Infantry & Transport Restrictions Too Restrictive!

User avatar
Keinutnai
Lieutenant
Posts: 1115
Joined: Thu 15 Nov 2012 16:02
Contact:

Infantry & Transport Restrictions Too Restrictive!

Postby Keinutnai » Mon 24 Mar 2014 21:32

This picture sums up how I feel when I chose my infantry and infantry transport options.

Image
I feel the deck system, especially in regards to infantry is too restrictive. Infantry was perfectly fine in ALB, why trying to fix what was not broken?

I propose the following changes
and welcome your opinions on all of them:

3 VETERANCY OPTIONS
We have only 2 veterancies to chose from.
I want 3 like in ALB, there was no reason for 2 veterancies restriction.

3 Veterancies will also encourage +1 XP for infantry specializations because people will be more inclined to choose specializations if they can bring elite units (despite far smaller numbers).

SOFT LIMITS, NOT HARD LIMITS (MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF CARDS PER ROLE)
Don't force people to play your way! You are already alienating so many people because of these restrictions.

Why limit infantry to 5 slots? So people specialize?
If you want to encourage specializations, give the specializations something that people will want to take them. Specializations that make you feel gimped compared to a balanced deck are not an answer.

Most importantly, don't force your playersbase into specializations, because if they don't want it, they will still not take it.

If a specialization is missing units I can't live without, then you can even kill me I will NEVER EVER take it. I for starters cannot live without helo inf and without wheeled infantry transports. That excludes some specializations for me right of the bat.

Allow us to take a 6th card of infantry, even if it costs 6 activation points. Let us be weak elsewhere if we want the infantry so much. Infantry wasn't a problem since EE, why change what worked well in ALB?

If you want less arties or planes, increase the activation cost there, (but why do you then have support and air specializations?)
Infantry spam clearly isn't a in ALB, nor would it be in RD, if ALB system was used.

Therefore, return to the ALB Deck model!

AVAILABILITY BASED TRAINING ONLY, NOT BASED ON ERA OR VEHICLE TYPE
Currently unit availability is based on not only on training type (militia, regular, shock, elite), but also based on what year the unit is from and what transport it's in.

I prefer the availability like in ALB:
32 Militia
20 Regular
12 Shock
8 Elite

I can have 12 Legions, but only 8 Legion 90.

Legions cost 20$ have 525m RPG with 17 AP
Legions 90 cost 25$ have 875m RPG with 25 AP

You serious?
Why is Legion 90 so cheap and the availability so low? Why are you trying so hard to restrict me?
Infantry should be balanced by price, why is the infantry as restricted as a Leopard 2 heavy tank?

The availability should be unaffected (12), and the price should be increased to correspond with the capabilities of the unit (maybe 40 or even 50, 25 is too cheap for such a unit!).

I find it ridiculous that just because I take a "Fuchs Milan" instead of a Fuchs, I have to give up 4 Jager (Regular inf).
With one deck slot I can bring only 8 Motostrelki in cheap but powerful BTR-90.


Or that I get only 6 Panzergrenadiere in Marder 1A3 when I get 12 Panzergrenadiere in Marder 1A1

PRICE SHOULD CORRESPOND WITH CAPABILITY - BETTER UNITS SHOULD BE MORE EXPENSIVE
Marder 1A1 costs 25$, same as Marder 1A3, however

Marder 1A1 has 17 AP ATGM, and 3,2,1,1 Armor, while
Marder 1A3 has 24 AP ATGM, and 4,3,2,1 Armor.

BTR-80 costs 20$, while BTR-90 costs 35$, however

BTR-80 has only 1225m KPVT machine gun, while
BTR-90 has 1750m autocannon and Konkurs-M 23 AP ATGM

BTR-90 is too cheap for what it can do!

BMP-3 costs only 40$, too cheap for an IFV with autocannon and 2800m range ATGM
M2A2 Bradley also costs only 40$, also too cheap for an IFV that has autocannon and 25 AP TOW-2 ATGM

Currently people can bring too much power for too low price at the game start. I'd prefer more costly 90s infantry, as well as more costly better transports, so that their price corresponds to their power. Also people will spam them less in the initial rush, if they cost more.

Example:
Motostrelki 14 AP RPG 10$
Motostrelki 90' 22 AP RPG 15$
I feel Motostrelki 90' should cost 20-25$

BMP-3 should cost 60$ instead of 40$
BTR-90 should cost around 60$ instead of 40$
BTR-80A should cost around 30-35$ instead of 25$ (1750m autocannon 2,2,1,1 armor)

This means that Motostrelki 90' in BMP-3 should cost 80-85$ instead of current 55$
As a comparison, regular motostrelki in BMP-3 costed 70$ in ALB (10$+60$)


BALANCING THROUGH PRICE NOT THROUGH AVAILABILITY
This is already explained before. I find it plain wrong, that you get so little of infantry in some transports that they are not feasible to be used in longer games.

What did they want to prevent with this? No one was spamming expensive 70 point infantry infantry anyway? It was never a problem. I feel like Eugen tried to fix what wasn't broken.

NUMBER OF CHEAPEST TRANSPORTS CARDS TOO RESTRICTIVE
Now this is something I could live with for top of the line transports, such as a single card of TOW-2 Bradley transports, or a single card of BMP-3 transports,

However, number of transport cards for cheapest options should not restrict us!

Why can I bring only 5 regular M113 transports?
Why can't I have all 10 of my infantry in transports if I want? Is this transport too powerful?

Why only:
9 MT-LBV (why not all 10 in MT-LBV is that such a big difference?)
6 BTR-60
5 Mi-8
5 Mi-8TV (So if I want to bring say 6 various types of units in helos, I am forced to have at least 2 different types of helos. WHY?)
4 BTR-70
4 BTR-60P (DPRK BTR-60 with 0 top armor)
4 Mi-4
3 Puma HC1 (250 kmh helo with 875m machine gun and 6 HP, underwhelming)
3 LVTP (basic unit with 1000m machine gun)
2 SPW-152k (East German basic wheeled transport)
2 Korshun (basic DPRK BMP-1)
2 Mi-8MTV (Is the MTV really such a great unit that it has to be so fiercely restricted?)
...and many more weak units are restricted

I say remove the restrictions altogether at least for all common transports (or give us 10 unit limit for cheap units that are not too powerful)
Personally, I find the card restriction of all units extremely redundant, because transports were never a problem in ALB.

Most people used cheapest things anyway, and the expensive ones were used only in small numbers, because they were, well, expensive.

MECHANIZED SPECIALIZATION NEEDS APC INFANTRY TOO
Mechanized infantry is transported by APCs and IFVs.
There is no reason why APCs got removed from Mechanized decks.

APCs should be added.
(You are gimping infantry a lot in a infantry specialized deck by taking fast wheeled transports out.)

MOTORISED SPECIALIZATION NEEDS MOTORISED INFANTRY (TRUCKS)
Motorized is called motorized because infantry is transported by trucks and other soft skinned
Why can't my "motorized infantry" not be motorized and come in trucks too?

Add 10 point 150 kmh trucks as transports for motorized infantry

Also, it is an infantry specialization, thus logically infantry should be given +1 XP.
No one cares about recon helo and vehicle +1 XP anyway.

SPECIALIZATION BONUSES REVISED
I am against specializations that allow you to take 10 units at 1 activation point each. This only encourages spam, including artyspam and airspam. I think we should revert to ALB system until a better option is found
Wargame 4 - Balkan at War - New Countries: Italy, Spain, Greece & Turkey versus Yugoslavia, Bulgaria, Hungary & Romania!

User avatar
fatfluffycat
Major
Posts: 1763
Joined: Wed 1 Jan 2014 02:40
Location: Texas
Contact:

Re: Infantry & Transport Restrictions Too Restrictive!

Postby fatfluffycat » Mon 24 Mar 2014 22:32

I liked ALB system a lot better than RD. RD is too restrictive.
How is possible? / Thread of the Year 2015
Image

duro909
Lieutenant
Posts: 1071
Joined: Sat 19 Jan 2013 22:16
Contact:

Re: Infantry & Transport Restrictions Too Restrictive!

Postby duro909 » Mon 24 Mar 2014 22:47

+1

Even these avaibilities of transports are not final yet, I dont understand why Eugens decided to change them.
I think it was fine in WALB, even the fact, that you could call 20 Bradleys (with riflemans) or 20 BMP2´s (with reserveschutzen).
Am I the only one who didnt encountered IFV vehicles spam problem?
If yes, okay, raise their price, but please, dont drastically change their avaibility.
Image
... and Malware-free banner too!

ColonelKreitz
Sergeant
Posts: 52
Joined: Tue 4 Dec 2012 22:33
Contact:

Re: Infantry & Transport Restrictions Too Restrictive!

Postby ColonelKreitz » Mon 24 Mar 2014 22:48

Full agreement. I'd much rather see a very steep increase to activation point cost (5 point, then 6, then 7, etc.) rather than a hard cap at 5. If you want a reasonable amount of infantry, you pretty much have to specialize. I get that this is to avoid spamming in a base deck, but since the specialized decks are now very restrictive, it's a lot less fun.

Note that right now, it's difficult to even pull together a non-spammy, well integrated infantry section (2 line units + MANPADS + shock unit + elite unit = whoops, you're out of cards).
Last edited by ColonelKreitz on Mon 24 Mar 2014 22:52, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
derrickkolba
First Sergeant
Posts: 238
Joined: Thu 9 Feb 2012 16:14
Location: Iron curtain of Michigan
Contact:

Re: Infantry & Transport Restrictions Too Restrictive!

Postby derrickkolba » Mon 24 Mar 2014 22:49

the deck system is going to kill this game if not reverted to ab style. i absolutely hate the limits on units. whats the big deal if i want all btr infantry?
Image

User avatar
Citadel
Corporal
Posts: 44
Joined: Sat 27 Apr 2013 17:54
Contact:

Re: Infantry & Transport Restrictions Too Restrictive!

Postby Citadel » Mon 24 Mar 2014 23:06

Hey guys. Not to toot my own horn, but I thought up an alternate system for infantry & transports which might be relevant to the discussion. I'd be curious if you'd see this as a possible solution to your concerns.

viewtopic.php?f=160&t=41546

If you don't feel like reading it, it basically makes transports a separate card during deck-building. It would work pretty well with the RD system, while giving us players more flexibility during deck-building. What are your thoughts?
Image

User avatar
Keinutnai
Lieutenant
Posts: 1115
Joined: Thu 15 Nov 2012 16:02
Contact:

Re: Infantry & Transport Restrictions Too Restrictive!

Postby Keinutnai » Mon 24 Mar 2014 23:25

A lot of people prefer the ALB system, please give it back to us. It was fine in ALB, there was no need to change it.

PLEASE!
Wargame 4 - Balkan at War - New Countries: Italy, Spain, Greece & Turkey versus Yugoslavia, Bulgaria, Hungary & Romania!

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

Re: Infantry & Transport Restrictions Too Restrictive!

Postby T80U = tankbankai » Mon 24 Mar 2014 23:26

Eugen tried to fix something that wasn't broken.
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
DoktorvonWer
General
Posts: 5883
Joined: Sun 12 Feb 2012 11:24
Location: Yorkshire, UK
Contact:

Re: Infantry & Transport Restrictions Too Restrictive!

Postby DoktorvonWer » Mon 24 Mar 2014 23:28

derrickkolba wrote:the deck system is going to kill this game if not reverted to ab style.


No, it won't. The concept is good, the implementation needs work.

No amount of scaremongering is going to 'revert it to alb style', particularly when what you're really saying is 'I liked that style better because I could have everything I wanted in my deck all the time'.
Image

User avatar
Keinutnai
Lieutenant
Posts: 1115
Joined: Thu 15 Nov 2012 16:02
Contact:

Re: Infantry & Transport Restrictions Too Restrictive!

Postby Keinutnai » Mon 24 Mar 2014 23:36

DoktorvonWer wrote:
derrickkolba wrote:the deck system is going to kill this game if not reverted to ab style.


No, it won't. The concept is good, the implementation needs work.

No amount of scaremongering is going to 'revert it to alb style', particularly when what you're really saying is 'I liked that style better because I could have everything I wanted in my deck all the time'.


How is that a bad thing?

Do you rather prefer playing by luck where your enemy can bring a unit you cannot counter properly, or vice versa?
The game shouldn't be revolving around decks that cannot counter everything, but instead revolve around players bringing the right counter to the right place at the right time and their skill of using combined arms in a way to limit the enemy to counter their own forces.
Last edited by Keinutnai on Mon 24 Mar 2014 23:39, edited 1 time in total.
Wargame 4 - Balkan at War - New Countries: Italy, Spain, Greece & Turkey versus Yugoslavia, Bulgaria, Hungary & Romania!

Return to “Wargame : Red Dragon”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 34 guests

cron