Why do you play the Nation(s)/Coalition(s) you do?

User avatar
LoneRifle
Major-General
Posts: 3569
Joined: Wed 3 Jul 2013 17:11
Location: Cackalacky
Contact:

Re: Why do you play the Nation(s)/Coalition(s) you do?

Postby LoneRifle » Sun 9 Nov 2014 04:04

I play nations exclusively.

If I had to pick decks they I play the most lets see......

Standard USA
Airborne USA
Airborne France
Standard UK
Mech German
Standard German

Standard USSR
Airborne USSR
Armored Poland
Motorized USSR
Motorized Czech
Motorized China

Ultra tryhard North Korea Armor. Good for laughs and spamming Nork propaganda on all chat the whole game.
Image

User avatar
Regnar
Lieutenant
Posts: 1159
Joined: Mon 25 Aug 2014 19:41
Location: Islamic State of Donetsk and Luhansk

Re: Why do you play the Nation(s)/Coalition(s) you do?

Postby Regnar » Sun 9 Nov 2014 04:46

terror51247 wrote:"Gameplay driven" specializations is what created the atrocious specializations that we have now(and that were even worse before).Reality based specializations are more authentic and are more viable as well because there arent stupid restrictions IRL such as "hurr no wheels in armored formations durr".

If the current deck system was gameplay driven, the specialized decks would actually be playable.

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

Re: Why do you play the Nation(s)/Coalition(s) you do?

Postby Bryan » Sun 9 Nov 2014 05:05

Specialized decks should be gameplay driven, not "hur dur I want to recreate the exact TO&E of the 352nd Motor-Rifle Regiment (BTR) in Bum Oblast, Siberia"-driven

I bought a "Wargame" that advertises it as:
Wargame Red Dragon is the 3rd title in the spectacular Wargame series of real-time strategy games created by Eugen Systems. The series quickly became a new reference point in the RTS genre, beginning with European Escalation, and then its direct sequel, AirLand Battle.

...

Wargame Red Dragon once again stretches the limits of the RTS genre, including: dynamic and tense gameplay that demands strategic vision and depth; a spectacular and realistic visual experience; new features such as the warships and maritime units; a perfected dynamic campaign system and much more

So far, all I see is a RTS version of the Battlefield franchise, fun(for a while), but not at all realistic in anyway advertised.

I could create playable, authentic/realistic regiments in WAB's deck system because it allowed me to do so, whilst encouraging it at the same time. THAT was amazing and truly the core of the immersion. But instead of taking it and refining it, they chucked that out of the window and installed a gamey PoS system which basically messed up not only my beloved immersion/realism/authenticity but also the whole premise of game balance and best of all, logic.

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

Re: Why do you play the Nation(s)/Coalition(s) you do?

Postby MILINTarctrooper » Sun 9 Nov 2014 05:15

I prefer DDR...almost exclusively.

Since ALB...the national decks just seem bland to me.

DDR has this unusual mix of high/low tech. But what sells me is their infantry. Usually in most other RTS games I tend to gravitate to infantry based forces.

Tanks may be the bullies on the battlefield. But infantry and artillery are the kings and queens of the battlefield.

I do try some of the other nations...but they just lack that umpf factor that DDR has.
Image
52.2% 1v1 Ranked 32.2% Multi since Open Beta.

User avatar
Regnar
Lieutenant
Posts: 1159
Joined: Mon 25 Aug 2014 19:41
Location: Islamic State of Donetsk and Luhansk

Re: Why do you play the Nation(s)/Coalition(s) you do?

Postby Regnar » Sun 9 Nov 2014 05:16

Bryan wrote:So far, all I see is a RTS version of the Battlefield franchise, fun(for a while), but not at all realistic in anyway advertised.

I could create playable, authentic/realistic regiments in WAB's deck system because it allowed me to do so, whilst encouraging it at the same time. THAT was amazing and truly the core of the immersion. But instead of taking it and refining it, they chucked that out of the window and installed a gamey PoS system which basically messed up not only my beloved immersion/realism/authenticity but also the whole premise of game balance and best of all, logic.

You can just make an unspecialized deck that fits your autis- authentic vision. I, for one, have no desire to play a game where one country's motorized deck is better because their doctrine attached MBTs to their BTR battalions, whereas another country didn't and is therefore gimped.

I don't understand what it is about the authenticity crowd that gives them such a desire to ram their own gameplay concepts down other people's throats. If you want to make a realistic Soviet MRR (BTR), you can do so by making an unspecialized deck with only T-72s and BTRs and not defecating on other people's gameplay experience.

The majority of specialized decks are completely and utterly unplayable because they've had stupid rules forced on them. What you're proposing doesn't make the rules any less stupid, it just takes them from a different source.

Maxnwil
First Sergeant
Posts: 227
Joined: Sat 11 Aug 2012 01:18
Contact:

Re: Why do you play the Nation(s)/Coalition(s) you do?

Postby Maxnwil » Sun 9 Nov 2014 05:35

I play as Scandi Nations because Scandinavia seems like such a lovely place, full of lots of lovely people. I play W-Germany because it's got high tech stuff that isn't American, and I played a lot of Pre-DLC East Germany for the T-72 spam.

User avatar
Flieger
Lieutenant General
Posts: 4294
Joined: Fri 15 Mar 2013 19:44
Contact:

Re: Why do you play the Nation(s)/Coalition(s) you do?

Postby Flieger » Sun 9 Nov 2014 05:49

MILINTarctrooper wrote:DDR has this unusual mix of high/low tech. But what sells me is their infantry.


I fully agree, even though the DDR infantry line-up has a gaping hole (elite with MG). But the overall unit selection is so well done that I would probably play DDR even if I had no special sympathies for it. I hope people appreciate that the DDR moreover offers a lot of flavour, both in the units themselves (WR, LStR-40) and the general characteristics of the nation (long range AT weakness, but excellent infantry etc.). I must say I am really happy how it all turned out, even though improvements are naturally possible and should be asked for.

User avatar
Mako
General
Posts: 7352
Joined: Sun 5 May 2013 20:00
Location: Cascadia
Contact:

Re: Why do you play the Nation(s)/Coalition(s) you do?

Postby Mako » Sun 9 Nov 2014 06:35

Regnar wrote:
Bryan wrote:So far, all I see is a RTS version of the Battlefield franchise, fun(for a while), but not at all realistic in anyway advertised.

I could create playable, authentic/realistic regiments in WAB's deck system because it allowed me to do so, whilst encouraging it at the same time. THAT was amazing and truly the core of the immersion. But instead of taking it and refining it, they chucked that out of the window and installed a gamey PoS system which basically messed up not only my beloved immersion/realism/authenticity but also the whole premise of game balance and best of all, logic.

You can just make an unspecialized deck that fits your autis- authentic vision. I, for one, have no desire to play a game where one country's motorized deck is better because their doctrine attached MBTs to their BTR battalions, whereas another country didn't and is therefore gimped.

I don't understand what it is about the authenticity crowd that gives them such a desire to ram their own gameplay concepts down other people's throats. If you want to make a realistic Soviet MRR (BTR), you can do so by making an unspecialized deck with only T-72s and BTRs and not defecating on other people's gameplay experience.

The majority of specialized decks are completely and utterly unplayable because they've had stupid rules forced on them. What you're proposing doesn't make the rules any less stupid, it just takes them from a different source.



Well said.

Nobody is stopping you from having an authentic experience, you however are trying to deny others from having a more enjoyable one.
If there's two kinds of players, those that like challenges and those that want a fair game, pubstomps should make everyone happy.

User avatar
Mister Maf
Lieutenant
Posts: 1453
Joined: Sun 15 Dec 2013 23:15
Contact:

Re: Why do you play the Nation(s)/Coalition(s) you do?

Postby Mister Maf » Sun 9 Nov 2014 12:13

A lot of what I play now stems from AirLand Battle. In ALB, I really liked a lot of Canada's units; Vandoos (and M1IPs; I played a mixed NATO deck then) were my deck's workhorses, their M113 TOW-2 carrier was pretty much the most cost-effective of them all, and the prototype-restricted ADATS was one BAMF (probably). When I heard about coalitions in Red Dragon, I was mega hella pumped about the idea of combining the Queen's finest with the mighty Canadian war machine. Chieftains and ADATS in the same deck? Don't mind if I do!

Well, we all know the ADATS turns out to be pretty underpowered now that we can actually use the stupid thing and the Chieftains are in a sorry spot right now as well, but when the game came out, CMW was still easily one of the most potent decks in the game. The coalitions nerf hurt them quite a bit, but no other BLUFOR deck feels right to me. Some people try to say that Canada and ANZAC don't add enough to the British armory to justify the reduction in activation points, but every time I try to put together a UK national deck, I always run out of units that I'm interested in before I run out of activation points. UK is really honestly not that good without the Canucks and 'Stralians to fill in the gaps.

On the REDFOR side, I played as the Czechs in ALB. The STROP-2 was an awesome piece of kit (still is) and enemies never knew what to do against the unstoppable waves of the medium-heavy T-72s of the 73 Tankový Prapor (as back then you could see peoples' deck names so I named them after IRL stuff). Out of all the Pact deck types in the game, they were the ones that just felt right. They were the only minor nation to have Konkurs (love me some Konkurs), Výsadkáři were a great analogue to my beloved Vandoos, and DANAs did the same for the BKAN 1A.

I've never been about that USSR lyfe, so when RD came out without any updates for the Warsaw Pact minors, I struggled to come up with a deck that would work for me. Russian kit, especially the infantry and AA, is just too expensive and in too low availability. Eventually I settled on a mixed deck that worked pretty well, but was nothing like my glorious CMW deck stuffed with Stormer HVMs and Marksmen and Challengers. When DLC 1 hit and I started picking through all the new toys, the old ALB Czech glory days came rushing back - now with T-72M2s, ONDAVAs, and KUB-M4s (not to mention at the time hilariously overpowered STROP-2s and Pragas with the overdone SPAAG changes). I couldn't give two flips about how much "better" the USSR is over the CSSR; there is very, very little that I'm left wanting with the Czechs and what I do get is not only amazing but also comes with an unjustified but appreciated 30% availability bonus (why on earth the Poles have a smaller bonus than the Czechs I will never understand). Of the types of units that I like and the play style that I use, the USSR is actually severely lacking. Ruskies go home; Výsadkáři are back in town.

(And yes, I tried making Eastern Bloc decks; like 90% of the stuff I used in them was Czech anyway and then I ran out of activation points).

(Nowadays the friend I play with the most only does theme-restricted games to cut down on the number of superweapons such as the Patriot he has to deal with, so I've been playing more German/Eastern Bloc armored, but the above are and will always be my favs.)
Image

User avatar
[EUG]MadMat
More than 10 000 messages. Soldier you are the leader of all armies!
Posts: 15321
Joined: Thu 30 Jun 2011 13:31
Location: Paris, France.
Contact:

Re: Why do you play the Nation(s)/Coalition(s) you do?

Postby [EUG]MadMat » Sun 9 Nov 2014 12:53

Poland, France & ANZAC [/b]because they've got plenty of wheeled stuff, and good infantry.
Also (but for ANZAC) a good selection of helo to go with them ...

Return to “Wargame : Red Dragon”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 37 guests