Does naval categorisation undermine deck philosophy?

Carnage1138
Master Sergeant
Posts: 199
Joined: Tue 28 Feb 2012 19:59
Location: Northern Virginia, CSA
Contact:

Re: Does naval categorisation undermine deck philosophy?

Postby Carnage1138 » Sat 22 Feb 2014 23:14

QUAD wrote:Certain deck specialization a should affect the navy. Like better corvettes in an airborne deck.


Sorry to double post but what is the rationale behind paratroopers from the 82nd Airborne getting better corvettes? :?:
Image

User avatar
QUAD
Colonel
Posts: 2766
Joined: Sun 10 Nov 2013 21:17
Contact:

Re: Does naval categorisation undermine deck philosophy?

Postby QUAD » Sat 22 Feb 2014 23:16

:D just an example. I wanted to say "marine" decks...
Mobile Units Operational :!:

User avatar
orcbuster
More than 10 000 messages. Soldier you are the leader of all armies!
Posts: 12362
Joined: Fri 7 Sep 2012 21:04
Contact:

Re: Does naval categorisation undermine deck philosophy?

Postby orcbuster » Sat 22 Feb 2014 23:22

there really shouldnt be any naval specialization bonuses. there aren't enough units for it.
Image
Viker for ingen!

Carnage1138
Master Sergeant
Posts: 199
Joined: Tue 28 Feb 2012 19:59
Location: Northern Virginia, CSA
Contact:

Re: Does naval categorisation undermine deck philosophy?

Postby Carnage1138 » Sat 22 Feb 2014 23:24

QUAD wrote::D just an example. I wanted to say "marine" decks...


Aaah......well that's something I might agree with. Unless of course your navy actually
is part of your Army (ie the PLAN or People's Liberation Army Navy).
Image

User avatar
HarmonicaWizard
Sergeant
Posts: 51
Joined: Tue 18 Feb 2014 16:22
Contact:

Re: Does naval categorisation undermine deck philosophy?

Postby HarmonicaWizard » Sat 22 Feb 2014 23:33

It has been said that there will be some land only maps, for everyone who doesn't want to use naval units ( which I find understandable ). Also, there are only about 100 naval units in the game, according to Dev Blog 14, and thus it would be very hard to have specialization of naval units. One thing I'm interested in is that the Russians and Chinese are portrayed on the same side. I doubt that would really be the case, but maybe the alternate campaign will have specially circumstances.
"You might think that your nighthawk is cool and all, but tell me, can it time travel and speak in an Austrian accent? I don't think so."
Image

User avatar
SKLKNKR
Brigadier
Posts: 3137
Joined: Sat 4 Jan 2014 08:34
Contact:

Re: Does naval categorisation undermine deck philosophy?

Postby SKLKNKR » Sat 22 Feb 2014 23:46

I find the whole naval thing to be a bit weird. It just doesn't seem to work well. Unless all naval based air units can only attack boats, I see many people choosing an all plane naval section just to have extra gun firepower. I don't see this as an effective solution knowing what I know now about it, but it very well could work.
Image
Spoiler : :
ImageImageImageImage

Thanks to F-22 for the avatar and Iris for the signature

Izo Azlion
Master Sergeant
Posts: 154
Joined: Fri 24 Feb 2012 14:47
Contact:

Re: Does naval categorisation undermine deck philosophy?

Postby Izo Azlion » Sat 22 Feb 2014 23:56

I worry that the naval side of it is just going to make it derpy. Possibly gone a little too big too soon with regards to the size of ships - I'd have been happy with patrol boats and such, instead of Destroyers etc. Oh well, I guess some of you lot find out pretty soon so looking forward to seeing how it is.

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

Re: Does naval categorisation undermine deck philosophy?

Postby TankHunter » Sun 23 Feb 2014 00:11

Izo Azlion wrote:I worry that the naval side of it is just going to make it derpy. Possibly gone a little too big too soon with regards to the size of ships - I'd have been happy with patrol boats and such, instead of Destroyers etc. Oh well, I guess some of you lot find out pretty soon so looking forward to seeing how it is.


Destroyers could possibly be seen in coastal support roles. Being naval CV's, and only coming in 1 or 2 per card, while smaller craft like the OSA Class Missile Boat, which came in packs of 4 (Moskit Missile boat in MadMat's Yalu Deck). I suspect that we will not have to worry about seeing too many destroyers
"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."

Carnage1138
Master Sergeant
Posts: 199
Joined: Tue 28 Feb 2012 19:59
Location: Northern Virginia, CSA
Contact:

Re: Does naval categorisation undermine deck philosophy?

Postby Carnage1138 » Sun 23 Feb 2014 01:29

Izo Azlion wrote:I worry that the naval side of it is just going to make it derpy. Possibly gone a little too big too soon with regards to the size of ships - I'd have been happy with patrol boats and such, instead of Destroyers etc. Oh well, I guess some of you lot find out pretty soon so looking forward to seeing how it is.


Well its not like people would be able to choose the USS Missouri so its not that unbalanced.
Image

someone77
Corporal
Posts: 37
Joined: Thu 6 Feb 2014 02:53
Contact:

Re: Does naval categorisation undermine deck philosophy?

Postby someone77 » Sun 23 Feb 2014 01:34

I love all the conjecture when no one here has actually played the game in its current state. Let's all wait til we have a chance to play before we pass any judgement.

Return to “Wargame : Red Dragon”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 34 guests