The reasons naval units were a bad idea

User avatar
HaryPL
Lieutenant
Posts: 1373
Joined: Mon 3 Dec 2012 01:41
Contact:

Re: The reasons naval units were a bad idea

Postby HaryPL » Mon 3 Mar 2014 13:03

Anyone noticed that NATO supply boat brings in less supplies than REDFOR one? Is this balanced with availability or something else?

Leyline
Warrant Officer
Posts: 490
Joined: Fri 6 Jul 2012 19:51
Contact:

Re: The reasons naval units were a bad idea

Postby Leyline » Mon 3 Mar 2014 14:26

Its not that anti ship missiles are weapons of doom.... its that modern ships are not armored.

That aside, price screw.

Watching games with people starting to whip out FLEETS of the ships is a bit weird.

One Destroyer and 2 frigates should be a menacing mighty presence, seing a few dozens of the fckers floating around is comical.

And perhaps making sure the naval deck is actually.. a bit.. constrained for Activation points so you hav to pick and choose just like you do with your land deck?

Panzeh
Second-Lieutenant
Posts: 775
Joined: Mon 7 Nov 2011 12:41
Contact:

Re: The reasons naval units were a bad idea

Postby Panzeh » Mon 3 Mar 2014 14:32

Leyline wrote:Its not that anti ship missiles are weapons of doom.... its that modern ships are not armored.

That aside, price screw.

Watching games with people starting to whip out FLEETS of the ships is a bit weird.

One Destroyer and 2 frigates should be a menacing mighty presence, seing a few dozens of the fckers floating around is comical.

And perhaps making sure the naval deck is actually.. a bit.. constrained for Activation points so you hav to pick and choose just like you do with your land deck?


How is jiggering with the deck mechanics and prices going to fix the fact that fighting between ships with anti-ship missiles is massively boring? It's literally more ships = better than.

User avatar
PerArdua
Sergeant Major of the Army
Posts: 359
Joined: Wed 9 Oct 2013 20:48
Location: Evocati serving Under The Eagles
Contact:

Re: The reasons naval units were a bad idea

Postby PerArdua » Mon 3 Mar 2014 15:17

DoktorvonWer wrote:
PerArdua wrote:We lost our popper carriers in the 60's for helicopter carriers (not that apply's to wargame as its all off map support).


Actually, the Audacious-class carriers were in service until 1980, and the Centaurs (a teeny bit bigger than the Invincibles) until 1984, so not quite true.


Yurp you're right, I meant as in Falklands war came, No buccaneer or Phantom launch platform :(
Image
Viva la Phallus

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

Re: The reasons naval units were a bad idea

Postby Bluecewe » Mon 3 Mar 2014 15:58

Leyline wrote:And perhaps making sure the naval deck is actually.. a bit.. constrained for Activation points so you hav to pick and choose just like you do with your land deck?


I certainly agree with your line of thought in this regard. I would like to see Eugen implement naval units in the same manner as all other units. Naval units should be constrained by the same activation point limit as the other eight categories. Additionally, sea-borne and sea-centric units should be placed into their native categories: landing ship transported infantry, vehicles, and tanks into the infantry, vehicle, and tank categories, sea-centric helicopters and planes into the helicopter and plane categories, and so forth. Fundamentally, the manner in which naval units are currently implemented would appear to undermine Wargame's deck philosophy.

Arglabarg
Corporal
Posts: 43
Joined: Tue 4 Feb 2014 23:12
Contact:

Re: The reasons naval units were a bad idea

Postby Arglabarg » Mon 3 Mar 2014 16:02

I got some ideas:

    Nav tab still desperately needs development -- it could easily be 3 sub-tabs.
      Nav - big botes, 2 slots
      CAV (carrier aviation) - planes and choppers, 2 slots
      MAR - actual Marine ground forces, remember those? plus littoral boats if you want them 5 slots like a regular category

    Nerf availability for everything deep-sea into the ground, so you get for example 1 frigate per card, 2 Tarantuls per card, 1 AShM plane per card (although the Super Etendard I'd let have 2 because it's so pathetic) and 2 AshM helicopters per card. Force the sea game to be a sideshow; your frigate(s) can be your floating fortress but losing them is a disaster; you'll have to do most of the sea fight in the air and on islands with normal units. This will make forcing off enemy frigates more possible and a good way to win a sea zone.

    Make CIWS HE damage splash. Bam - boat blob solved. A pair of frigates close enough to certainly crash in real life due to the Casimir effect :geek: will also shoot the crap out of each other if their CIWS come on. Players will have to keep ships a safe distance from friendlies with CIWS. This means you won't need nearly as many missiles to hit a ship and reduced availability on AShM platforms won't be a problem.

    Slight price hike on the destroyers/frigates, but availability should be their hard limit. With CIWS changed to punish blobs, massing frigates should be easily countered.

    Let land-based tube artillery direct-fire at ships at 2-7km ranges depending on artillery calibur... I think this will work with the current SHIP tag considering most artillery pieces have a direct fire weapon or an empty weapon slot.

    Nerf ships' ability to spot land units... not sure how to implement this one in the engine, but Good optics ships that need a recon chopper to fight at 7km would be preferable to frigates vaporizing elite recon at 3 km.

    Take away the ridiculous weapons on REDFOR landing craft... how did nobody notice this when they were implemented?

edit: what why is this not the beta forum?!

Polo
Staff Sergeant
Posts: 86
Joined: Wed 8 Jan 2014 19:48
Contact:

Re: The reasons naval units were a bad idea

Postby Polo » Mon 3 Mar 2014 16:22

Generally speaking, even with the quite large problems, navy battles look quite fun (at least to look at)
For ex, this one:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_vxOAfXYvVE

For me, nothing that could not be solved by some serious tweaking/balancing, such as for example: make the boat twice more expensive. :P

I agree that low diversity is a pb, by the way, too.

Polo

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

Re: The reasons naval units were a bad idea

Postby Bluecewe » Mon 3 Mar 2014 16:25

Arglabarg wrote:Nav tab still desperately needs development -- it could easily be 3 sub-tabs.


This may lessen to some degree the current issues surrounding naval units, however only full integration into the deck system in the same manner as the eight other unit categories will produce a desirable outcome.

Panzeh
Second-Lieutenant
Posts: 775
Joined: Mon 7 Nov 2011 12:41
Contact:

Re: The reasons naval units were a bad idea

Postby Panzeh » Mon 3 Mar 2014 16:37

Polo wrote:Generally speaking, even with the quite large problems, navy battles look quite fun (at least to look at)


They're nice looking. That's about it. It's not deep whether it's three boats or five or one or seven.

L9000
Corporal
Posts: 46
Joined: Thu 13 Feb 2014 19:49
Contact:

Re: The reasons naval units were a bad idea

Postby L9000 » Mon 3 Mar 2014 16:54

Panzeh wrote:
Polo wrote:Generally speaking, even with the quite large problems, navy battles look quite fun (at least to look at)


They're nice looking. That's about it. It's not deep whether it's three boats or five or one or seven.


The problem is that winning the navy battles in the 2 naval maps we have at the moment pretty much wins the game. This forces all involved in a mandatory sea battle where at least 50% of the both teams points have to be spent on naval units. Change the maps and change the points of sea sectors so as to make ships a usefull secondary option and not game-winning mandatory units.

Return to “Wargame : Red Dragon”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 45 guests