Why don't I like RD?

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 23:26

towedarray wrote:
-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.


That's something I fully agree with right there. And now I remember why I kinda hated ALB changes to the deck system. It was because of the fact I wasn't able to just get a BMP or some kinda of APC as a stand alone vehicle anymore. We were forced to get them with infantry...

I wish they allow us to get APC's as stand-alones again
Image

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

Re: Why don't I like RD?

Postby Mot » Fri 6 Jun 2014 02:49

Sotek wrote: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.

Fair enough, could work but I would miss my endless baits :D

Sotek wrote: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.

I feel your pain :cry:
"I suck at Wargame" or "I have to wait 30 minutes to pubstomp people" are not solid arguments to criticize the game... just saying.

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

Re: Why don't I like RD?

Postby Doeko » Sat 7 Jun 2014 13:55

Well I'm glad it isn't just me at any rate. I'm also sad that these problems have persisted since beta, even though people are clearly very aware of them.

I agree that Cent (and all other <20pt units that are currently effective againts >50pt units) availability needs to be cut by 50% and their cost should go up by 5pt at least. I don't understand what people are complaining about. These units are MEANT to be COMPLETELY INEFFECTIVE in a modern combat situation. How many centurions do you think would actually be fielded in a conflict against China? That's right, zero. Why? Because they are totally useless, except to catch bullets (which is an acceptable way to use units in a game but not in RL. I don't think these units should even be in the game to start with).

User avatar
REDDQ
General
Posts: 6906
Joined: Thu 12 Apr 2012 03:13
Location: przy stole.
Contact:

Re: Why don't I like RD?

Postby REDDQ » Sat 7 Jun 2014 14:00

F-22 wrote: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.

+1

User avatar
MILINTarctrooper
Major
Posts: 1911
Joined: Mon 27 Jan 2014 04:19

Re: Why don't I like RD?

Postby MILINTarctrooper » Sat 7 Jun 2014 15:53

Doeko wrote:Well I'm glad it isn't just me at any rate. I'm also sad that these problems have persisted since beta, even though people are clearly very aware of them.

I agree that Cent (and all other <20pt units that are currently effective againts >50pt units) availability needs to be cut by 50% and their cost should go up by 5pt at least. I don't understand what people are complaining about. These units are MEANT to be COMPLETELY INEFFECTIVE in a modern combat situation. How many centurions do you think would actually be fielded in a conflict against China? That's right, zero. Why? Because they are totally useless, except to catch bullets (which is an acceptable way to use units in a game but not in RL. I don't think these units should even be in the game to start with).


Or low tier tanks are emergency...rear line security options...currently they are not being used that way.

I think alot of the spam tanks and vehicles need card reductions...or to be consigned to the support deck. [Although that would make it akin to a Cat C deck...from ALB.]

I don't know...until the rebalance...we will just have to see what we can do very such aggravating tactics.
Image
52.2% 1v1 Ranked 32.2% Multi since Open Beta.

User avatar
chykka
Brigadier
Posts: 3387
Joined: Wed 28 Nov 2012 14:55
Location: Canada, Alberta
Contact:

Re: Why don't I like RD?

Postby chykka » Sun 8 Jun 2014 03:47

MILINTarctrooper wrote:Or low tier tanks are emergency...rear line security options...currently they are not being used that way.

I think alot of the spam tanks and vehicles need card reductions...or to be consigned to the support deck. [Although that would make it akin to a Cat C deck...from ALB.]

I don't know...until the rebalance...we will just have to see what we can do very such aggravating tactics.


That's what my t34s are usually for guarding my rear and flanks. Pushing with 3 armour? Not really productive :roll:
Leave Cents with support/ moto decks without any changes... Your onto something sir ;)

Aggravating tactics don't play out in long run usually ;) they are quite relaxing to play against in TD No time limit
Image

Mesrinelef0u
Sergeant
Posts: 74
Joined: Fri 2 Nov 2012 00:36
Location: Lens

Re: Why don't I like RD?

Postby Mesrinelef0u » Sun 8 Jun 2014 17:01

Bracus wrote:I really liked ALB with their maps, balance. Still playing RD but i dont pick the most succesfull coalition to be better in the ladder, i refuse this attitude. I managed to be in TOP3 in ALB, but here... If you are not with bluefor you screwed.


Are you Spambert ??

Return to “Wargame : Red Dragon”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 42 guests