The reasons naval units were a bad idea

User avatar
jonas165
Brigadier
Posts: 3109
Joined: Sun 13 Oct 2013 06:01
Contact:

Re: The reasons naval units were a bad idea

Postby jonas165 » Tue 4 Mar 2014 13:43

10tank10 wrote:if you don't like the idea of ships you can play the land only maps, personally I think its a great idea and will add to the fun of game so its down to personal choice.


Welcome to the Forums first of all.

But it´s not about liking or nor liking ships. The way in which ships are implemented in the game doesn´t work, that´s a fact. They closed Beta of RD runs now and I as a beta tester (and I have heared no beta tester say something different) can ensure you that naval combat in the current state adds no fun to the game.
Image
Alpha release. Click signature for more

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

Re: The reasons naval units were a bad idea

Postby Bluecewe » Tue 4 Mar 2014 17:48

Polo wrote:
Bluecewe wrote:
Polo wrote:I am not sure that integration in the normal decks is a solution.


Care to elaborate?

Sure. I was meaning "integration in the common system of points for slots".
For the same reason it is a bad idea to mix big ships and petty riverine ships: as big ships are so powerfull and with all possible weapons (anti-ground, AA, anti marine), the incentive will always be to choose the ships over other stuff.
Why choose 1 card of 1 vet M1A2 when you can have a Kongo (for 35% more of the (unit) price BTW, what a joke, and you get 7440 tons of steel for free with it :D ) or 2 more powerfull marine planes to try kill a symetrically mighty Udaloy II?


I understand your concerns, but do not believe that they would be borne out in reality. Naval units are useful for naval operations, as you might imagine. They do not, however, displace the traditional role of tanks in ground engagements. Furthermore, on the topic of the different types of ships, it is also the case that in the tank category you may select anything from a small and weak low-point tank to a large and powerful high-point tank. If the most expensive units are the most effective units in every possible situation, we have a much larger problem than the rules which decks abide by - we have a fundamental unit balance problem, but I hope that that is not the case.

Ultimately, it should be necessary for players to decide how they wish to distribute their resources within their force structure, rather than being able to enjoy a naval contingent of constant size regardless of the structure of their ground and air forces. In AirLand Battle, if a player desires a strong air force, they must forfeit having a strong ground force. The same should be the case with naval units, where if a player desires a strong navy, they should have to forfeit strong ground and air forces. Having to make trade-offs in deck structure encourages much greater deck variety, strengthens the role of teamwork in multiplayer teams, and affords greater choice in playstyle.

Elementalism
Specialist
Posts: 14
Joined: Tue 4 Mar 2014 19:32
Contact:

Re: The reasons naval units were a bad idea

Postby Elementalism » Tue 4 Mar 2014 19:44

Naval units could be a fun idea if the maps were expanded and the fighting happened at sea. Otherwise I would be awfully surprised if a destroyer sized ship comes that close to land to assist troops.

If they are going to have barrage ect from these ships. They could had just made it a one time deployable. Want a barrage from an Iowa class battleship? 200 per barrage, one time use and it consumes a spot within the deck. That is how I also felt heavy artilillery should had been handled in the other games of the series as well. I don't think paladins and MLRS are going to be put into the hotbox to provide near direct fire support. But that is a different topic.

The patrol boats make more sense to control waterways ect. Ill have to wait and see how it works out.

User avatar
TheMarraMan
Chief Warrant Officer
Posts: 515
Joined: Tue 3 Dec 2013 09:11
Location: IN USA
Contact:

Re: The reasons naval units were a bad idea

Postby TheMarraMan » Wed 5 Mar 2014 10:48

Why not put in the select bonus area of deck building a Blue water/Brown water tab . Select which one you want, Blue water option has ASW planes/ helicopters, destroyers and the like. While the Brown water option allows you to have riverine crafts and amphibious assault units. Maybe? from the videos I've seen we need more amphibious assault love.

FullmetalF*cker
Master Sergeant
Posts: 182
Joined: Wed 29 Feb 2012 16:28
Contact:

Re: The reasons naval units were a bad idea

Postby FullmetalF*cker » Fri 14 Mar 2014 17:34

SEAD planes should be able to supress the ships AA so ASM planes can fly in behind them.

FullmetalF*cker
Master Sergeant
Posts: 182
Joined: Wed 29 Feb 2012 16:28
Contact:

Re: The reasons naval units were a bad idea

Postby FullmetalF*cker » Fri 14 Mar 2014 17:36

SEAD Planes should be able to supress the Ships AA so ASM Planes can fly in behind them.

Generalski
Sergeant
Posts: 71
Joined: Wed 16 Jan 2013 14:28
Contact:

Re: The reasons naval units were a bad idea

Postby Generalski » Fri 14 Mar 2014 17:41

CIWS should be Weapon-Stations like others with limited ammunition.

Also Weapon-Stations should be destructable. A SEAD-Plane should be able to destroy a ships CIWS station so it becomes vulnerable.

Its ridiculous for a authentic more realistic RTS just to work with HealthPoints like the HealthBars of all the casual RTSs!
If a unit gets hit then it shouldnt just loose some health-points but something should be damaged in many cases, especially for the ships which have a lot of HealthPts and such big weapon-stations on their decks.

User avatar
Lord Jon
Corporal
Posts: 41
Joined: Mon 10 Mar 2014 01:02
Contact:

Re: The reasons naval units were a bad idea

Postby Lord Jon » Sun 16 Mar 2014 01:38

Generalski wrote:CIWS should be Weapon-Stations like others with limited ammunition.

Also Weapon-Stations should be destructable. A SEAD-Plane should be able to destroy a ships CIWS station so it becomes vulnerable.

Its ridiculous for a authentic more realistic RTS just to work with HealthPoints like the HealthBars of all the casual RTSs!
If a unit gets hit then it shouldnt just loose some health-points but something should be damaged in many cases, especially for the ships which have a lot of HealthPts and such big weapon-stations on their decks.


I totally agree.
Image

User avatar
tgwEcho
Sergeant Major of the Army
Posts: 350
Joined: Tue 7 May 2013 00:38
Location: CA, USA
Contact:

Re: The reasons naval units were a bad idea

Postby tgwEcho » Sun 16 Mar 2014 04:34

My biggest issue with RD naval combat is that it's terribly distracting. It's simply not that fun to micro both aspects at once.
Image

User avatar
varis
Brigadier
Posts: 3349
Joined: Mon 20 Feb 2012 16:52
Location: Finland
Contact:

Re: The reasons naval units were a bad idea

Postby varis » Sun 16 Mar 2014 11:44

At least I'd doubt that naval battles would be simple blobfests into release. Looking at DAY's naval video it seems that there's quite a few parameters, like combination of a ship's capabilities, effective range, use of cover etc. which will mean that a badly managed rag-tag blob will lose to any "decent player".

Haven't had a chance to try the stuff myself yet, but some avenues that instantly pop to mind:
-Make air more important for sea battles. Both air cover and a more potent ASM threat
-ASM infantry/truck squads (AFAIK coastal artillery has been obsolete for a bit, and an ASM would be very easy to set up on the shore and remain undetected until too late)
-Nerf CIWS tracking capability (sometimes can't lock/detect a missile and won't fire; can be taken out by a critical)
-Increase in ship durability & price for some ships

Will be interesting to see how they tweak it for the pre-release.
Image

Return to “Wargame : Red Dragon”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 54 guests