On ships ...

User avatar
KattiValk
General
Posts: 6320
Joined: Tue 19 Nov 2013 03:39
Location: Houston, Texas (CST)
Contact:

Re: On ships ...

Postby KattiValk » Tue 8 Apr 2014 00:10

I look forward to trying the ships for myself. :D

[EUG]MadMat wrote:
AgentMulder wrote:With the release of ships imminent
"Soon".
I ain't said "THE WORD" yet ... ;)
I wonder if he has that on a sticky note taped to his computer, "Don't say imminent unless specifically trolling".

Also, he said ain't! He's American!
Edit: Damn, Double Down beat me to it. :lol:

User avatar
mokkc1999
Sergeant First-Class
Posts: 106
Joined: Sun 16 Feb 2014 02:02
Location: Penn Island
Contact:

Re: On ships ...

Postby mokkc1999 » Tue 8 Apr 2014 00:24

to eugen,

those footage looks promising,

eugen thanks for making this game, it reignite my spark towards RTS game ever since that COH2....... @#$%^&&&^%$

(ps since u guys make ships in the game, why not make a new RTS game base on WWI dreadnoughts !!!! or better space battleships)

many thx for the 3 straight years of hard work, it has been the best of my RTS gaming experience

Tom
Image

Wargamer620
Warrant Officer
Posts: 407
Joined: Wed 22 May 2013 13:50
Location: Nowhere, Wisconsin
Contact:

Re: On ships ...

Postby Wargamer620 » Tue 8 Apr 2014 00:44

mokkc1999 wrote:to eugen,

eugen thanks for making this game, it reignite my spark towards RTS game ever since that COH2....... @#$%^&&&^%$

many thx for the 3 straight years of hard work, it has been the best of my RTS gaming experience

Tom


no truer words have ever been posted(except for the tom part, im not sure about that). That said eugen is definitely the best, I used to like relic but coh 2 was a major disappointment and dlcs to make it remotely more like it should be would have drained my pockets. Eugen brings new "toys" to the table even while keeping the"good old" wargame feel. If for some reason they decide to make more wargames i will be sure to buy them. As for the other games, it remains to be seen but I will be sure to consider them when I get more details.
How to Make a Smokescreen Without Arty

Graphic wrote:Eugen HQ is guarded by eight platoons of Fallschirmjager '90. You'll never make it out alive.

yacoub
Warrant Officer
Posts: 475
Joined: Sat 20 Jul 2013 03:44
Contact:

Re: On ships ...

Postby yacoub » Tue 8 Apr 2014 02:48

icehawk308 wrote:Wargame release date on steam is shown as April 17th, so were 1.5 weeks away apparently from the real deal/??? :idea:


PS few more 10v10 maps would be nice :!:


A few more 10v10 maps would be essential, really.

It's the only multiplayer mode some of us play.

I hope even Ragnarok makes it over from Airland Battle in some form. ;)

And maybe we could be allowed to select from the larger maps too, and play Skirmish on the larger maps, even if we can only do 4v4 player slots.

User avatar
trineroks
Chief Warrant Officer
Posts: 703
Joined: Sat 22 Mar 2014 04:16
Contact:

Re: On ships ...

Postby trineroks » Tue 8 Apr 2014 03:02

Well, looks like I gotta add naval units now... on all my decks.
Image

yacoub
Warrant Officer
Posts: 475
Joined: Sat 20 Jul 2013 03:44
Contact:

Re: On ships ...

Postby yacoub » Tue 8 Apr 2014 03:16

Hopefully we will have a toggle option to disable naval units when hosting a match or a Skirmish, if we want to play the maps with mixed land and water without ships interfering. ;)

aftokinito
Corporal
Posts: 26
Joined: Thu 10 May 2012 10:40
Contact:

Re: On ships ...

Postby aftokinito » Tue 8 Apr 2014 04:34

yacoub wrote:Hopefully we will have a toggle option to disable naval units when hosting a match or a Skirmish, if we want to play the maps with mixed land and water without ships interfering. ;)


I hope there isn't or else no one will host naval battles, which totally ruins the purpose of this game.
Without naval units, we might as well continue playing ALB...

yacoub
Warrant Officer
Posts: 475
Joined: Sat 20 Jul 2013 03:44
Contact:

Re: On ships ...

Postby yacoub » Tue 8 Apr 2014 04:42

aftokinito wrote:
yacoub wrote:Hopefully we will have a toggle option to disable naval units when hosting a match or a Skirmish, if we want to play the maps with mixed land and water without ships interfering. ;)


I hope there isn't or else no one will host naval battles, which totally ruins the purpose of this game.
Without naval units, we might as well continue playing ALB...


Well, two things:

1 - If that was true and everyone disabled naval units in their matches, it would be a sign that naval still has major problems and isn't viable. In that case it shouldn't be in the game at all. Leaving us with no recourse and a broken game would be about the worst possible outcome. If they at least had the option to disable it, hosts (and singleplayer in skirmish) could disable it until patches arrived that fixed naval balance in this hypothetical scenario.

2 - ALB was great. If RD was simply new nations, new units, new maps, improved UI, and added amphibious capability for appropriate units and thus additional tactical possibilities, it would be fantastic and what a lot of people simply wanted out of RD. The whole naval thing, once it got past the scale of littoral boats and amphibious vehicles is, to be perfectly honest, beyond the appropriate scale for this type of game. Littoral gunboats and amphibious vehicles would be more than enough to create an interesting naval element to the game.

Trying to shoehorn actual blue-water ships into this game is where it jumped the shark at the first attempt, and it's no wonder why they had to remove them and try to come up with a bandaid fix for them to try to make it work. If they didn't and just removed them, since it's already been a large, marketed feature for the product, they would suffer horribly at the hands of idiotic reviewers who wouldn't know why it was inappropriate for a game of this scale to include blue-water naval ships, and would give RD bad reviews it wouldn't actually deserve. If they removed the blue-water ships and stuck to the smaller scale that doesn't require boosting other air and ground units out of balance for the air:ground game in order to try to compete with ships, the game would have been so much easier to balance.

So no, having the option to turn off ships would not be a bad thing. In fact, we're all enjoying playing that right now and some of us would like to be able to retain that ability in skirmish and multiplayer, not only as a failsafe in case the ships ruin the balance and the game, but also just for more diverse multiplayer options. Being able to restrict units is a common feature of high-quality RTS/RTT games going all the way back to at least Total Annihilation if not earlier games. It's a great way to allow for more diverse gameplay and keep people playing the game since they can come up with more creative and diverse scenarios for matches when they have more options available.

ALEX8
Sergeant Major of the Army
Posts: 387
Joined: Thu 23 Jan 2014 01:04
Contact:

Re: On ships ...

Postby ALEX8 » Tue 8 Apr 2014 06:46

yacoub wrote:Hopefully we will have a toggle option to disable naval units when hosting a match or a Skirmish, if we want to play the maps with mixed land and water without ships interfering. ;)



Its a very unnecessary thing. If you don't want to host naval battle, choose a map that does not accommodate naval units. from what I see many maps won't have naval unit anyway.

ledarsi
Master Sergeant
Posts: 183
Joined: Sat 10 Mar 2012 07:35
Contact:

Re: On ships ...

Postby ledarsi » Tue 8 Apr 2014 07:08

I think the ship situation is quite salvageable. However it will require expanding the scale of points costs for units quite drastically, and making big naval units behave extremely differently from every other type of unit.

Destroyers are way outside the strength and points cost scope of Airland Battle. Which is fine, but it does mean that they are going to need to cost a LOT of points. As they have done, by increasing many ships up to 400 points or more (which may still not be enough in some cases). This huge points cost makes them incredibly important units not to lose. Which, actually, is pretty realistic. Having very few huge ships also alleviates the problems of ship deathballs, where stacking CIWS makes the ship blob impossible to kill.

I think the smart approach to take is to make CIWS softer against missiles (which is being done), and also to place greater emphasis in naval combat on cannons by extending their range. Cannons cannot be stopped by CIWS systems and can be made inaccurate, making naval warfare function in some respects like tank warfare with inaccurate guns. Unit ranges, durability, and points costs are scaled upwards, and missiles, helicopters, and planes play quite different roles. But cannons should be quite significant weapons for ships, with anti-ship missiles being a strategically significant secondary concern, rather than the overriding combat weapon of the entire naval theatre.

Cost inflation and power creep are serious concerns for Red Dragon. Such as among tanks. The increase in scale to include large ships actually presents quite a great opportunity for Eugen to re-evaluate the availability and points costs of existing units. Possibly by reducing costs across the board, and possibly by scaling up income (functionally equivalent).

In conjunction with this change, make the big ships the hugely-important, "availability = 1" category of unit. Increase availability for tanks, infantry, IFV's, vehicles, helicopters, planes, etc. in conjunction with their functionally reduced points costs (either by reducing points costs, or increasing income). The result is a larger battle, with more pieces on the board. Including larger, more expensive pieces that were not present in the earlier, smaller-scale ALB or EE.

Return to “Wargame : Red Dragon”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 35 guests