Composition of Mechanized decks (split topic)

User avatar
[EUG]MadMat
More than 10 000 messages. Soldier you are the leader of all armies!
Posts: 15306
Joined: Thu 30 Jun 2011 13:31
Location: Paris, France.
Contact:

Re: Composition of Mechanized decks (split topic)

Postby [EUG]MadMat » Sat 15 Mar 2014 12:25

Zone wrote:So, this issue concernes all nations and not just West Germany, right?

Of course. I took the case of Germany as an example because this thread originally started in the Bundeswehr one.
but it will be the same rule for all nations.

Zone wrote:In that case, the unit distribution between deck types should get way beyond tanks.

It will.
I was only speaking about tanks as an answer to someone's concerns or question.
Tank distribution is only one aspect.
Armored deck will get access to all the tanks, but very few accompanying infantry, and of which only among a limited choice.
Mechanized deck will be the "infantry heavy", with all infantry slots open, all infantry units and IFV available, and the best selection of tank destroyers. That is ATGM, to get there in anti-tank power what it will lacks in heavy tanks.
...

All thematic decks will have edges and drawbacks in order to balance them.

As for those willing to create a fully authentic decks according to TO&E regulations, there's no problem with that: you do a non-thematic national deck, and you'll be able to put your heavies Abrams with your best Bradley.

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

Re: Composition of Mechanized decks (split topic)

Postby Bryan » Sat 15 Mar 2014 12:34

Image

Looks like nobody will use thematic/specialised decks anymore!
:evil: :(

Skyenet
First Sergeant
Posts: 240
Joined: Sat 25 Feb 2012 10:09
Contact:

Re: Composition of Mechanized decks (split topic)

Postby Skyenet » Sat 15 Mar 2014 12:39

Why call it a thematic deck if it's not based on a theme or type of formation? Why shouldn't I be able to make an authentic Mechanized formation if I pick a Mechanized theme for my deck?

In my opinion it moves Wargame away from authenticity and while I haven't played with it, it doesn't sound very immersive or interesting at all.

Bryan wrote:Looks like nobody will use thematic/specialised decks anymore!
:evil: :(


I don't think this is going to be a problem, since the intention seems to be to balance them against eachother.

But they will be using them for gameplay purposes ("Having 9999 Bradleys sounds awesome") rather than interesting reasons ("Having a deck that looks like the 11ACR sounds awesome").
Image

User avatar
ch3cooh
Colonel
Posts: 2617
Joined: Thu 24 Jan 2013 14:00
Contact:

Re: Composition of Mechanized decks (split topic)

Postby ch3cooh » Sat 15 Mar 2014 12:54

It's still a game and most people will use specializations if they suit their playstlye, not because of something like TOE.

Regarding Graphics suggestions, I think that giving tanks higher activation points or less slots will still give Mechanized more than enough superheavys and doesn't limit them at all.
Limiting Mechanized to med-heavys would be discussable I guess.

User avatar
Salamander7734
Master Sergeant
Posts: 171
Joined: Mon 20 May 2013 22:24
Location: Niflheim
Contact:

Re: Composition of Mechanized decks (split topic)

Postby Salamander7734 » Sat 15 Mar 2014 12:57

Just wanna say I totally disagree with practically everything Eugen is trying to do here. They have a HUGE hardcore fanbase who love the authentic feel of their games and they seem to be willing to throw that all away on an attempt to make their game more 'accessible'... I'd say that even people who dont go in for the whole TO&E thing like the fact that it feels plausible... But this makes it feel impossible instead.

I love the whole TO&E or ORBAT system of making decks, in fact the first thing I did when I saw the red dragon beta armory was draw up some UK battalions I could include in some decks using the new gear.

All of Graphics suggestions are perfectly good, though I have to say I don't like the reduce tank slots by 2, but still its better than the current idea. The fact is that you are screwing over the British doubly with this. They can fit all their tanks worth a damn in 5 slots... and they aren't allowed them in anything other than armored... leaving five spare slots and all their advantage wasted... just so they can have tanks that are on a level with a none specialized deck... There is literally no reason for a UK player to take any specialization at this point...
Image

DanJLloyd
Sergeant Major
Posts: 283
Joined: Tue 3 Dec 2013 20:47
Contact:

Re: Composition of Mechanized decks (split topic)

Postby DanJLloyd » Sat 15 Mar 2014 13:25

[EUG]MadMat wrote:As for those willing to create a fully authentic decks according to TO&E regulations, there's no problem with that: you do a non-thematic national deck, and you'll be able to put your heavies Abrams with your best Bradley.


For some authentic decks more than 5 slots for a particular type of unit may be needed, which would have been solved by using a mechanized deck so I could get more than the 5 slots of infantry, for example.
Image

User avatar
Kamrat Roger
Lieutenant
Posts: 1027
Joined: Wed 22 Feb 2012 20:53
Location: Gnällbältet
Contact:

Re: Composition of Mechanized decks (split topic)

Postby Kamrat Roger » Sat 15 Mar 2014 13:48

I'm splitted.

I think it is good that certain units are available in certain themes even if it wasn't a part of that formation IRL. I want to be able to use Ikv 91 or M8 AGS in an armored deck due to the fact that they are tanks.

But I think that having rules that say only medium tanks allowed in mechanized might not be the best way to go as it removes authenticity and makes things too symmetrical.
You could limit certain nations by caliber of the main gun so USA only get M1 with 105mm cannon.
One could limit it by price say 100 or less for W. Germany.
Or one could limit it by armaments like USSR mechanized can only have tanks without ATGM.
It would give a distinct gap between the different themes while still making both themes to be useful.

Then how do you solve nations with only "medium tanks" like most Scandinavian or Eastern Block countries?
Why should Sweden get all tanks in mechanized while others doesn't? It would make it a no brainer to take Sweden mechanized over Swedish armored.

User avatar
Graphic
More than 10 000 messages. Soldier you are the leader of all armies!
Posts: 10588
Joined: Mon 30 Apr 2012 10:18
Location: Battle Born
Contact:

Re: Composition of Mechanized decks (split topic)

Postby Graphic » Sat 15 Mar 2014 13:54

[EUG]MadMat wrote:As for those willing to create a fully authentic decks according to TO&E regulations, there's no problem with that: you do a non-thematic national deck, and you'll be able to put your heavies Abrams with your best Bradley.


Why should I have to make an unrestricted deck to make an actual authentic Mechanized deck? What's the point of the Mechanized theme then, if it's just an arbitrary gameplay balancer? Why call it a Mechanized deck when it's not a Mechanized unit? Based on the units available to a RD Mechanized deck, it should probably renamed "Motorized+" or something.

I don't have to make an unrestricted deck in AirLand Battle to have an authentic Mechanized deck, or any other kind of deck; the thematic tags for ALB units is mostly correct. Why did this change? The new deck attributes regarding slot bonuses and restrictions offers enough tools for deck balancing, decks didn't need the "balance" double-whammy of ripping out half the units they should rightfully have. The complete abandonment of authenticity in favor of balance when it comes to this in RD feels like a giant step back to me.

And since the justification is for gameplay reasons, you also haven't addressed the issue of Mechanized decks being pretty much dead in the water without any tanks to absorb some punishment or allow any offensiveness. I played Mechanized decks in the beta and they suck. You have no offensive capability when literally every single unit available to you can be one-shot by tanks and ATGMs when your opponent is using an actually good deck. Extra infantry slots and XP on Vehicles doesn't make up for having nothing good in the Tank category, arguably the most important category in the game.
k

User avatar
CantRushThis
Chief Warrant Officer
Posts: 645
Joined: Sun 4 Nov 2012 18:44
Location: Vienna, Luxemburg.
Contact:

Re: Composition of Mechanized decks (split topic)

Postby CantRushThis » Sat 15 Mar 2014 13:57

Graphic wrote:
[EUG]MadMat wrote:As for those willing to create a fully authentic decks according to TO&E regulations, there's no problem with that: you do a non-thematic national deck, and you'll be able to put your heavies Abrams with your best Bradley.


Why should I have to make an unrestricted deck to make an actual authentic Mechanized deck? What's the point of the Mechanized theme then, if it's just an arbitrary gameplay balancer?

I don't have to make an unrestricted deck in AirLand Battle to have an authentic Mechanized deck, or any other kind of deck; the thematic tags for ALB units is mostly correct. The abandonment of authenticity in favor of arbitrary balance when it comes to this in RD feels like a giant step back to me.

And since the justification is for gameplay reasons, you also haven't addressed the issue of Mechanized decks being pretty much dead in the water without any tanks to absorb some punishment or allow any offensiveness. I played Mechanized decks in the beta and they suck. You have no offensive capability when literally every single unit available to you can be one-shot by tanks and ATGMs when your opponent is using an actually good deck. Extra infantry slots and XP on Vehicles doesn't make up for having nothing good in the Tank category, arguably the most important category in the game.

Tbh it'd be understandable if Armored decks would not get access to any decent ATGM units, on the other hand.
Because that would mean in a thematic-only environment (thank god for lobby restrictions) you would not be facing any deadly ATMGs, but "only" big tonks that you could dispose of with your rawkets.

Edit: But yeah, it's kinda silly that you don't get entry-level "heavies" at all.
Stuff like the 2A1, M1IP or lower-end T80s would be fine, I think. So you can at least get some armor value in, while your ATGM units do the killing - it'd be a different gameplay AND offer some form of realism, still.
Hell, you could make the case for the 2A4/M1A1-esque tanks being middle of the pack right now, with bigger and more impressive units on the field. Though I guess with most of these new units being quite restricted in their availability, the "old" top-line heavies remain viable because they are at least relatively plentiful.
Last edited by CantRushThis on Sat 15 Mar 2014 14:04, edited 1 time in total.
Image

User avatar
ch3cooh
Colonel
Posts: 2617
Joined: Thu 24 Jan 2013 14:00
Contact:

Re: Composition of Mechanized decks (split topic)

Postby ch3cooh » Sat 15 Mar 2014 14:03

I agree on that.
This is not (just) a role-play, it is a competitive game that needs good (but asymmetrical) Balancing.

Return to “Wargame : Red Dragon”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 10 guests