Current meta has nothing to do with units

Mot
Second-Lieutenant
Posts: 955
Joined: Mon 21 Jan 2013 17:00
Contact:

Re: Current meta has nothing to do with units

Postby Mot » Mon 19 May 2014 05:02

Maps have too many roads and chokepoints in my opinion, but in general the maps of WRD are 4-5 stars, really really good.
The problem is only in the sector warfare, sector size and sector location, this is what creates the issue you are talking about. NOT the maps themselves.
"I suck at Wargame" or "I have to wait 30 minutes to pubstomp people" are not solid arguments to criticize the game... just saying.

User avatar
elmoking
Lieutenant
Posts: 1457
Joined: Fri 19 Oct 2012 22:50
Location: Kota Kinabalu, Malaysia
Contact:

Re: Current meta has nothing to do with units

Postby elmoking » Mon 19 May 2014 05:11

Frolix wrote:I cannot help but to mention how many people, some with dozens of games, don't understand this blindingly simple concept.

Image

In almost every match between players of equal skill, it comes down to this.


Yes. And it sucks.

IMO the game would be better with lots of smaller points rather than few large ones.
Image

Alcorr
Master Sergeant
Posts: 162
Joined: Mon 5 May 2014 23:47
Contact:

Re: Current meta has nothing to do with units

Postby Alcorr » Mon 19 May 2014 05:32

I agree with OP 100%. Too many chokepoints/rivers/etc. means that whoever wins the first few minutes of the game simply wins 9/10 times. This does not make for interesting gameplay whatsoever.

I don't even play 1v1s or 2v2s, but it's the same exact situation with larger conquest games as well. Whoever wins the initial rush just reinforces with infantry/aa/at guns and it becomes an hour long artillery duel.

They need to rebalance maps by getting rid of the rivers that run through seemingly every map and ALSO relocate and/or increase the number of control sectors on the maps.

Alcorr
Master Sergeant
Posts: 162
Joined: Mon 5 May 2014 23:47
Contact:

Re: Current meta has nothing to do with units

Postby Alcorr » Mon 19 May 2014 05:39

elmoking wrote:
Frolix wrote:I cannot help but to mention how many people, some with dozens of games, don't understand this blindingly simple concept.

Image

In almost every match between players of equal skill, it comes down to this.


Yes. And it sucks.

IMO the game would be better with lots of smaller points rather than few large ones.


Agreed.

User avatar
Mitchverr
More than 10 000 messages. Soldier you are the leader of all armies!
Posts: 10646
Joined: Sat 24 Mar 2012 18:08
Contact:

Re: Current meta has nothing to do with units

Postby Mitchverr » Mon 19 May 2014 06:13

Erm, for maps, wasnt it said that alot of these maps are actually made using real google maps over regions? Could have sworn that i saw "real picture" "wargame map" side by sides back in the CBT.


Also, this is Asia, Asia has alot of terrain like that ingame, lol, and China, from what i can gather, till the late 80s/90s developed based around this, lots and lots of lighter equipment for use in these areas, right?

And theres still plenty of non "fail maps" as people seem to think where you get good roads and open ground, people just dont really play them when i look at the hosted games.
Image

User avatar
another505
More than 10 000 messages. Soldier you are the leader of all armies!
Posts: 13128
Joined: Sun 21 Jul 2013 05:18
Location: Hiatus
Contact:

Re: Current meta has nothing to do with units

Postby another505 » Mon 19 May 2014 06:32

the geography of the map is quite okay(but i will cry for larger rivers and such)

but the map design of zones, bridges, forest and city location, spawn zone is the problem
Image
Of Salt

User avatar
Mitchverr
More than 10 000 messages. Soldier you are the leader of all armies!
Posts: 10646
Joined: Sat 24 Mar 2012 18:08
Contact:

Re: Current meta has nothing to do with units

Postby Mitchverr » Mon 19 May 2014 06:40

another505 wrote:the geography of the map is quite okay(but i will cry for larger rivers and such)

but the map design of zones, bridges, forest and city location, spawn zone is the problem


For some maps i agree, need fixing in that, eg the whole issue where on 38th iirc where even if you use choppers of great speed, the enemy could get tanks and infantry across the river into your flag before you got there :lol: which iirc is fixed now.

But those should be fixed on a case by case and brought up when issues are noticed, its hard for eugen to tell how games will play out on maps all the time, so it would help them to get direct feedback, like happened with 38th iirc.
Image

User avatar
mrgray2011
Sergeant
Posts: 60
Joined: Thu 20 Mar 2014 14:49
Contact:

Re: Current meta has nothing to do with units

Postby mrgray2011 » Mon 19 May 2014 06:48

Without +1 zones in a middle helobased decks will be useless completely, it is small bone to those who still play helobased deployment. Neutralized flank will shift points from -1 to +1, captured to +3. Drop "I take this and hold until end of the game" mentality and help other players on flanks, you will be surprised how effective it is.
Middle +1 - easy to get with helobased deployment, hard to hold because those zones are pretty easy to flank. And dont forget that you need to invest into mobile and much less combat effective units to get it.
Flank +2 - much easier to protect, but have high impact on game outcome. It is a chance for heavier decks like mech or armored to get a game back after they lost some points because of middle zone captured by helo inf.

Also a lot of maps have zones which are very vulnerable to amphibious or helobased assaults. This actually encourage players to make different type of decks instead of "helo deployment+defence with ATGMs\tanks\arty".

P.S. some maps can use zones layout tuning though but overall concept is fine i think

User avatar
MajoorHokie
Master Sergeant
Posts: 166
Joined: Sat 25 Feb 2012 20:30
Contact:

Re: Current meta has nothing to do with units

Postby MajoorHokie » Mon 19 May 2014 06:58

I honestly don't believe the maps are a problem in and of themselves. The problem lies with Eugen's placement of command zones rather than the flow of the maps. Changing the command zones (like 38th Parallel before and after release (or whenever the changes were made) completely alters the way maps are played. The idea of having a central command point for everyone to focus on is a good idea in theory but its not always the best in game (though I don't believe that its a huge issue).

That being said, there are a lot of complaints in this thread that I simply don't get. If you lose the openning no game is really lost you should learn how to attack properly (this game is much more forgiving of early mistakes than WEE or WALB ever were) and develop a better understanding of how to open the game with a good attack. The focus of the effort here shouldn't be in trying to make the game easier for the loser to not lose, it should be focused on balancing a map to bring out the best in the game's features.
Image

fula farbrorn
Specialist
Posts: 15
Joined: Fri 26 Jul 2013 07:07
Contact:

Re: Current meta has nothing to do with units

Postby fula farbrorn » Mon 19 May 2014 07:29

one thing that would improve zones, is to identify ever strategic point, and put them all at the same value, to reward deep penetrating pushes and flanking assaults way more EGA spread out the zones and multiply them BUT make them smaller, maybe one covering just a crossroads and some houses, and another covering a bridge and so on

Return to “Wargame : Red Dragon”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 36 guests