Does this sound familiar to anyone?

thenosh
Lieutenant
Posts: 1456
Joined: Wed 11 Sep 2013 19:32
Contact:

Re: Does this sound familiar to anyone?

Postby thenosh » Sat 2 Aug 2014 11:59

What do you expect from playing in 10v10? I highly doubt that if you play 1v1 to 4v4 you'll have an enemy that can provide constant logistics AND capture AND hold his sectors.
"Where is my T-80UK CV with top mounted BUK-M1?"

-Wargame global chat, somewhen somewhere-

User avatar
Uncle_Joe
Second-Lieutenant
Posts: 907
Joined: Thu 18 Oct 2012 07:01
Contact:

Re: Does this sound familiar to anyone?

Postby Uncle_Joe » Sat 2 Aug 2014 20:42

Honestly I haven't had a problem with. Arty/rocket usage and effect seems consistent with Cold War doctrines and tactics.

The basic tenant of modern (Cold War) warfare is that if you stay still, you die. And that includes getting bogged down in an attack.

There is no magical shield that attacker have (or should have). Just because you are attacking, the game should not 'reward' that to the point of making defensive artillery weaker.

When attacking, you need to mass guns and/or rockets on an area to neutralize the defenses and then break-through. If you don't do that, you will be hit by THEIR massed arty and the attack will stall.

Artillery is still far more useful on the attack. You can time it so that your fire hits the defenders and then your units are right behind it. And in theory (and doctrine) you have another echelon of troops right behind the first so that they can hit once the first wave bogs down (due to defenses or arty or whatever).

Simply massing up a big pile of units and attacking and then getting nuked by artillery is not going to work (nor should it). 'Attacking' is not a cure-all for being hit by artillery.

And on another note, a successfully planned attack should force the defending arty to choose between being used to try and halt the attack and risking being destroyed by counter-battery. If you save a few tubes, as soon as they start to fire in defense, hit them. If they move, great, they aren't firing at your attacking troops. If the don't move, they are KO'ed and not available to stop the next attacks.

In other words, attacking a series of planned shocks to take your objective. Real armies have piles of doctrines and exercises and training to coordinate an attack. In the game, it's FAR easier to coordinate all of the attacking units. But that doesn't mean that it still won't require planning and skill to pull off successfully against a competent opponent.

I guess what it comes down to IMO is 'what do you expect'? This is the way modern warfare would be fought...massive artillery and air strike to flatten an area.
"Don't you know that in the Service one must always choose the lesser of two weevils?"

hughesengles
Sergeant Major
Posts: 275
Joined: Fri 11 Jul 2014 07:54
Contact:

Re: Does this sound familiar to anyone?

Postby hughesengles » Sat 2 Aug 2014 20:55

And? Please spare me your pedantic, obvious screeds. You do not address the fact that the response time of artillery in this game is absurdly fast and can be accurately "called in" by one guy in a Heimatschutzen team in the three seconds between his seeing an enemy and dying.

The fact that artillery in Wargame is called in by "god" (the player) needs to be balanced out with longer aim times and round travel time.

User avatar
Uncle_Joe
Second-Lieutenant
Posts: 907
Joined: Thu 18 Oct 2012 07:01
Contact:

Re: Does this sound familiar to anyone?

Postby Uncle_Joe » Sat 2 Aug 2014 21:41

hughesengles wrote:And? Please spare me your pedantic, obvious screeds. You do not address the fact that the response time of artillery in this game is absurdly fast and can be accurately "called in" by one guy in a Heimatschutzen team in the three seconds between his seeing an enemy and dying.

The fact that artillery in Wargame is called in by "god" (the player) needs to be balanced out with longer aim times and round travel time.


Please...

And YOU don't address the fact that everything ELSE in the game is also 'abstracted' and absurdly fast. You can't have 'realistic' artillery response times and perfect command and control and response times on everything else.

The point I was trying to make is that AS A WHOLE, the combat feels like a decent, if abstracted, simulation of Cold War era combat. SOP of the day was to level with massed arty. I'm sorry if you don't want to game that (and I also understand why you might not want to).

But you can't just enforce 'realism' in certain areas and leave others as arcade as it is. Arty response times have to be fast because the WHOLE GAME moves much faster than reality...
"Don't you know that in the Service one must always choose the lesser of two weevils?"

hughesengles
Sergeant Major
Posts: 275
Joined: Fri 11 Jul 2014 07:54
Contact:

Re: Does this sound familiar to anyone?

Postby hughesengles » Sun 3 Aug 2014 09:42

Uncle_Joe wrote:
hughesengles wrote:And? Please spare me your pedantic, obvious screeds. You do not address the fact that the response time of artillery in this game is absurdly fast and can be accurately "called in" by one guy in a Heimatschutzen team in the three seconds between his seeing an enemy and dying.

The fact that artillery in Wargame is called in by "god" (the player) needs to be balanced out with longer aim times and round travel time.


Please...

And YOU don't address the fact that everything ELSE in the game is also 'abstracted' and absurdly fast. You can't have 'realistic' artillery response times and perfect command and control and response times on everything else.

The point I was trying to make is that AS A WHOLE, the combat feels like a decent, if abstracted, simulation of Cold War era combat. SOP of the day was to level with massed arty. I'm sorry if you don't want to game that (and I also understand why you might not want to).

But you can't just enforce 'realism' in certain areas and leave others as arcade as it is. Arty response times have to be fast because the WHOLE GAME moves much faster than reality...


Actually, as a single commander controlling everything, there are significant disadvantages over having the individual unit leaders make micro-level and tactical decisions on the fly. Relatively elite military groups such as the US Marine Corps understand and exploit this, decentralizing C&C to a great degree. With the adoption of the Blufor tracking system (or whatever they call the computer screens that track friendly positions are called), active efforts were made not to let it turn into an Ender's Game type system for higher commanders.

Everyone, and I mean everyone, has experienced the horror of watching your brick stupid units do something no real lance corporal or lieutenant would ever attempt.

Disagree that the game moves much faster than reality. I think the speed of actions in general (but not all cases) is accurately reflected for the battalion level, given that in real life there would be a pre-coordinated plan of attack as well as backup plans (and, crucially, communications which relative to the speed of ground units don't seem inaccurately abstracted by your god commander).

Obviously air units are an exception, being such abstractions they may as well be flying purple blobs that shoot cats at each other. Same for naval units IMO but I don't want to open that can of flying blobs.

Bottom line: given, and in large part thanks to, the god commander system, artillery is WAY more powerful than it should be in many cases.

The offensive is the holy grail of manuever warfare. The point is to attack with numerical and other advantages, exploit the offensive, and throw the enemy off balance as you destroy the logic of his system, ultimately resulting in a "collapse," without necessarily attriting him to death or "gaining ground." The god commander, who sees everything his units see, and with his magical hyper-responsive artillery and flying blobs of death that are on the map whenever he needs them (unlike real air) is EXTREMELY hostile to this concept of warfare. Not to mention being able to call in reinforcements of whatever variety he chooses with almost no delay. See an attack happening? You saved up some points, just spend it on dirt cheap rocket arty. It doesn't even have to travel out of range of the FOB.

And we can see what the result is. Why does this game feel more like a World War One simulator than as you say a "decent, if abstracted, simulation of Cold War era combat."

That is unrealistic and dumb, but the god commander system is necessary, thus I argue that artillery needs to be nerfed in some way to compensate.

Bluecewe
Sergeant Major
Posts: 261
Joined: Sat 11 Feb 2012 13:29
Contact:

Re: Does this sound familiar to anyone?

Postby Bluecewe » Sun 3 Aug 2014 13:12

Uncle_Joe wrote:Honestly I haven't had a problem with. Arty/rocket usage and effect seems consistent with Cold War doctrines and tactics.


The thing is, though, Wargame is a game, not a simulation. While it does attempt to appeal to realism, that does not mean that it must reflect with utmost precision theoretical Cold War warfare. Ultimately, gameplay and the enjoyment of it should always trump realism where it matters.

As an aside, Wargame lacks civilians which, in the real world, would dramatically impact upon the use of artillery which, quite frankly, is in most cases a highly indiscriminate weapon, especially multiple rocket launchers.

User avatar
Uncle_Joe
Second-Lieutenant
Posts: 907
Joined: Thu 18 Oct 2012 07:01
Contact:

Re: Does this sound familiar to anyone?

Postby Uncle_Joe » Sun 3 Aug 2014 19:49

That is unrealistic and dumb, but the god commander system is necessary, thus I argue that artillery needs to be nerfed in some way to compensate.


Some fair points and I don't entirely disagree.

But my experience has been that my offensives are stopped far more often by a swarm of choppers emerging from a hole in a mountain or running into a cloud of the exact 'counter' to whatever I'm using, magically summoned at the point of attack (or extremely close by) rather than by massed arty.

And my suspension of disbelief can far more easily accept the arty storm that stops me than either of the other two above examples which I tend to see over and over again.

So I guess they way I see it, 'fixing' the arty isn't making the game any more enjoyable to me if the other silliness of RTS-abstraction continues unabated. If efforts were to be made to make the game 'more realistic' or 'more offensive friendly', IMO a better pay off would come from fixing the 'instant response counter-units' which goes against EVERYTHING that makes sense in reality rather than the arty which, if over responsive, is still at least an actual battlefield threat.
"Don't you know that in the Service one must always choose the lesser of two weevils?"

hughesengles
Sergeant Major
Posts: 275
Joined: Fri 11 Jul 2014 07:54
Contact:

Re: Does this sound familiar to anyone?

Postby hughesengles » Sun 3 Aug 2014 21:24

Uncle_Joe wrote:
That is unrealistic and dumb, but the god commander system is necessary, thus I argue that artillery needs to be nerfed in some way to compensate.


Some fair points and I don't entirely disagree.

But my experience has been that my offensives are stopped far more often by a swarm of choppers emerging from a hole in a mountain or running into a cloud of the exact 'counter' to whatever I'm using, magically summoned at the point of attack (or extremely close by) rather than by massed arty.

And my suspension of disbelief can far more easily accept the arty storm that stops me than either of the other two above examples which I tend to see over and over again.

So I guess they way I see it, 'fixing' the arty isn't making the game any more enjoyable to me if the other silliness of RTS-abstraction continues unabated. If efforts were to be made to make the game 'more realistic' or 'more offensive friendly', IMO a better pay off would come from fixing the 'instant response counter-units' which goes against EVERYTHING that makes sense in reality rather than the arty which, if over responsive, is still at least an actual battlefield threat.


Yes, it is on my list of things that ruin immersion and harm gameplay, along with all naval combat, but I don't think Eugen is ever going to alter that, unfortunately.

As an aside, it is an interesting experiment: how would the face of warfare change if battalion level commanders had a high tech, networked BattleCommandInterface? Plus automated artillery with FCS, drones and even infantry helmet cams with highly advanced machine vision that fed info directly into the BCI, and mountains of air-launched standoff munitions (which we can imagine bomber spam representing even if they die, since you just have more to call in).

Manuever warfare will always be advantageous if the attacker can pull it off, thanks to the generally applicable OODA loop-esque principles it relies on. But with the proper amount of advanced indirect and standoff munitions, a defending commander can respond almost instantaneously to any concentration of enemy force in his battle space. And if his response time to enemy manuevers falls to zero or near zero, the OODA loop principle no longer really applies.

You cannot "get into his loop."

Battles between two forces like this may ultimately come down to who has the most firepower, a return to the attrition warfare of WWI/early Cold War (theory).

User avatar
SteinerGER
Command Sergeant Major
Posts: 321
Joined: Thu 11 Jul 2013 17:18
Location: Germany
Contact:

Re: Does this sound familiar to anyone?

Postby SteinerGER » Sun 3 Aug 2014 23:37

(including the complete elimination of the Smerch and ATACMS, because sniping CV's is the stupidest thing ever).

Who does this? Infantry cv > any vehicle cv in my opinion.
Countless times I sat laughing because of the wasted cluster-mlrs and its supply for panicking my inf cv. :lol:

Random
Captain
Posts: 1509
Joined: Thu 31 Jan 2013 19:05
Contact:

Re: Does this sound familiar to anyone?

Postby Random » Sun 3 Aug 2014 23:43

Post a replay. Anyone. Please.

Return to “Wargame : Red Dragon”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 47 guests