Things you DO NOT want to see in WG:RD

Bryan
General
Posts: 5993
Joined: Mon 7 Jan 2013 07:16
Contact:

Re: Things you DO NOT want to see in WG:RD

Postby Bryan » Fri 25 Oct 2013 13:54

Mitchverr wrote:1 thing that bugs me reading here.

The "no prototypes" thing, what about those that would go into production in case of war? Even if limited (btw the comment about the M8 on first page i think it was, it did go into production, the US currently have several in service iirc, but heh)?

What if the national "setup" is that of "we buy when we need"? Like the UK, saying "no prototypes" for example of the british military, would make a game based in the middle east today kinda, well, awkward, lol, not to forget ofcourse, most military campaigns by the british army in the last several decades, arguable since ww1, were based on "buy just before/during the operation", meaning that prototypes would be used, for example the sudden extra armor for british assets prior gulf war, and the milan platform for the warrior, and many other upgrades.


Just curious why people ignore how governments work, lol.


As for rather not see, well, a return of the derp arty is the obvious 1 for me lol.

Prototypes thats are beyond silly, i would rather not see, like ontos, but thats just me (im fine with logical prototypes like the M8 AGS, as an example).

"evac" having no real control on it for air support.

"dumbing down" of the command system and the way units move and fight.

No..no...its not really the fact that Prototypes exist. Its just that they should not be mainstays of decks. For the record we are talking about prototypes which are those like MBT-70 and Falcon which never entered production not those that were just late to the party.
For example Sweden right now in AB relies on the VEAK 40 prototype AA to provide Air defence against helicopters. This should not be the case as in real life RBS-70 performs that role. VEAK 40 should in this case work alongside the RBS-70 to fill a niche, not dominate it and become a must have unit for a viable deck.
Hope it clears it up.
Last edited by Bryan on Fri 25 Oct 2013 13:56, edited 1 time in total.

rattusxrattus
First Sergeant
Posts: 205
Joined: Sat 8 Sep 2012 10:33
Contact:

Re: Things you DO NOT want to see in WG:RD

Postby rattusxrattus » Fri 25 Oct 2013 13:55

:(
Last edited by OpusTheFowl on Fri 25 Oct 2013 13:58, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: Attack the subject, not the person please.

Kamil
Lieutenant
Posts: 1024
Joined: Thu 25 Apr 2013 22:43
Location: Poland
Contact:

Re: Things you DO NOT want to see in WG:RD

Postby Kamil » Fri 25 Oct 2013 14:06

Units with wrong introduce date like ALB seahawk, kiowa warrior, mi-24w, tow family and units with wrong loadout (so many of them).

User avatar
47andrej
Lieutenant
Posts: 1335
Joined: Sun 12 Feb 2012 19:22
Contact:

Re: Things you DO NOT want to see in WG:RD

Postby 47andrej » Fri 25 Oct 2013 14:23

Units which existed only on paper.
Last edited by 47andrej on Fri 25 Oct 2013 14:24, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
DeuZerre
More than 10 000 messages. Soldier you are the leader of all armies!
Posts: 11125
Joined: Mon 27 Feb 2012 23:17
Location: Universe, Galaxy, Solar System, Earth, Ground, Eurasian Continent, Main Landmass.
Contact:

Re: Things you DO NOT want to see in WG:RD

Postby DeuZerre » Fri 25 Oct 2013 14:24

Kamil wrote:Units with wrong introduce date like ALB seahawk, kiowa warrior, mi-24w, tow family and units with wrong loadout (so many of them).

Seahawks and Kiowa... Won't be wrong anymore in W:ALB.

Soon(tm)
Image
Marshal honoris causa
FLX wrote:Removing the weaknesses from the divisions leads to all divisions being the same in the long run. We won't proceed like that.

Kamil
Lieutenant
Posts: 1024
Joined: Thu 25 Apr 2013 22:43
Location: Poland
Contact:

Re: Things you DO NOT want to see in WG:RD

Postby Kamil » Fri 25 Oct 2013 14:28

DeuZerre wrote:
Kamil wrote:Units with wrong introduce date like ALB seahawk, kiowa warrior, mi-24w, tow family and units with wrong loadout (so many of them).

Seahawks and Kiowa... Won't be wrong anymore in W:ALB.

Soon(tm)

Thx!

andyana
Master Sergeant
Posts: 158
Joined: Sat 12 Jan 2013 15:21
Contact:

Re: Things you DO NOT want to see in WG:RD

Postby andyana » Fri 25 Oct 2013 14:55

I'm well aware that I will be in a minority here, but I really dislike the shift away from the Cold War theme and more into the mid 90s. Virtually every new unit thread is focused on units that would most likely not have been in service, which totally destroys the sense of immersion I'm looking for. Like I said, this is a minority view, and I don't care what goes on in multiplayer, but it would be really nice if they kept the campaigns free of any post '91 units.
Image

User avatar
Major Duck
Second-Lieutenant
Posts: 923
Joined: Sun 5 Aug 2012 14:55
Contact:

Re: Things you DO NOT want to see in WG:RD

Postby Major Duck » Fri 25 Oct 2013 15:34

Bryan wrote:
Mitchverr wrote:1 thing that bugs me reading here.

The "no prototypes" thing, what about those that would go into production in case of war? Even if limited (btw the comment about the M8 on first page i think it was, it did go into production, the US currently have several in service iirc, but heh)?

What if the national "setup" is that of "we buy when we need"? Like the UK, saying "no prototypes" for example of the british military, would make a game based in the middle east today kinda, well, awkward, lol, not to forget ofcourse, most military campaigns by the british army in the last several decades, arguable since ww1, were based on "buy just before/during the operation", meaning that prototypes would be used, for example the sudden extra armor for british assets prior gulf war, and the milan platform for the warrior, and many other upgrades.


Just curious why people ignore how governments work, lol.


As for rather not see, well, a return of the derp arty is the obvious 1 for me lol.

Prototypes thats are beyond silly, i would rather not see, like ontos, but thats just me (im fine with logical prototypes like the M8 AGS, as an example).

"evac" having no real control on it for air support.

"dumbing down" of the command system and the way units move and fight.

No..no...its not really the fact that Prototypes exist. Its just that they should not be mainstays of decks. For the record we are talking about prototypes which are those like MBT-70 and Falcon which never entered production not those that were just late to the party.
For example Sweden right now in AB relies on the VEAK 40 prototype AA to provide Air defence against helicopters. This should not be the case as in real life RBS-70 performs that role. VEAK 40 should in this case work alongside the RBS-70 to fill a niche, not dominate it and become a must have unit for a viable deck.
Hope it clears it up.


The problem with that statement is that more less all the minor country's depended on towed AA and Towed Art most Scandinavian country's had a lot of 40mm aa guns which irl have no trouble following the mech forces and shooting down helos but the game engine bla bla (I would like to see towed weapons in game without the animation we already have a lot of weapons that either are unrealistic in their deployment time , should have some kind of animation or need multiple vehicles to work at all and anybody who have time to look close on that detail level dont play this game and can go watch videos instead also if you look at infantry animation it kind of sucks so why not let the towed weapons animation suck many of them had the same kind of deployment time as self propelled weapons or close to so that argument dos-sent work either and just look at anzac they wont have artillery at all unless Eugen makes a Yeak or Chimera they only had towed weapons) :shock:
I totally agree with the prototype (non existing types should not be here especially chimera and BMPT) but weapons that came into service later can be prototypes fine by me. :roll:
And finally remove weapons that never existed like CV centurion for Denmark etc....
and make a either a load-out changer for aircraft/Helos or make a lot more configurations as there was a reason many of the small country's bought MULTI ROLE planes but if you only make 1 or 2 load-outs then its not MULTI ROLE anymore now is it :roll:
Image Happy New Year

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: Things you DO NOT want to see in WG:RD

Postby Killertomato » Fri 25 Oct 2013 16:19

ARMs have a huge place on the modern battlefield- they were used for exactly the things in Desert Storm and Yugoslavia that they are in-game. Would pilots choose to expend their missiles on a Shilka? Probably not. Did they? Almost certainly- anything with a radar is fair game.
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
wargamer1985
Brigadier
Posts: 3305
Joined: Sat 4 May 2013 00:36
Contact:

Re: Things you DO NOT want to see in WG:RD

Postby wargamer1985 » Fri 25 Oct 2013 16:25

Graphic wrote:Prototypes that didn't enter serial production becoming the linchpin of certain decks. Fun but non-crucial toys like the MBT-70, Zhalo, Norov, M8 AGS, etc. are fine. CATTB, Objekt ###, F-16XL (sorry, fellow Muricans) aren't.

Eh I'd much rather see the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet
APPLY TO THE GLORIOUS CULT OF THE WARHAWK! LIBERATING NAZIS SINCE 1939!
Image

Return to “Wargame : Red Dragon”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 47 guests