Dissapointed in persistent decrease in availability

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

Dissapointed in persistent decrease in availability

Postby Keinutnai » Sat 3 May 2014 11:45

Me and my friends mostly play total destruction.
I have played Wargame since EE, and I as well as them are very disappointed in the continuous decrease in availability which persists since ALB.

I understand that you want to make the game more accessible to casual players and you encourage short games which end within 30 minutes, but please don't forget about your old community which bought your games since EE (or RUSE), and even though we might not be the majority anymore, you should not ignore us, because we are still a significantly sized community and the many restrictions, many of which we feel are redundant or not improving gameplay are frustrating.

Please take a minute to think about us:
-the people who like total destruction and long games,
-people who don't want each single plane to be different, why can't we take 2 cards of the same non-prototype plane? Armies have uniform units, we should have too, if we want to.
-the people who believe that soldiers are the bones and blood of an army, hate the 5 slot inf restriction, and ask for 6 slots for all deck types except armored.
-The people who like to play 3v3 and 4v4 on all maps and don't think maximum 500 per player for small maps is enough.

Therefore I urge you to please take us into consideration too:

GAME MODES:
-Please give us at least 1000 point per player on all maps (or 1500 if possible, 1500 was standard in EE)
-Please give us a 90 minute option (because sometimes 60 minutes isn't enough to win a game)
-Please give us a game mode which gives income like destruction, and determines the victor based on value of captured sectors at the end of the time limit. (We hate total destruction is decided on points when timer runs out)

AVAILABILITY:
-Please give us 2 cards of each non prototype unit (You can make exceptions, no Mig-25 sead and Raven for example. But only 1 card of average Mirage bomber is not ok)
-Please give us a 6th slot for infantry, even if it costs 5 availability points.
-Please don't decrease infantry number per card for better transport options (Instead, increase the cost of better transports, BMP-3 and tow-2 bradley should cost significantly more).
-Please consider increasing the availability of worse units in the game so that they will be used sometimes. (If there are 4 OSA-AKM in one card, there should be 8 OSA-AK or 12 OSA per card, not only 6 OSA-AK or 8 OSA, because this way, no one will take the inferior osas). Availability increase for weaker units should be greater.

NO MORE ADDITIONAL RESTRICTIONS OR AVAILABILITY NERFS IN THE FUTURE:
-Please stop decreasing the availability of units in the future!
-Please stop adding more restrictions to the game!

What do you guys think of these?
Which of these changes would be better, which do you believe would be worse for the game?

Please support this notion. Thank you!
Wargame 4 - Balkan at War - New Countries: Italy, Spain, Greece & Turkey versus Yugoslavia, Bulgaria, Hungary & Romania!

User avatar
Jawehawk
Lieutenant
Posts: 1206
Joined: Tue 30 Apr 2013 14:57
Location: Denmark

Re: Dissapointed in persistent decrease in availability

Postby Jawehawk » Sat 3 May 2014 11:57

The problem lies in the absurd belief that the super powers should be balanced against the minors. This is plain stupid, and makes it impossible to have a large scale fight with modern equipment. This espicially effects the USSR, which rarely gets more than 6-8 units per unit model. Dispite a lot of these units being fielded in the 80's.

Ever wondered what an all out semi-modern war between the US and USSR would look like? Well, you can't use Wargame to simulate that...
It removes so much from the game, and adds nothing. Minors should be balanced against other minors, and the big countries, US, USSR, West Germany, England, China and France should be balanced to each other. Meaning every national deck gets huge availibility on anything that isn't a prototype.

The Leo2A4 was fieled in 85, and when the 90's came around, they would've had more than a 1000 of these things. In the game, you can get 4-5 of them... Same can be said for the entire semi-modern Soviet tank line-up. And don't even get me started on the insane and immensely stupid availibility for high-end IFV's and planes. To put it ismple, you'll never see the BMP-3 or Bradley M2A2 in the game. Dispite them both being well within timeframe.

User avatar
D-M
Posts: 8794
Joined: Sat 23 Jul 2011 11:10
Contact:

Re: Dissapointed in persistent decrease in availability

Postby D-M » Sat 3 May 2014 12:02

-1

Low avaibility is the way to go, it forces you to think a bit about your deck's constitution, you know... not to take only the super toys... They don't last a whole 60minute game ? I'd say it's good game design for once.
Image

User avatar
Jawehawk
Lieutenant
Posts: 1206
Joined: Tue 30 Apr 2013 14:57
Location: Denmark

Re: Dissapointed in persistent decrease in availability

Postby Jawehawk » Sat 3 May 2014 12:06

D-M wrote:-1

Low avaibility is the way to go, it forces you to think a bit about your deck's constitution, you know... not to take only the super toys... They don't last a whole 60minute game ? I'd say it's good game design for once.


It limits the playstyle into one specific style. How is that good game design? You're removing options from players, and making it literally impossible for people who care about realisim to do/make anything even remotely realistic.

In terms of high-end IFV's, no one will ever take them, as doing so means you'll have half the infantry that everyone else does, and quite possibly even less.

User avatar
Ripa' Moramee
Master Sergeant
Posts: 185
Joined: Tue 28 Jan 2014 13:34
Contact:

Re: Dissapointed in persistent decrease in availability

Postby Ripa' Moramee » Sat 3 May 2014 12:18

A real all out war would be hundreds of T-80U's riding into battle against hundreds of M1A1 Abrams. No real war would be 1 T80U killing one APC and then getting destroyed instantaneously by a AGM plane. Low amounts of units kills immersion.
I live for the flame war

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

Re: Dissapointed in persistent decrease in availability

Postby Keinutnai » Sat 3 May 2014 12:19

D-M wrote:-1

Low avaibility is the way to go, it forces you to think a bit about your deck's constitution, you know... not to take only the super toys... They don't last a whole 60minute game ? I'd say it's good game design for once.


From your post I have the impression that you have never played a total destruction game in your life.

This has nothing to do with deck constitution, because in a long game you often run out of all your tanks, or all your support, or all your infantry, and in the longest games, you run out of all units in your deck. Even at medium income.

Also, you should not force your playstyle on others. Greater availability would benefit long games without harming short games. In the short games that last only 30 minutes, bigger availability will not be a problem, because with a short games income, you can buy only a fraction of your deck.
Wargame 4 - Balkan at War - New Countries: Italy, Spain, Greece & Turkey versus Yugoslavia, Bulgaria, Hungary & Romania!

User avatar
DelroyMonjo
Colonel
Posts: 2604
Joined: Sun 6 May 2012 19:20
Contact:

Re: Dissapointed in persistent decrease in availability

Postby DelroyMonjo » Sat 3 May 2014 12:22

Keinutnai wrote:-Please give us a 90 minute option (because sometimes 60 minutes isn't enough to win a game)
-Please give us a game mode which gives income like destruction, and determines the victor based on value of captured sectors at the end of the time limit. (We hate total destruction is decided on points when timer runs out)


Why EUGEN can't implement a countdown timer to avoid the annoying and childish practice of "Hide the last CV outside a zone" in a no time limit destruction game defies rational thought.
Last edited by DelroyMonjo on Sat 3 May 2014 12:23, edited 1 time in total.
Illegitimi non carborundum.

User avatar
D-M
Posts: 8794
Joined: Sat 23 Jul 2011 11:10
Contact:

Re: Dissapointed in persistent decrease in availability

Postby D-M » Sat 3 May 2014 12:23

Because avaibility is pointless if you can't run out of unit at one point, especially if said unit are prototypes and top tier. And it doesn't limit any playstyle, it balances the playstyles. It's a damn balancing factor.

From your post I have the impression that you have never played a total destruction game in your life.


I did on WEE and WAB, and it was shit. But I already played 60' minutes games which are long enough. And the game shouldn't be balanced based on this crap settings that is everything but standard.
Last edited by D-M on Sat 3 May 2014 12:27, edited 2 times in total.
Image

User avatar
Killertomato
More than 10 000 messages. Soldier you are the leader of all armies!
Posts: 13730
Joined: Mon 9 Jul 2012 02:46
Contact:

Re: Dissapointed in persistent decrease in availability

Postby Killertomato » Sat 3 May 2014 12:27

Some things should be limited. Special forces, for instance.
orcbuster wrote:USSR gets prototype marsupials, why would you need moose when you got stuff with kickers like that AND transport capability? And I'm not even gonna START on the french Marsupilami, I don't even think thats a real animal! Why no trolls for Norway?

User avatar
Jawehawk
Lieutenant
Posts: 1206
Joined: Tue 30 Apr 2013 14:57
Location: Denmark

Re: Dissapointed in persistent decrease in availability

Postby Jawehawk » Sat 3 May 2014 12:39

D-M wrote:Because avaibility is pointless if you can't run out of unit at one point, especially if said unit are prototypes and top tier. And it doesn't limit any playstyle, it balances the playstyles. It's a damn balancing factor.


The only thing it balances is super powers VS minors, which in itself is stupid, as minors aren't supposed to be able to take on super powers on equal terms. Again, all the large countries have powerfull MBT's. So it would still be perfectly balanced with a major availibility buff.

And of course you're limiting playstyles. You literally have to play conservatively with the big nations, because their numbers are so painfully low. This also means that even in conquest, your ability to launch attacks is hindered by the fact that you can't do anything large scale.

Having low income would achieve exactly the same thing as is currently the case with low availibility, as you wouldn't have the points to replace expensive MBT's. Thus increasing overall availibility and using the income feature allows for much more diverse playstyles.

Return to “Wargame : Red Dragon”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 29 guests