[Revived Suggestion] Plane Altitude

User avatar
Mako
General
Posts: 7352
Joined: Sun 5 May 2013 20:00
Location: Cascadia
Contact:

Re: [Revived Suggestion] Plane Altitude

Postby Mako » Sun 1 Jun 2014 22:52

towedarray wrote:
Mako wrote:Half the point of this change is to stop MANPADS only ADNs from being viable...

And as I said, there's nothing wrong with that concept. The problem lies in the execution. The way it has currently been described, you'd be changing cards that are currently optional into a necessity. This results unavoidably in an automatic reduction in deck diversity potential because more slots are being filled with required units just to have a complete force.

It's clear that some of you wouldn't mind because you already play AA-heavy decks with lots of AA cards. But forcing everyone to do so is the problem. No one should be forced to have to build their decks with the same number of AA cards you do, and yet they'd have to just to be certain that the enemy doesn't have a set of jets they can no longer counter. That's not fair to them, and if the situation were reversed and this thread were discussing a unit type that you don't care about and rarely place in your decks, upon hearing that you would soon have to take multiple cards of them just to make a decent deck, you would be rightly upset about that, too.

Once there exists certain classes in aircraft that can no longer be hit by a given AA unit, that unit no longer suffices for AA coverage, and the player is forced to bring additional units just to have the same ability to hit the enemy unit that they had previously with just one card.

My only point, which some are still missing, is that in creating a new altitude schema, we must take care not to further infringe on deck creation by effectively pre-determining even more card decisions for the player's deck than Eugen has already done in RD (heavily restricted specializations, less freedom in standard deck creation, etc), since it is already more restrictive than ALB, and many people do not like it already. Making it worse by necessitating multiple cards of any type is not acceptable without also providing more slots (and perhaps more AP) to go along with it. The effect of a concept where some AA units cannot hit some altitudes requires taking enough AA unit types to cover each altitude. Not everyone wants to be placed in a new situation where they have to do that just to ensure they don't get bombed with impunity. That is not currently the situation, but introducing a radical change to create multiple altitude bands and associating AA units with only certain bands would do just that.


Yes there are multiple altitude bands, but AA can cover multiple of them.

You could get a Low-Medium and a High AA unit and have all your bases covered with two cards of AA leaving out MANPADS and ASFs



If this forces specializations to get more realistic representations of their capabilities... good!

They're lacking already, more attention would only benefit them.


I can't even think of any specializations that would actually suffer all that much from this change. Things like Marine and Airborne have large amounts of air power to cover them for where their SHORAD/MANPADS systems don't reach.
If there's two kinds of players, those that like challenges and those that want a fair game, pubstomps should make everyone happy.

towedarray
Chief Warrant Officer
Posts: 567
Joined: Sun 11 May 2014 08:51
Contact:

Re: [Revived Suggestion] Plane Altitude

Postby towedarray » Sun 1 Jun 2014 23:27

MILINTarctrooper wrote:
towedarray wrote:
Mako wrote:Half the point of this change is to stop MANPADS only ADNs from being viable...

And as I said, there's nothing wrong with that concept. The problem lies in the execution. The way it has currently been described, you'd be changing cards that are currently optional into a necessity. This results unavoidably in an automatic reduction in deck diversity potential because more slots are being filled with required units just to have a complete force.

It's clear that some of you wouldn't mind because you already play AA-heavy decks with lots of AA cards. But forcing everyone to do so is the problem. No one should be forced to have to build their decks with the same number of AA cards you do, and yet they'd have to just to be certain that the enemy doesn't have a set of jets they can no longer counter. That's not fair to them, and if the situation were reversed and this thread were discussing a unit type that you don't care about and rarely place in your decks, upon hearing that you would soon have to take multiple cards of them just to make a decent deck, you would be rightly upset about that, too.

Once there exists certain classes in aircraft that can no longer be hit by a given AA unit, that unit no longer suffices for AA coverage, and the player is forced to bring additional units just to have the same ability to hit the enemy unit that they had previously with just one card.

My only point, which some are still missing, is that in creating a new altitude schema, we must take care not to further infringe on deck creation by effectively pre-determining even more card decisions for the player's deck than Eugen has already done in RD (heavily restricted specializations, less freedom in standard deck creation, etc), since it is already more restrictive than ALB, and many people do not like it already. Making it worse by necessitating multiple cards of any type is not acceptable without also providing more slots (and perhaps more AP) to go along with it. The effect of a concept where some AA units cannot hit some altitudes requires taking enough AA unit types to cover each altitude. Not everyone wants to be placed in a new situation where they have to do that just to ensure they don't get bombed with impunity. That is not currently the situation, but introducing a radical change to create multiple altitude bands and associating AA units with only certain bands would do just that.

Or in a weird twist to this argument...what if it promotes unique anti-air strategies.

1 Player plays a long range SAM deck set.
2) Player plays short range SAM deck set [OSAs/Strelas]
3) Player plays AAA deck set.

Or a unique mixture of different types.
It would make for more intriguing threat envelope capability.
But, I would also argue that plane cards would have to be increased back to ALB deck standards.


Hate to break it to you, but the majority of players are individuals. Even among the smaller subset that sometimes plays as pre-arranged groups, even they don't always have that opportunity and sometimes play multiplayer by themselves. Therefore, your suggestion would hurt the vast majority of players simply for the sake of expanding an additional level of depth that only a pre-arranged group can benefit from. Thus it is a bad idea, on the whole, because it further enhances the "pub-stomp" scenario by widening the gap between the ability and benefit gained by a pre-arranged team vs individuals who are not coordinated (and individually is the way that a vast segment of the playerbase plays RD, especially on 10v10 servers which makes up quite a large portion of the population and has to be taken into account before making major gameplay changes like this).

Mako wrote:Yes there are multiple altitude bands, but AA can cover multiple of them.

You could get a Low-Medium and a High AA unit and have all your bases covered with two cards of AA leaving out MANPADS and ASFs

If this forces specializations to get more realistic representations of their capabilities... good!

They're lacking already, more attention would only benefit them.


I can't even think of any specializations that would actually suffer all that much from this change. Things like Marine and Airborne have large amounts of air power to cover them for where their SHORAD/MANPADS systems don't reach.

You must be missing the whole other discussion about how many people dislike specializations as they are presented in RD (highly restricted, so many units missing, basically making all your decisions for you, leaving you with very little deck diversity within any particular specialized deck).

Because of the issues with specializations (and deck creation in general) in RD, unless the action taken by the developer is to return MORE units to each specialization to choose from (or to provide additional slots to non-specialized decks), the outcome is not good, realistic, or beneficial. And in the meantime, the altitude scheme hurts non-specialized decks even more because they are restricted to only 5 card slots in each class and now are being in essence forced to take certain cards that previously were optional. (That's the concern I elaborated on in previous posts.)

User avatar
Akula161
Master Sergeant
Posts: 155
Joined: Thu 6 Feb 2014 14:41
Location: Montevideo, Uruguay
Contact:

Re: [Revived Suggestion] Plane Altitude

Postby Akula161 » Sun 14 Sep 2014 01:57

I love this idea, great post. It would definitely move bombers from "save me" button to "screw you and your camping" button. :D
Image

User avatar
Xeno426
Carbon 13
Posts: 11965
Joined: Tue 13 Mar 2012 21:27
Location: Acheron, Hadley's Hope
Contact:

Re: [Revived Suggestion] Plane Altitude

Postby Xeno426 » Sun 14 Sep 2014 02:17

Mako wrote:I can't even think of any specializations that would actually suffer all that much from this change. Things like Marine and Airborne have large amounts of air power to cover them for where their SHORAD/MANPADS systems don't reach.

Well, US Marine decks would, but that's the fault of not having any actual fighters in the deck.
Image
CloakandDagger wrote:And you're one of the people with the shiny colored name. No wonder the game is in the state it's in.

shomu1
Major-General
Posts: 3973
Joined: Mon 29 Apr 2013 08:18
Contact:

Re: [Revived Suggestion] Plane Altitude

Postby shomu1 » Sun 14 Sep 2014 02:18

Xeno426 wrote:
Mako wrote:I can't even think of any specializations that would actually suffer all that much from this change. Things like Marine and Airborne have large amounts of air power to cover them for where their SHORAD/MANPADS systems don't reach.

Well, US Marine decks would, but that's the fault of not having any actual fighters in the deck.


*points at sig*
Image

IT IS FREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

User avatar
Bullfrog
General
Posts: 5308
Joined: Sat 11 Aug 2012 23:48
Contact:

Re: [Revived Suggestion] Plane Altitude

Postby Bullfrog » Sun 14 Sep 2014 02:54

Maybe the Patriot "experiment" is to lead to this :lol:
Does not affiliate with members who post in #MakeAmericaGreatAgain
Image

GabrielColt
Sergeant
Posts: 53
Joined: Sat 29 Mar 2014 22:30
Contact:

Re: [Revived Suggestion] Plane Altitude

Postby GabrielColt » Sun 14 Sep 2014 03:24

Bullfrog wrote:Maybe the Patriot "experiment" is to lead to this :lol:


If this Is truth,then i love the patriot.
(But, if we think for a moment its make sense :shock:)

pdanders
Chief Warrant Officer
Posts: 603
Joined: Wed 31 Jul 2013 20:48
Contact:

Re: [Revived Suggestion] Plane Altitude

Postby pdanders » Thu 18 Sep 2014 02:05

Man this would be awesome. I have a feeling that we are going to see some awesome mods (which basically become what everyone plays) once Eugen development is finished

Return to “Wargame : Red Dragon”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 38 guests