Does naval categorisation undermine deck philosophy?

leroy11
First Sergeant
Posts: 231
Joined: Fri 6 Jul 2012 15:23
Contact:

Re: Does naval categorisation undermine deck philosophy?

Postby leroy11 » Sun 23 Feb 2014 22:12

D-M wrote:Personnally the only thing I fear is that landing troops/VHC would just a way to get units you wouldn't have access otherwise ( national/type deck). Like getting (I don't know) Abrams when you are playing a French marine deck.


Looking at the devblog again I also see that it is a way to break deck restrictions.

Notice there is almost as much infantry in the naval section?

You limit it infantry/armor to 5 slots but then let you fill our naval with infantry? OR cheap out on armour or infantry in the 'main deck' and put them in naval for free?

Oh and 8 5 point strelas? The crapper they are the less you get?

User avatar
T80U = tankbankai
Captain
Posts: 1596
Joined: Thu 9 Jan 2014 21:15
Location: Land of dank memes and broken dreams
Contact:

Re: Does naval categorisation undermine deck philosophy?

Postby T80U = tankbankai » Sun 23 Feb 2014 22:14

leroy11 wrote:
D-M wrote:Personnally the only thing I fear is that landing troops/VHC would just a way to get units you wouldn't have access otherwise ( national/type deck). Like getting (I don't know) Abrams when you are playing a French marine deck.


Looking at the devblog again I also see that it is a way to break deck restrictions.

Notice there is almost as much infantry in the naval section?

You limit it infantry/armor to 5 slots but then let you fill our naval with infantry? OR cheap out on armour or infantry in the 'main deck' and put them in naval for free?

Oh and 8 5 point strelas? The crapper they are the less you get?


The strela 2 in game is the M version I suspect this will be REDFORS blowpipe.
Wargame: Mediterranean Factions/Thread Of The Year
Image
Countess Bathory wrote:Nearly all of humanity's problems could be solved by delicious fried chicken.

User avatar
guynumber7
Captain
Posts: 1624
Joined: Tue 14 Feb 2012 09:11
Location: Alberta
Contact:

Re: Does naval categorisation undermine deck philosophy?

Postby guynumber7 » Mon 24 Feb 2014 01:06

I still think that you should get bonuses if you happen to take only your factions naval units.
youtube.com/guynumber7

wargame vids shall be put up

TankHunter
Lieutenant Colonel
Posts: 2220
Joined: Tue 31 Jul 2012 06:00
Contact:

Re: Does naval categorisation undermine deck philosophy?

Postby TankHunter » Mon 24 Feb 2014 01:31

I think landing forces will be limited to the Coalition or Nation you choose. They wouldn't overlook that, I hope.
"The Nazis entered this war under the rather childish delusion that they were going to bomb everybody else, and nobody was going to bomb them [. . .] They sowed the wind, and now, they are going to reap the whirlwind."

User avatar
RangerPL
Major
Posts: 1909
Joined: Thu 27 Jun 2013 08:26
Location: ostrichland
Contact:

Re: Does naval categorisation undermine deck philosophy?

Postby RangerPL » Mon 24 Feb 2014 01:34

TankHunter wrote:I think landing forces will be limited to the Coalition or Nation you choose. They wouldn't overlook that, I hope.

Devblog said only ships and naval aircraft are available to everybody, while ground troops are not.
Image

leroy11
First Sergeant
Posts: 231
Joined: Fri 6 Jul 2012 15:23
Contact:

Re: Does naval categorisation undermine deck philosophy?

Postby leroy11 » Mon 24 Feb 2014 08:53

T80U = tankbankai wrote:The strela 2 in game is the M version I suspect this will be REDFORS blowpipe.


Yeah but 8! WHy would you take that card again?

Wolfie
Corporal
Posts: 20
Joined: Sat 3 Aug 2013 00:00
Contact:

Re: Does naval categorisation undermine deck philosophy?

Postby Wolfie » Mon 24 Feb 2014 10:15

leroy11 wrote:
T80U = tankbankai wrote:The strela 2 in game is the M version I suspect this will be REDFORS blowpipe.


Yeah but 8! WHy would you take that card again?

Cat C decks. Same reason you only get 1 F-111 when the ruskies got 2 SU-24Ms
Every advance you make is a rush.
If you ever buy more than one of a unit it is spam.
And if you ever lose, it was cheese.

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

Re: Does naval categorisation undermine deck philosophy?

Postby Bluecewe » Tue 25 Feb 2014 19:54

From what I have seen of the Red Dragon closed beta in livestreams so far, my concerns would appear to be well-founded. The presence of sea-borne and sea-centric non-ship units in the marine category would appear to undermine the deck philosophy of Wargame up to this point. I hope that the developers are becoming aware of this, and are willing to explore a different design approach to the introduction of naval units in relation to decks.

Return to “Wargame : Red Dragon”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests