IFVs to the vehicle tab

delor
Lieutenant
Posts: 1230
Joined: Mon 21 Apr 2014 23:39
Contact:

IFVs to the vehicle tab

Postby delor » Wed 16 Jul 2014 06:27

IFVs are a much-discussed topic here. The most common discussion thread is the complaint that they shouldn't reduce availability because it makes them not worth taking, countered by a bit of "but you don't want IFV spam like the bad old days".

Reading over the "Be(a)st IFV" thread, I got an idea that I don't think I've seen discussed here before: Move infantry+IFV pairings to the "vehicle" tab, not the "infantry" tab. (I have seen "let us buy them without infantry", which is similar but not the same)

My thinking about the current state of things and why this is a good solution:

The availability nerf for the IFVs makes a lot of sense in one way. You're getting two effective combat vehicles per deployment instead of one. If you don't reduce availability, you're effectively giving a big overall force availability to the IFV cards: you're getting two effective combat units for every single deployment purchased. If you want to spam, it's hard to beat two-for-one.

Where it breaks down is in conjunction with the way deck building breaks things up by role. You've only got five infantry slots, and infantry are both manpower-intensive (you can need a lot of them) and have a lot of specialties competing for those five slots. You really need those infantry slots for infantry. When you buy an IFV, however, you're effectively splitting your deck building points between infantry and vehicles but only consuming infantry slots to do so and end up with less infantry.

Move it to the vehicle slot, OTOH, and you've got a much different picture. The vehicles category is much less overloaded than the infantry category, and much of what it does do is exactly what IFVs provide: lightly armored autocannons and ATGMs. Players can buy their infantry with reduced availability there, without starving themselves in the infantry category, and while still purchasing things that by and large make sense for the category of purchase.

If you do this, it would also probably make sense to treat infantry categories listed across multiple entries the same way you treat transport vehicles available to multiple types of infantry: the net total cards purchase-able remains the same regardless of where you buy it. (so you can't double up on maximum cards of infantry that can be purchased both with and without IFVs)

User avatar
oneshot
Staff Sergeant
Posts: 94
Joined: Tue 1 Jul 2014 15:56
Location: Pearl Of The Orient
Contact:

Re: IFVs to the vehicle tab

Postby oneshot » Wed 16 Jul 2014 06:42

Really? The point of ifv is to support infantry. The name says it - ifv ( infantry fighting vehicle ) Please be reasonable as ifv is NOT for spamming. Its role is to support, deliver, and enhance infantry mobility.
Shifu wrote:Download the replays and put them into C:\Users\YourUsername\Saved Games\EugenSystems\Wargame3 - then you can watch them from ingame.

delor
Lieutenant
Posts: 1230
Joined: Mon 21 Apr 2014 23:39
Contact:

Re: IFVs to the vehicle tab

Postby delor » Wed 16 Jul 2014 06:48

Two extra thoughts:

-An "IFV" for the purposes of this discussion really is "any vehicle that was sufficiently awesome to come with an availability reduction". So if you have, say, a APC that comes with an availability nerf, it gets moved too.

-The same logic might also be applied to sufficiently well-armed helicopters: make them come with an availability nerf and move them to the helicopter tab. Not quite as good of a solution to armed transport helicopter spam, since it doesn't take that many choppers to saturate a light AA network, but the other arguments in favor still apply.

Forimar
Captain
Posts: 1522
Joined: Mon 6 May 2013 01:27
Contact:

Re: IFVs to the vehicle tab

Postby Forimar » Wed 16 Jul 2014 06:52

A big issue I see here is that while some nations have a completely uncontested vehicle section (USA, to a lesser extent CW, Euro, and Bloc) other nations rely on their vehicle section a huge amount to get jobs done. A prime example of who this would hurt is the USSR: In the vehicle section they have essentials like Norovs, Buratinos, BMPTs, Shturms, and Konkurs-M carriers. It's already hard enough to choose between these, and put together with the very strong IFV lines the USSR has it would turn the vehicle section into the most crowded one in the deck. This issue also pops up with the Red Dragons and Scandis, their vehicle sections are already packed with essential tankbusting units and infantry support. Adding in IFVs there will pretty much make it so you either choose between IFVs or an essential role in these nation's decks. It wouldn't be fair to coalitions/nations that require lots of vehicles when coalitions that aren't vehicle heavy can have a pretty hefty advantage with a full IFV lineup to complement a full infantry lineup.

delor
Lieutenant
Posts: 1230
Joined: Mon 21 Apr 2014 23:39
Contact:

Re: IFVs to the vehicle tab

Postby delor » Wed 16 Jul 2014 06:58

oneshot wrote:Really? The point of ifv is to support infantry. The name says it - ifv ( infantry fighting vehicle ) Please be reasonable as ifv is NOT for spamming. Its role is to support, deliver, and enhance infantry mobility.


This is exactly what it would do. Just from the vehicle tab, and with less spammability than IFVs have had in earlier Wargame iterations that did not include the availability nerfs present in Red Dragon.

I'd probably even argue for bigger availability hits under this solution, as part of it. Currently you get, say, 12, 8, or 6 of a normally 16-man card depending on how fancy the IFV is. Under this system, making those numbers 6, 4, and 3 would probably make it more on par with the availability you get with a typical vehicle card. (factoring in the fact that the infantry is also a combat unit so the number understates how many units you get per deployment)

delor
Lieutenant
Posts: 1230
Joined: Mon 21 Apr 2014 23:39
Contact:

Re: IFVs to the vehicle tab

Postby delor » Wed 16 Jul 2014 07:02

Forimar wrote:A big issue I see here is that while some nations have a completely uncontested vehicle section (USA, to a lesser extent CW, Euro, and Bloc) other nations rely on their vehicle section a huge amount to get jobs done. A prime example of who this would hurt is the USSR: In the vehicle section they have essentials like Norovs, Buratinos, BMPTs, Shturms, and Konkurs-M carriers. It's already hard enough to choose between these, and put together with the very strong IFV lines the USSR has it would turn the vehicle section into the most crowded one in the deck. This issue also pops up with the Red Dragons and Scandis, their vehicle sections are already packed with essential tankbusting units and infantry support. Adding in IFVs there will pretty much make it so you either choose between IFVs or an essential role in these nation's decks. It wouldn't be fair to coalitions/nations that require lots of vehicles when coalitions that aren't vehicle heavy can have a pretty hefty advantage with a full IFV lineup to complement a full infantry lineup.


This is a valid concern, but most of the USSR's IFVs already have ATGMs- and frequently very good ones including the Konkurs-M and the Arkan. Two or three cards of IFVs can go pretty far towards covering a card or two of the other armored vehicle killers you descried, and still leave you with room to take a card of BMPTs and a dedicated ATGM carrier.

This suggestion works because, in part, a "vehicle" in the Wargame "Vehicle" category sense is exactly what an IFV is.

User avatar
oneshot
Staff Sergeant
Posts: 94
Joined: Tue 1 Jul 2014 15:56
Location: Pearl Of The Orient
Contact:

Re: IFVs to the vehicle tab

Postby oneshot » Wed 16 Jul 2014 07:03

What is the purpose of ifv? This thread indicates the reason to put ifv to vehicle section. So are u saying that we should spam ifv without infantry when ifv is in vehicle section? The main purpose of ifv is to support, deliver, and enhance infantry mobility, not spamming and perform "saturation attack" . We already have decent units in vehicle and tank section for us to spam. So why do we need ifv to vehicle section? Would that what the game unbalanced as ifv's purpose is to mainly support infantry.
Shifu wrote:Download the replays and put them into C:\Users\YourUsername\Saved Games\EugenSystems\Wargame3 - then you can watch them from ingame.

delor
Lieutenant
Posts: 1230
Joined: Mon 21 Apr 2014 23:39
Contact:

Re: IFVs to the vehicle tab

Postby delor » Wed 16 Jul 2014 07:05

oneshot wrote:So are u saying that we should spam ifv without infantry when ifv is in vehicle section?


That is not what I am saying. Re-read the original post more carefully.

User avatar
oneshot
Staff Sergeant
Posts: 94
Joined: Tue 1 Jul 2014 15:56
Location: Pearl Of The Orient
Contact:

Re: IFVs to the vehicle tab

Postby oneshot » Wed 16 Jul 2014 07:05

You seem like a wise person. Tell me, what is the purpose of ifv in ur point of view?
Shifu wrote:Download the replays and put them into C:\Users\YourUsername\Saved Games\EugenSystems\Wargame3 - then you can watch them from ingame.

User avatar
oneshot
Staff Sergeant
Posts: 94
Joined: Tue 1 Jul 2014 15:56
Location: Pearl Of The Orient
Contact:

Re: IFVs to the vehicle tab

Postby oneshot » Wed 16 Jul 2014 07:06

delor wrote:
oneshot wrote:So are u saying that we should spam ifv without infantry when ifv is in vehicle section?


That is not what I am saying. Re-read the original post more carefully.

Yes, but why? Why do we need ifv in our vehicle section?
Shifu wrote:Download the replays and put them into C:\Users\YourUsername\Saved Games\EugenSystems\Wargame3 - then you can watch them from ingame.

Return to “Wargame : Red Dragon”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 3 guests