Poll: Realism or Arcade?

User avatar
omega21
Sergeant Major
Posts: 256
Joined: Fri 15 Feb 2013 19:05
Contact:

Re: Poll: Realism or Arcade?

Postby omega21 » Tue 28 Oct 2014 16:54

Bryan wrote:
WiC's MW Mod is a great mod for sure, on the basis of effort. But it serves as an exceptional example of mis-scaled units and their negative consequences associated with it. A fine example is their aircraft/Close Air support, heavy SAMs(Patriot and S-300) and ICBMs which literally turns the game into a crazy "dodge SAMs and ICBMs!" micro routine.


There are no ICBMs. But the short-ranged missile units and heavy SAMs are indeed a bit out of place.

Nevertheless, it was a factor still moving units of WiC, at least until recently.

In addition, that was the point of the game - simulation of a IADS. It didn't go perfectly, but the central thesis still stands - that a mod, sufficiently well done, can be a boon to the game.
Image Image

Alex18762
Chief Warrant Officer
Posts: 532
Joined: Wed 25 Apr 2012 19:14
Location: Narodna Republika Bulgaria
Contact:

Re: Poll: Realism or Arcade?

Postby Alex18762 » Tue 28 Oct 2014 20:15

SKLKNKR wrote:
Alex18762 wrote:More realism but keep adding prototypes and increase scalee.


That is literally the opposite of every other opinion I have ever seen. What kinds of prototypes do you want to see? What size of scale would you prefer?

I want more realistic armor seperate HEAT and APSFDS resistance in millimeters), artillery mechanics(airburst option, guided shells, etc.), AA(add dedicated radar vehicles), ECM(dedicated jamming units),mobility(selfentrenchment, deployability time for certain units) and damage mechanics. I want all pre 1995 prototypes for each nation that were seriously considered for service in said armed force but were cancelled because of nontechnical reasons, and proto units that were ready before 1995 but entered service later. Every single nation. China included.

As for scale increase, Eventually add TBMs and Tactical bombers like B1B and Tu-22. If naval warfare will be improved upon, then increase to green water combat.

Bryan
General
Posts: 5993
Joined: Mon 7 Jan 2013 07:16
Contact:

Re: Poll: Realism or Arcade?

Postby Bryan » Wed 29 Oct 2014 00:58

omega21 wrote:
Bryan wrote:
WiC's MW Mod is a great mod for sure, on the basis of effort. But it serves as an exceptional example of mis-scaled units and their negative consequences associated with it. A fine example is their aircraft/Close Air support, heavy SAMs(Patriot and S-300) and ICBMs which literally turns the game into a crazy "dodge SAMs and ICBMs!" micro routine.


There are no ICBMs. But the short-ranged missile units and heavy SAMs are indeed a bit out of place.

Nevertheless, it was a factor still moving units of WiC, at least until recently.

In addition, that was the point of the game - simulation of a IADS. It didn't go perfectly, but the central thesis still stands - that a mod, sufficiently well done, can be a boon to the game.

My mistake, I meant Tactical Ballastic Missiles.

As for simulating IADS, well in the scale of WiC, let alone Wargame, IADS is grossly out of scale and if was indeed the goal of the game, then the whole realism aspect of it would have been lost, regardless of how fancy and well made the FLINT or the very well made custom missile components were.

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

Re: Poll: Realism or Arcade?

Postby Shrike » Wed 29 Oct 2014 01:28

May one day Redfor return the favor to Bluefor by raining tactical icbms of their own on bluefor cvs, but I think the game could use a little bit more realism. Not combat mission or virtual battlespace real, but enough to where we have a defined game scale.

User avatar
Hawker Siddeley
Second-Lieutenant
Posts: 914
Joined: Mon 20 Oct 2014 09:31
Location: Heart of the glorious Empire

Re: Poll: Realism or Arcade?

Postby Hawker Siddeley » Wed 29 Oct 2014 10:29

I just want it back in the '80s with 40% accuracy being considered as good. The scale just felt right.
Image
Professional funtposter
Baitin', hatin', reservse configuratin'

User avatar
StalkerDellaNote
Lieutenant
Posts: 1472
Joined: Tue 12 Nov 2013 12:23
Location: Southern California, USA
Contact:

Re: Poll: Realism or Arcade?

Postby StalkerDellaNote » Wed 29 Oct 2014 13:59

Geographical data is a bit strange and highly revealing.. I now know there is another SoCal Wargamer on forums.. LoLoL..

Reveal yourself you feind! You can not hide forever in the city you coward! The desert dwellers are dissatisfied with your pollution rising into the Hi-desert and settling in our valley! The USAF will nuke fire season will burn down all of Los Angeles eventually and our air will finally be fresh and clean.. MuWaHaHaHaaa!!!

Sorry, I couldn't resist..
Image
"Re: Winter maps?" wrote:Maybe if they ever set Wargame in Scandinavia.

bjrns
Specialist
Posts: 14
Joined: Wed 28 Nov 2012 17:56
Contact:

Re: Poll: Realism or Arcade?

Postby bjrns » Wed 29 Oct 2014 15:30

A lot of things have improved since EE but I miss the focus on mechanized/armoured battle that has over time been diluted with the introduction of planes and ships. I also feel that the out-of-scale units (long range SAM) deter from the experience. Something that has always been lacking is a sense of context and an authentic mid-level battlefield commander experience.

With that as a background, here are my ideas for a new direction for the Wargame series:

1) First of all I would remake the deck and game setup phase. The reinforcements in the game today are too unrealistic. You get to chose whichever unit that is most needed at the moment (and most players can put together a deck that will include most of them) and can get them into the fight in no time.

The idea is that you buy all the units you want available in the fight before the fight begins and then you fight with what you've got. When setting up a game you decide the points that each player has to buy units for (say 2k, 4k, 6k) and the game duration (this is for conquest only). Deck building would still be a thing as you will need to prepare decks for each point-level.

This would make the game a lot more authentic when it comes to the experience as a mid-level commander. You get an objective and the resources to do it. You do not get to call in all sorts of toys when the shit hits the fan.


2) The reasoning from above would continue in the unit-placement phase as well. You would be required to place all your units on the map right from the start. This would go hand-in-hand with an effort to start the battle with the sides closer to each other. It would still be a meeting engagement but the game would start closer to the actual confrontation than today (so it's to late to rush areas).

The maps would have to change to support this of course. i'm thinking that the maps should be divided into three areas at the start, red, neutral and blue. You can place your units anywhere in your area (think of each area covering 1/3 of the map or so). Conquest areas are still there but you are not confined to start from within them anymore. Also, there are no neutral conquest areas from the start, so you need to take one from your opponent to get ahead.


3) I would remove all heavy support and stick to mortars, lighter howitzers and only AA that IRL can stop and shoot pretty much instantly.


4) CAS-planes, ASFs, heavy AA, rocket and heavy artillery should instead be off map assets. These would also have to be bought in the setup phase, thus making less points available for on-map units. The respective points spent on off-map assets would set the meta for the confrontation.

Example: An off-map SAM-system might cover say 40% of the map and then make that area a no fly zone for the opposing airplanes. So you can invest heavily in off-map AA and make sure you don't have to worry about enemy planes but if the enemy hasn't bought any planes that might cost you dearly as they will have more points to spend on tanks and men.

Planes that do come in outside of any off-map AA range can of course also be shot down by your on-map AA.

All the planes should have a sizeable delay before entering the map after they are called in. The idea is to make ground attack planes something you can use offensively and less as a panic button to stomp out enemy movements.


5) Last but not least, I would make all the distances and speeds to scale and shrink the engagement areas and the amount of troops to something similar to what a battalion commander would be in charge of IRL.


In my mind, a game as described above would have a slower pace in a smaller area but at the same time have more tactical depth and would reward long term planning and execution.

User avatar
Rorschach
Lieutenant General
Posts: 4237
Joined: Tue 19 Feb 2013 18:57
Contact:

Re: Poll: Realism or Arcade?

Postby Rorschach » Wed 29 Oct 2014 15:48

I feel like wargame is a Cold War game that's not Cold War anymore. I don't like that.

Wargame was best when it was hordes of BMP 1s fighting alongside T72s and T64s.

With ATACSMs, Patriot, Challenger 2 etc, the game doesn't feel right.
A brilliant plan from the dirtiest euro-hippie: get US players to pay me for a game that I then show them how much their military sucks so I can feel better about being a communist.

keebs63
Brigadier
Posts: 3091
Joined: Mon 3 Mar 2014 08:33
Contact:

Re: Poll: Realism or Arcade?

Postby keebs63 » Wed 29 Oct 2014 15:52

Rorschach wrote:I feel like wargame is a Cold War game that's not Cold War anymore. I don't like that.

Wargame was best when it was hordes of BMP 1s fighting alongside T72s and T64s.

With ATACSMs, Patriot, Challenger 2 etc, the game doesn't feel right.

This is how I have felt since the beta. Im with ya brudda
Image
"arguing on the internet is like being in the special olympics, even if you win, you're still retarted" -Someone, somewhere in Wargame Chat 2015

User avatar
BigDog
Sergeant
Posts: 59
Joined: Wed 13 Feb 2013 20:02
Contact:

Re: Poll: Realism or Arcade?

Postby BigDog » Wed 29 Oct 2014 16:13

I stand with the 74% more realism

Return to “Wargame : Red Dragon”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 45 guests