Why don't I like RD?

Doeko
Master Sergeant
Posts: 158
Joined: Wed 15 May 2013 16:48
Contact:

Re: Why don't I like RD?

Postby Doeko » Thu 5 Jun 2014 01:29

Mike wrote:
Doeko wrote:
Mike wrote:Oh I saw them plenty in tournaments Centurions taking blows for the Leopards and Abrams.


In contrast to using them as a spam or opening move unit, this actually is a valid tactic! I have yet to see a Leopard or Abrams in a ranked game (against someone who actually knew what they were doing)


Seeing that this game is set in 1991, I think that's a serious problem.


That's exactly my point. These crap cheap tanks should be usable as filler but even if 100 of these rusty pieces of junk face off against a Leo2 or an M1A2 they should lose. Their only purpose should be to catch fire and kill equivalently crap units, not be able to kill clearly superior units. Not even in numbers. Sure let them shoot dead APCs, AA units, infantry and so forth but what the hell are these units doing winning fights with Leo2 and mighty Abrams?

An Abrams vs. these stupid old 15pt scrap quality tanks should be more or less like this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8RTwA0JAQDY

No matter how surrounded it gets, no matter how outnumbered it gets, the Abrams should carry its weight (against other armor and ground units that are not elite infantry right next to it). Imo you should need 5 tmies the price of an Abrams in crappy chepa tanks to take it down, not equal or even less.

By the way Shogun 2 was a game that had awesome balance and gameplay. People actually tried different tactics (including with and without heroes). I had a bunch of different army setups. That hero unit isn't OP in the slightest (in multiplayer) yet it can win being outnumbered 30 vs 1800. If that unit managed to get to the fight in a battle you could expect pretty much any unit that was next to it to end up taking severe losses. Was it unstoppable killer plz nerf? Far from it! You could easily kill it with matchlocks or you could run it down with (heavy) cavalry.

If you put 30 abrams vs 1800 (or 3 vs 180 to put it in slightly more realistic in-game terms) 15pt centurions or t34 I expect the abrams to come up on top in virtually any circumstance (the only exception being the abrams group is surrounded from all sides AND buried deep in a forest). Would that make the abrams OP? Not really, you can still kill it with another Abrams or T80, a helicopter, an airplane or endless arty barage. These stupid <30pt tank category units should be 100% useless except for engaging defenseless units and for absorbing fire perhaps. The whole idea that a few of these stupid units can do ANY real damage beyond an armor point or 2 to a goddamn wargod machine is just beyond what I can accept in a game.

By the way the above also goes for modern medium tanks. It should even be VERY hard for these worthless units to kill medium tanks EVEN in numbers.

Even the mighty BTR80A should have big trouble to kill armored units. Shred unarmored vehicles and infantry? Sure. Shred APC's? With difficulty. Shred armor? Hell no. Maybe if you give it 10 minutes it should be able to wear it down eventually.

Anyway this was also a "problem" in ALB. A few BTR could also kill an Abrams but this issue was much less noticeable and it was still possible to beat idiots who did nothing but try and sneak past your lines with infantry and BTR's to knock out your CV's and other stuff. I raged a lot about that but for some reason I kept playing regardless. With this game, I cannot bring myself to keep playing.

This is pretty much 50% what is broken. Anything can kill an MBT with relative ease and cost-effectiveness and the MBT can't really kill anything back with cost effectiveness. Now we see only inauthentic crap units everywhere while the whole reason I play this game is to see Abrams and Leo2 and T80U rip into enemy formations. Not to try and fend off measly T34's!!!!

It has been this way since beta so I doubt balancing the game in a way that feels authentic and fun is on the dev's minds tbh.

In real life a T34 would explode simply by being in the presence of an Abrams wargod machine. To make Abrams as powerful as RL would make ittoo OP, but it should at least be made semi-invincible against these cheap tanks and autocannon APCs.

User avatar
-Joker-
Staff Sergeant
Posts: 90
Joined: Wed 26 Dec 2012 20:45
Contact:

Re: Why don't I like RD?

Postby -Joker- » Thu 5 Jun 2014 09:22

So this is the thread I can pretty much rant on why I don’t like this game? No? Well… too bad… I already typed all this and I don’t want any of it just be a waste of my finger muscles.

My Thoughts on the Naval Aspect:

Ever since it was first introduced to us back when the game was still being made, I already knew in the back of my head that the naval was something I was going to hate with every bit of my soul, and I was sadden to see that I was right. It looked dull to me when the game was in beta and it still looks and feels the same in its current state.

I gave it a few chances by playing some all naval maps in public matches (note I played everyone as PACT) and I hated every one of those matches. All of them were nothing but who has the most missiles to break a wall of bullets. Get a few to break that wall, great you sunk a ship… now repeat.
Cool, so in the end I don’t like it, but then as I play the game more, it began to bother me… I was able to field more ships than I can fixed wing aircraft… Why is that?!? I mean A cruiser cost more than a MiG-31M right? So why am I able to get like 4 cruisers but only could get one 31M?

/Naval rant


Rant for unit availability

One MiG-31M? why?!? But never mind my favorite aircraft in the game, why am I able to get more BMP-3’s in the previous wargame that was 1.) set in a time frame that is 10 years before this one. And 2.) Marked as a “prototype” ? The further in time we go, the less we get… why is that?!? I said this before in another thread, but I’ll happy say it again here, If the word “prototype” means we get a lot of that object, then I would take my time machine.
At least give us more of those APC’s, it’s not like they come with the game’s most feared and notorious infantry. Because we all know, those moto’s are pretty much the butt of the joke when it comes to infantry. I didn't like the deck system they introduced in ALB, but I was able to get over it in just a day of playing that, but in this game the changes they done to the deck system is something I still hate it to this day. From the time I've bought this game till now, my position on the deck system still hasn't changed. Not one bit. I tend to blame most of it on the fact that they now limit the number of cards you can get per a specific unit. And it really shows it's flaw when it comes to picking out infantry and the transport they come with.

Thank god they remove some of those slots from the Naval part, it bothered me a lot to see I was able to get more of the things I hate but less of the stuff I prefer to use. AND even less of fixed wing aircraft when you compare the game to ALB.

/ Rant for unit availability


Infantry rant

Speaking of infantry, it’s nice to see Special Forces have become the number one frontline fighters. Ah… yes, remember those days in EE when you’ll only see those pesky deltas messing stuff up at your starting sector? And you’ll have to divert attention from the frontline just to deal with them? Well Red Dragon has killed that problem… Now you’ll only see them on the frontline trying to kill all your infantry you’ll have setup in the forest or on that hill. Special Forces are no longer even considered Special Forces when you see them on the frontline more than you’ll EVER see Moto’s, and that’s a very sad fact.

/infantry rant


Overall general rant

So, from horrible naval, crap availably, and horrible infantry representation, what else could I not like? Artillery… While, to be honest, I didn’t care for it much in EE as it really was powerful in that game, but if you stayed on the move keep a nice spread on your units, you would be fine. In ALB it just sucked, but I was fine with it, I will always use motors and they worked out well for my tactics. Here… It's now just at the point where I hate it because it's so powerful... The fact it has become the near fail safe solution towards everything in the game.

A Ultimate one shot tank killer?

A Ultimate Heli Handler?

NATO no longer has to worry about how to deal with a recon chopper that is either just out of reach of AA range or is too risky to send one just to kill it. Now they can just shoot it down with Artillery… I mean really?!? I understand you were able to a chopper down with artillery before in previous versions of the game if you opponent sat it there long enough for you to down it after a few barrages, even if it was hovering at a high alt, you can still down it if you opponent really wasn’t paying attention. Now you have a piece that will down it in two shots no matter what alt it is at. High or low, it’s not high enough to kill it with artillery…

Before artillery was the solution to a well-defended position, now it’s become the solution to everything in the game aside from jets. Infantry in town and they just won’t give up? BAM! Hit them with Artillery! Two tanks in a forest pinning you down? BAM! Hit them with Artillery! T-80U wiping the floor with you? BAM! Hit them with Artillery! Enemy chopper covering a position? BAM! Hit them with Artillery! Enemy ship spotted in waters? BAM! Hit them with Artillery!

Oh man, if I had the game installed, I would have soo much more to rant on, and most of it deals with units that were either nerfed like one AA unit that had a high ROF for PACT. But since that was doused with a lower ROF, it’s no longer effective nor a viable option compared to other AA that, now has the same ROF but more missiles and even cheaper. Overall, the game is the worst of the series for me in its current state.

I’m currently waiting for the truck load of balancing patches, once those come I’ll install and start playing again. For right now, I’ll stick to ALB...



I mean it seemed like the game or the series could have had more potential with the current content it has, if they focused on unit modulability.

Like one thing I wished that they’ve done with the fixed wing aircraft was give the players the ability to modularly change the aircraft armament to what suits them, that is at the same time the armament will have to be compatible with the aircraft.

Like for example, if you wanted the SU-24 with SEAD capabilities + Air-to-Ground capabilities with a TV guidance missile. Then you would pick the aircraft in the deck creation system and once added to the deck, it will have three ammo cards under it. Then you’ll be able to select what payload you want with the aircraft while staying under its flyable weight and overall capabilities.

Having something like that will generally kill the problems with aircraft in the game doing the same thing for different prices, and will always keep aircraft like the SU-24 that has a vast armament in a position where it still can EXTREMLY useful. But no longer is because of the two roles it’s stuck with.
Image

User avatar
Bewolf
Staff Sergeant
Posts: 95
Joined: Mon 24 Jun 2013 14:18
Contact:

Re: Why don't I like RD?

Postby Bewolf » Thu 5 Jun 2014 09:40

I can live with most changes in RD. The new units, the naval aspect, all actually "add" to the game in my opinion. I like the maps and effects. I even can live with the Artillery. The infantry meta with a concentration of SF units "is" bothersome, but not game breaking atm.

Unluckily what made me go back to ALB is the deck system and the generic battles that evolved out of that. This has been stated in a lot of threads before, without any changes done to it. A pity, seriously, because RD still has so much more potential. Battles simply a are lot less diverse and surprising then in ALB. Always same units, same tactics, the game has become kinda stale.

I should still state, I am a huge fan of Eugen and the series, it's the best that has come out in regards to strategy in years. The greater the shame currently.

User avatar
Shrike
Lieutenant General
Posts: 4515
Joined: Sun 22 Sep 2013 04:30
Location: Central California, US
Contact:

Re: Why don't I like RD?

Postby Shrike » Thu 5 Jun 2014 09:46

Doeko wrote:That's exactly my point. These crap cheap tanks should be usable as filler but even if 100 of these rusty pieces of junk face off against a Leo2 or an M1A2 they should lose. Their only purpose should be to catch fire and kill equivalently crap units
An Abrams vs. these stupid old 15pt scrap quality tanks should be more or less like this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8RTwA0JAQDY

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=p ... 065k#t=138

User avatar
Deus_Drone
First Sergeant
Posts: 238
Joined: Thu 22 Aug 2013 10:35

Re: Why don't I like RD?

Postby Deus_Drone » Thu 5 Jun 2014 13:06

What I will say is What my Steam account says.

163 hours on record
5.0 hrs last two weeks
Last played, Monday

It is now Thursday,

yeah.

Yet I still hang out for a patch that might make the game fun.

User avatar
Sotek
Master Sergeant
Posts: 178
Joined: Thu 6 Sep 2012 10:03
Contact:

Re: Why don't I like RD?

Postby Sotek » Thu 5 Jun 2014 13:36

I completely agree with OP, Bracus, and others on the cheap stuff issue, whether they are the SU100, the T34, the Cent, or the 10 pt Blue Dragon tank/vehicle. They are way too cost-effective (1) and their availability is ridiculously high (2).

Divide availability by two across the board, perhaps raise the cost by 5 pts. Hell, I would still include one card of Cent in my deck.

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

Re: Why don't I like RD?

Postby Mot » Thu 5 Jun 2014 16:47

If you limit the availability to half and increase the cost, bringing this units becomes almost pointless, imo this cheap units great advantage is that I don't need to micro them, if they die they are cheap and there's plenty more, they would lose their purpose.

If medium tanks, and tanks in general get their pricing right, the natural predators of this cheap spam units will be affordable and its two birds with one stone, first the tanks get fixed and the cheap tank spam becomes as strong as it should be.
"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
Sotek
Master Sergeant
Posts: 178
Joined: Thu 6 Sep 2012 10:03
Contact:

Re: Why don't I like RD?

Postby Sotek » Thu 5 Jun 2014 17:04

Mot wrote:If you limit the availability to half and increase the cost, bringing this units becomes almost pointless, imo this cheap units great advantage is that I don't need to micro them, if they die they are cheap and there's plenty more, they would lose their purpose.

If medium tanks, and tanks in general get their pricing right, the natural predators of this cheap spam units will be affordable and its two birds with one stone, first the tanks get fixed and the cheap tank spam becomes as strong as it should be.


I think they would still be very useful as meat shields in well-thought assault or as tough position holders, only you won't be able to rinse and repeat over and over again. Even with an availability divided by two, I would still include Cents in my competitive deck.

However, I completely agree with you with the medium tank issue, they badly need a revision. But, having played since WEE, I have stopped hoping for such well-thought remedies and opted to support quick and dirty solutions instead.

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

Re: Why don't I like RD?

Postby towedarray » Thu 5 Jun 2014 17:38

-Joker- wrote:Rant for unit availability

One MiG-31M? why?!? But never mind my favorite aircraft in the game, why am I able to get more BMP-3’s in the previous wargame that was 1.) set in a time frame that is 10 years before this one. And 2.) Marked as a “prototype” ? The further in time we go, the less we get… why is that?!? I said this before in another thread, but I’ll happy say it again here, If the word “prototype” means we get a lot of that object, then I would take my time machine.
At least give us more of those APC’s, it’s not like they come with the game’s most feared and notorious infantry. Because we all know, those moto’s are pretty much the butt of the joke when it comes to infantry. I didn't like the deck system they introduced in ALB, but I was able to get over it in just a day of playing that, but in this game the changes they done to the deck system is something I still hate it to this day. From the time I've bought this game till now, my position on the deck system still hasn't changed. Not one bit. I tend to blame most of it on the fact that they now limit the number of cards you can get per a specific unit. And it really shows it's flaw when it comes to picking out infantry and the transport they come with.

Thank god they remove some of those slots from the Naval part, it bothered me a lot to see I was able to get more of the things I hate but less of the stuff I prefer to use. AND even less of fixed wing aircraft when you compare the game to ALB.

/ Rant for unit availability


It's also the case that they could enable all the APCs and IFVs to be brought in empty under the Vehicle tab. They already have unit cards as shown in the Armory. They just need to be turned on. Then at least we could have additional BMPs and BTRs and the rest, brought in to help supplement the ones that come in under the Infantry tab without unbalancing the infantry themselves.

Bewolf wrote:I can live with most changes in RD. The new units, the naval aspect, all actually "add" to the game in my opinion. I like the maps and effects. I even can live with the Artillery. The infantry meta with a concentration of SF units "is" bothersome, but not game breaking atm.

Unluckily what made me go back to ALB is the deck system and the generic battles that evolved out of that. This has been stated in a lot of threads before, without any changes done to it. A pity, seriously, because RD still has so much more potential. Battles simply a are lot less diverse and surprising then in ALB. Always same units, same tactics, the game has become kinda stale.

I should still state, I am a huge fan of Eugen and the series, it's the best that has come out in regards to strategy in years. The greater the shame currently.


Agreed. I miss the diversity and flavor one could give a standard national deck in ALB. In RD, the tighter slot restrictions mean less deck diversity without specializing, and specializing sucks most of the time because all the unit decisions are pretty much made for you (because they remove so many units, leaving only a handful in most categories) and usually the deck is inferior enough that it isn't going to be competitive in a real match, or it relies on one specific gimmick play, which is also less interesting in the long run.

User avatar
F-22
Lieutenant
Posts: 1225
Joined: Thu 30 May 2013 03:13
Contact:

Re: Why don't I like RD?

Postby F-22 » Thu 5 Jun 2014 17:47

If medium tanks like the leopard 1 and the T-72 we're cost effective, they would absolutely murder cheap tank spam and basically be a hard counter to it.

Return to “Wargame : Red Dragon”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 36 guests