Deck Specialisations!

[Bryan]

This is my 2 cents on the current situation with the highly restrictive deck system.

Decks specialisations should encourage authentic decks. Because Wargame takes pride in authenticity, it should be implemented to further enhance and develop this selling point of the game.

In WAB, the deck system was near perfect. Units were allocated to each deck based on fairly authentic TO&Es and unit formations, it was not perfect, but it was good enough.

Case in point.
In WAB....
Motorised decks
The Soviet Motorised deck was basically a BTR regiment, an infantry based and often "not so well equipped" unit in both real life and in-game.
T-72s being the most commonly used tanks in the era was actually designed to complement the T-64 and T-80 series of tanks being cheaper to make, it was widely produced for MRRs.

The T-72s, not as good as the T-80 or T-64, but gameplay wise, it did its job and it did it well enough.

In WRD....
The motorised deck get access to basically, NO TANKS.



The current structure of most specialisations is to heavily restrict alot of good units and in turn the authentic combinations that actually assisted. I feel that in the current system, many more people tend to pick generic decks which by itself is so severely limited due to gameplay reasons and also authenticity reasons i.e. myself.
It really pushes Wargame in to the fringes of "arcade RTS" like starcraft where gameplay outright dominates authenticity. If you are in favour of outright domination of authenticity by gameplay, then let me ask, what is the point in playing or making an authentically themed game?
Its working against the game right here.
Its mainly a case for certain defining and significant units left out, overall it is about 70% fine.

Propsed fixes for some.

Spoiler : :

T-72 series(excluding the T-72BU):
Should be available to-MOTORISED, MECHANISED, ARMOURED

Factual evidence
The T-72B with Kontakt-1 and Kontakt-5 saw action in Chechnya, units sent there were motor rifle regiments.


T-80 series(excluding the T-80UM) and T-64 series
Should be available to- MECHANISED, ARMOURED

Factual evidence
T-80 and T-64 served mainly the tank and some better equipped mechanised infantry units.
http://www.army-technology.com/projects/t80/

manufactures the T-80U for general use in infantry and tank units

M1A1 series
Available to- MARINE, ARMOUR, MECHANISED
Factual evidence
The M1A1 series was by 1990 predominantly the (HA) variant, US Army by then had mainly M1A1 tanks in service being the workhorse tank. The (HA) variant upgrade starting in around 1987-8.1st infantry division used it during the Gulf War.

http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/abrams.htm
1988 DU inserts.
https://www.mca-marines.org/gazette/1987/08/m1a1-added-punch
USMC intention to buy M1A1s, at this point it would have been the HA version which they received some of during the Gulf War.

This list is just for some of the more common MBTs we see on the battlefield and I am sure theres many more out there such as erroneous units i.e. Chaparral in USMC.


Point is to illustrate the detrimental effects of the current specialisations and the need for them to become authentic and based on generic TO&Es.

[Tharhof]

Or they could just permit wheeled APCs and IFVs in Mechanized instead of trying to make Motorized a clone of Mechanized. Soviet BTR-equipped motor-rifle regiments were organized very closely to their BMP-equipped BTR-regiments and there were BTR-equipped MR regiments in GSFG that had T-80s.

Keep Motorized as some form of vanguard as Eugen intended, then just add armoured transports to Mechanized regardless of if they run on wheels or tracks.

[CadianGuardsman]

The problem is Eugen is catering to the people who stated than the only good deck in WALB was Mechanized because it could handle everything. Now this is true however they way they decided to prevent this from happening again is to create glaring holes in capability in all decks. Basically "This in real life is meant to be an all encompassing self reliant force but that doesn't fit with our vision of balance" sort of of mentality. You can argue yes or no as to whether that is the right sort of mentality, personally I think allowing players to build based on history is much better but apparently that upsets people and had to be fixed with a compromise. "We won't make Airborne decks ridiculous but we'll create artificial weakness every other deck" like most compromises both parties remain unsatisfied. However Beta is Beta or at least we hope it is they may tweak it, but Eugen probably won't shake up the deck system in a meaningful way before release. Like with ALB deck problems only being solved in RD, you'll have to wait for them the change their "vision" aka design document on a new game (if they make one).

Also bare in mind if it was fully realistic US Mechanized and Armoured would be EXACTLY the same creating some...... interesting complaints here on the forums.

As always everything is done for balance I mean just imagine if you could get the realistic amount of Heavy Armour Abrams the forum whine would drown Mad Matt for years.

[Bryan]

Or they could just permit wheeled APCs and IFVs in Mechanized instead of trying to make Motorized a clone of Mechanized. Soviet BTR-equipped motor-rifle regiments were organized very closely to their BMP-equipped BTR-regiments and there were BTR-equipped MR regiments in GSFG that had T-80s.

Keep Motorized as some form of vanguard as Eugen intended, then just add armoured transports to Mechanized regardless of if they run on wheels or tracks.

The way I see it, the roles of the specialisations should reflect their true role authentically. a BTR regiment =/= a BMP regiment, one is primarily more on the defensive than the other and both specialise in their own individual things.

In the case of Mech vs Motorised
Motorised gets access to statistically inferior vehicles , such as the BTR, armed only with a HMG. However is significantly cheaper to field, like in real life and orients more towards infantry use.

Mechanised gets access to superior vehicles namely IFVs. However its a polar opposite, they are more expensive however they are geared more towards vehicle gameplay rather than infantry.



I feel that the "mechanised is OP!!!!" vibe is a poor representation of the entire situation, it just so happens that people found the mechanised selection to be more desirable due to maps, personal preference or due to authenticity.
It was a fixing something that was perfectly fine.

[katt]

CFV > Tanks.

[Caserbob]

Bryan I agree with you in that deck bonuses should encourage authentic decks. In the latest patch, a Ninja addition to the motorized deck was +2 slots for infantry, a very welcomed addition. Additionally the M1A1 and T-72B has been made available for Mechanized decks. In short I think they are slowly moving towards deck bonuses being TO&E inspired.

Soviet Motorized in the tank department I am with you 100%. The Soviet/Pact Motorized based decks should be based around BTR60/70/80/90 formations. These were very similar to the BMP equipped formations, only with BTRs instead of BMPs.

From my understanding by the mid/late 80s most Soviet CAT A motorized rifle divisions(BTR and BMP) were equipped with T72s while the Tank Divisions were equipped with T64s/80s.

Structurally motorized rifle regiments had 3 battalions of motorized infantry and a battalion of tanks. While in tank regiments this was swapped with 3 battalions of tanks and 1 battalion of infantry.

Is this represented at all in current Redfor decks? No. Should it be? Yes.


All this being said let me quote MadMat on the subject.

Motorized decks are actually to be seen more as a "Vanguard" or "Fast Reaction Group".
We have left ALB's nomenclature for people to get their mark, but that one could indeed be renamed to something more proper.

So since this is the current philosophy of Eugen towards the motorized deck bonus I propose the following:

1. Deck bonus using the quoted philosophy should be named Cavalry or Recon. It should be based on the TO&Es of recon units of battalion or regiment size. Examples would be US Armored Cavalry Regiments, Nork Special Forces Regiments, Soviet Reconnaissance Battalions, West German Panzeraufklärungstruppe, etc. I mentioned this in a thread a few months ago. Suggestion: New Deck Type: Armored Cavalry/Recon Since nations have different doctrines and therefore in game "flavors" this could be represented in the make up of these decks. I think the current bonuses for motorized fit this philosophy nicely.

2. The motorized deck bonus should be based on historical motorized infantry formations such as Soviet/Pact BTR regiments, US's 9 ID, French VAB motorized Infantry units, etc. Category bonuses should be tweaked to make the deck a jack of all trades but a heavy focus on infantry and mobility. I'm thinking:
+1 XP Infantry
+1 XP Vehicle
+4 slots Infantry
+2 slots Recon

[CadianGuardsman]

I feel that the "mechanised is OP!!!!" vibe is a poor representation of the entire situation, it just so happens that people found the mechanised selection to be more desirable due to maps, personal preference or due to authenticity.
It was a fixing something that was perfectly fine.

I know I picked it in ALB because with the absence of a meaningful amount of high tier tanks (Great 6's Abrams!) the Experience was better spent on a flat out superior deck which could grant me 60 + 1 EXP high tier vehicles. I know with my Bradleys I could curb stomp tanks by systematically smashing my opponents IAD and then smashing them up with Bradleys which fire super accurate sticks of death at my foe. OP no a balance issue perhaps... requires strategy definitely. I don't know how Soviet Mech decks played since the only time I saw them was from the perspective of a GBU-10 Paveway destroying them but I'm guessing if handled in the same way the Soviets were beasts of war.

But motorised for me has always been a dull choice It never will be a go too deck to be honest and if you must hamper the "stronger decks" they should at least build the weak ones around historically accurate brigade/regiment/what ever size they are going for this games units as the only time they will be used is by people wanting to build truly thematically. Alas apparently giving a motorised deck T-64's would tip balance out of whack.

[Firesparks]

The problem is Eugen is catering to the people who stated than the only good deck in WALB was Mechanized because it could handle everything. Now this is true however they way they decided to prevent this from happening again is to create glaring holes in capability in all decks.

ironically mechanized deck is still the top deck in rd.

[Bryan]

The problem is Eugen is catering to the people who stated than the only good deck in WALB was Mechanized because it could handle everything. Now this is true however they way they decided to prevent this from happening again is to create glaring holes in capability in all decks.

ironically mechanized deck is still the top deck in rd.

You know why?

History lesson......
Wargame is a game designed to be focused on mechanised warfare
War in past half century has passed on mobility in favour of strong static defences, whilst the more recent history suggest that infantry and boots on the ground is still the tried and true way of battle.

So naturally, if I had say a Navy game, you would bring a navy battle group right?
So you have a mechanised centric game, you bring a mechanised battle group right?
In WAB, did you take your armoured battle group into the Copenhagen town? No! Thats going Chechnya and going Chechnya = stupid.

This comes naturally.

Also, IFVs were specifically designed to perform similar roles to that of Wargame's setting therefore they excel. Its not like Wargame has a Chechnya, Grozny map where everybody is better off on foot and not carrying unnecessary amounts of ammunition to make fireworks when Mr. RPG says hi.

[Tharhof]

The way I see it, the roles of the specialisations should reflect their true role authentically. a BTR regiment =/= a BMP regiment, one is primarily more on the defensive than the other and both specialise in their own individual things.

In the case of Mech vs Motorised
Motorised gets access to statistically inferior vehicles , such as the BTR, armed only with a HMG. However is significantly cheaper to field, like in real life and orients more towards infantry use.

Mechanised gets access to superior vehicles namely IFVs. However its a polar opposite, they are more expensive however they are geared more towards vehicle gameplay rather than infantry.

If we're talking about authenticity, the BTR and BMP regiments were very similar.

Spoiler : Click to expand :

The MRR is the basic combined arms organization and the most common maneuver element of the Soviet ground forces. Motorized rifle, tank, artillery, antiaircraft, antitank, engineer, signal, and CSS assets are organic to the MRR. The regiment is the smallest organization which has all of these elements.

Regimental organization includes three MRBs and one TB. A 122-mm howitzer battalion and three 120-mm mortar batteries or 82-mm automatic mortar batteries provide fire support. While battalion-sized elements support the division, corresponding company-sized units support MRRs.

The MRRs have either the BMP AICV or one of the BTR series of APCs as the primary troop-carrying vehicle. Both BMP and BTR regiments now have the AGS-17 automatic grenade launcher within MRBs. In most other respects, the two regiments are similar. Exceptions are as follows: BMP-equipped regiments each have an organic battalion of 122-mm SP howitzers (2S1), while BTR regiments may have 122-mm towed howitzers (D-30). Also, BTR regiments have antitank platoons within the MRBs, a feature not found in the BMP regiments.

Source: FM-100-2-3

I don't know how accurate this is, but apparently some BTR-equipped MR regiments had T-80s within GSFG in 1988.

Spoiler : Click to expand :

27th Guards Motorized Rifle Division - Halle, GDR: (Unit had recently moved, exact locations unknown)
1) 68th Guards MRR - Halle, GDR: 142 BMP-2, 40 T-80, 4 2S6, 4 SA-13, 18 2S1, 9 BRDM-3
2) 243rd Guards MRR - Halle, GDR: 156 BTR-80, 40 T-80, 4 ZSU-23, 4 SA-9, 18 D-30, 9 BRDM-3
3) 244th Guards MRR - Halle, GDR: 156 BTR-80, 40 T-80, 4 ZSU-23, 4 SA-9, 18 D-30, 9 BRDM-3
4) 28th Guards Tank Regiment - Halle, GDR: 94 T-80, 43 BMP-2, 4 2S6, 4 SA-13, 18 2S1
5) 54th Artillery Regiment - Halle, GDR: 72 2S3, 18 BM-21
6) 27th Air Defense Regiment - Jena, GDR: 20 SA-15, 21 SA-7/14/16
7) 27th SS-21 Battalion - Halle, GDR: 4 SS-21
8) 114th Recon Battalion - Halle, GDR: 6 T-80, 13 BRDM-2, 12 BMP-2, and 3 BRM
9) 27th Engineer Battalion - Halle, GDR: 8 TMM, 6 GSP, 18 PMP, 12 K-61, 4 BTM, 2 MTK, 3 GMZ
10) 27th Tank Battalion - Halle, GDR: 51 T-80
11) 27th Anti-Tank Battalion - Halle, GDR: 12 AT guns, 9 BRDM-3
12) 27th Helicopter Squadron - Halle, GDR: 6 MI-24, 6 MI-8, 6 MI-2

Source: http://orbat.com/site/history/historica ... wpact.html

Judging from that and a few other sites that talk about the Soviet Army during the Cold War, I don't think whether a regiment has BTRs or BMPs really affects the type of tank it received. I doubt that there were many Tank regiments with T-80s in the Far East TVD in 1988, for example.

If we're talking authenticity, I really don't see the problem with allowing BTRs in Mechanized decks for people who want to try to build "authentic" decks. I'd rather that than them just turning motorized into mechanized on wheels.