking for it, there's ways how to present that fact in the thread.
Sometimes lack of information in particular places is information in itself.

Steamfunk
Lieutenant
Posts: 1437
Joined: Sun 14 Dec 2014 06:19

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

Postby Steamfunk » Wed 17 Jan 2018 00:01

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.


Are you sure about that - not saying Taiwan couldn't be in the game but a campaign with PRC wouldn't go down too well, I'd imagine.

User avatar
keldon
Major
Posts: 1990
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 » Wed 17 Jan 2018 00:20

Steamfunk wrote:Are you sure about that - not saying Taiwan couldn't be in the game but a campaign with PRC wouldn't go down too well, I'd imagine.


It needs to be titled Reunification while let you play as red, there have been RTS in the past published in mainland with that sort of campaign. However overall the campaigns need a lookat if eugen want to appeal to the mainland market and minimize the issues with authority.
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♪

User avatar
Eiya
Corporal
Posts: 49
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 » Wed 17 Jan 2018 09:41

keldon wrote:Post

Thanks for the advice, I haven't spent that much time on the forums to know about more specific details (what you pointed out about certain authority figures).

I'm not (or at least I wasn't trying to) sell ROC as some sort of trumpcard, I'm aware of the limitations of unit choices and such, but on the flipside I don't agree that it's a nation 'not worth' adding or that it's a 'weak' nation that doesn't have unique units or any new capabilities.

(I still disagree with the US Cat B deck comparison simply because it's really just too simplistic, such a comparison disregards details, capabilities and the selection choices of a real potential ROC deck, and simply really does not well represent the lineup that I've proposed at all.
Or in other words it's an incomplete abstraction and that isn't and shouldn't be called an accurate simulation)

The ROC can add more to the game, by itself or as a coalition partner to BD. It's not going to be W.Ger/Israel but it's not exactly Denmark/ANZAC either.

For capabilities, it could for example add
(just reminding this does not address everything, the units the ROC add could potentially provide a lot of interplay which may or may not be immediately obvious right now, these just two notable examples I can think of)
A cluster HEAT / Incendiary MLRS to Blue Dragons.
APC-mount MLRS which would be notable in amphibious assaults among other situations.

Finally I chose to mention Kunwu and XT-69 because they're examples that the ROC has unique units in itself (well maybe not the Kunwu but you get the idea), and not completely US-made units. And because personally those two are some of the units I've stumbled upon just by chance when researching.

The main point I would push the addition of the ROC for is that, the East Asia focus just needs this one more nation, which is viable for WG that does have a number of unique units/capabilities (capabilities relevant to WG-scale that is) of its own, to complete the the regional focus for RD. (or maybe the next WG who knows)

On campaigns:
Adding Project Kuokuang (Project National Glory) and/or Great Torch Five as a campaign along with the obvious PRC-reclamation campaign would be great.

it would give a fresh new perspective on a history, and its details, that is largely obscure in the West.
(it would also sell well in both Taiwan and mainland China, or at least one in the long term considering the potential ban in the other)
Along with being a nice change from the obvious PRC reunification campaign ideas.

And @Keldon on the censoring issue, HOI IV was banned in the PRC last year despite being on sale for nearly a full year on Steam, which may or may not be a coincidence considering there was a new expansion announced for fleshing out China during WW2.
(As HOI III and II were banned on release on grounds of 'violating national sovereignty' by showing Taiwan under Japanese rule, the warlord states and etc.

HOI IV being on sale for such a long time before getting the hammer adds confusion as what exactly the ban standards are.
My point in pointing this out is that you really can't say WG not being banned definitely equals it didn't warrant a ban in the eyes of the PRC, there are just too many potential factors like just being under the radar etc, or maybe it really doesn't warrant a ban, who knows)

So yeah, how the censors work is just going to be some not-so ancient Chinese secret that no one can fully understand.

urogard
Brigadier
Posts: 3046
Joined: Sun 4 May 2014 13:31
Contact:

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

Postby urogard » Wed 17 Jan 2018 12:09

Eiya wrote:And @Keldon on the censoring issue, HOI IV was banned in the PRC last year despite being on sale for nearly a full year on Steam, which may or may not be a coincidence considering there was a new expansion announced for fleshing out China during WW2.
(As HOI III and II were banned on release on grounds of 'violating national sovereignty' by showing Taiwan under Japanese rule, the warlord states and etc.

Maybe they didn't want to pay full price initially so they didn't know exactly about its contents :lol:
Took a while for them to notice the game and then get a hold of a copy :lol: :lol: :lol:

User avatar
keldon
Major
Posts: 1990
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 » Wed 17 Jan 2018 15:08

Eiya wrote:So yeah, how the censors work is just going to be some not-so ancient Chinese secret that no one can fully understand.


This isn't some well hidden mystery, that requires you to attain enlightment prior.

The basic guidline for getting your games banned is:

- Violating basic principles of the Constitution of the People's Republic of China
- Threatening national unity, sovereignty and territorial integrity
- Divulging state secrets
- Threatening state security
- Damaging national sovereignty
- Disturbing social order
- Infringing upon others' rights


example and reasons given by the ministry of culture on Hearts of Iron and C&C Generals zero hour: http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/do ... 334845.htm

Keep in mind this is 11 years prior to the lifting of console ban.

There are precautions you can make to prevent a ban, but it requires the company not going into this starry-eyed. And I repeat, that this is something eugen needs to deal/inform themselves with if they seriously want to get into the mainland market, which by the way is something no region including taiwan can dream to match in terms of revenue.

As for the "uniqness" of RoC units: You'll have to understand that their abstracted ingame performance is what matters. Take the XT-69 for example, if you can somehow provide info on the FCS being a computerized one, then you can legitimately ask for a 10 sec fast aiming gun, however this will still be your average high-end arty. The true unique one would be the 203mm fast aiming gun. But good luck find this info, as i don't think taiwan had such equipment in 1981.

The same procedure needs to applied to all other kits you want to argue as unique/special/whatever, otherwise you'll have to finally accept that the performance level and unit option Taiwan offers is around CAT B level. The only interesting one is the MLRS mounted IFV, which frankly should be ingame in the NK roster from the beginning.
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 19 guests