I have taken the time (several hours in fact) to put together a comprehensive, and constructive, Red Dragons' price and stat adjustment thread. The purpose of this thread is to rationalize the pricing and stats of both Chinese and North Korean units in order increase the competitiveness of the coalition. The proposals are intentionally minimalist since we have to face the fact that support for Wargame: Red Dragon is winding down and therefore these changes would have to be put through within the next patch or two, meaning there is no time for sweeping changes. All of the following proposals are done through comparisons in the armory as well as several hundred hours of actual playtime in Wargame: Red Dragon. I have personally played both nations consistently since the beta and therefore have an intimate knowledge of how the units currently perform.
Great emphasis will be placed on the Red Dragons coalition's balance as per FLX's request:
FLX wrote:I've read your post, when you talk about helping national decks I would answer: Don't bother, focus your gameplay arguments on the coalition instead.
This means that I will cut out as many balances changes that I can if they do not directly contribute to a stronger coalition. For example, buffing the Ch'onma Ho II would be nice, but nobody is going to take them in a Red Dragon deck anyway. It is the unfortunate sacrifice that we have to make at this stage of the game. Any balance changes that are no longer necessary will be coloured red. Increased reasoning behind the other balance changes will be maintained to emphasize their importance to the coalition as a whole.
Absolutely no more re-rolls. Stat or price changes only:
[EUG]MadMat wrote:Well, nothing about it ...
As I've already stated before, we won't keep re-roling units or changing weapon models for years. It had to stop someday, and now that DLC #3 is out, it has.
I'm sure the first answer to that will be smthg along the line "that's just a small change, it wouldn't take long", so here is the answer to this too: there are dozens, if not hundreds, of such proposals which individually would not take much time, but implemented alltogther would:
A/ be too time-consumming.
B/ only generate further such requests because "if you've done it for A, you have to do it for B", if not outright calls for revert from people unhappy with a change.
Patching & changing stats is one thing which we shall pursue.
But re-roling/changing weapons and models is over.
What this thread is not (read carefully):
- A whine thread. Leave your patriotism at the door. One should refrain from just posting a reply lamenting the fact that the Red Dragons aren't very good. Make sure your posts are constructive in nature. Don't just come in here and spew vitriol all over the place, because it won't help the Red Dragons any.
- A place to request new units. This thread is about adjusting the prices and stats of units that already exist in game. There will be no discussion of new models (no matter how small), no copycat units, etc. We get to play around with what we have. That is all. THIS IS A ZTZ-96 FREE ZONE. To discuss units that are not currently included in Red Dragon please make use of this thread:
http://www.wargame-ee.com/forum/viewtop ... 55&t=49883
- A place to mindlessly shout "BUFF THIS NAO" all over the place. If you disagree with one of my proposals, or have a proposal of your own, back up your position with facts. I want to see armory comparisons with other nation's units in the same price range, I want real-world reasons why a unit should perform in that way, etc. I'm sure some of you will have legitimately good ideas that I missed. Once you have demonstrated them sufficiently I will add them to this post. Please keep proposals minimalist. We won't be re-rolling the ZTZ-85-II into a different tank for example. It is too much work for Eugen this close to the end of Wargame: Red Dragon's cycle.
With that in mind we can begin. I will keep screenshots of armory stat cards down to a minimum for the sake of simplicity, but I will ensure that the stats I mention in writing are 100% correct.
We will begin with the "big brother" of the Red Dragons coalition.
The low and mid-end RedFor tank lines need a lot of love. They are terrible when compared to the Leopard I hordes that BluFor has in abundance. Something needs to change. The specifics of that I will leave for another thread:
No, the ZTZ-85-II does not have an auto-loader. Go test it yourself.
I think the WZ-550 is overpriced, but that is a game wide problem with ATGM carriers so I doubt that will ever change.
The JH-7A Feibao could still really use a price drop of 5-10 points. It has received its PL-8s, losing BVR capability, but is still 160 points. The SEAD missiles are slightly better than those on the MiG-25BM, but the Feibao has 10% less ECM. They should be very near, or identical, in price. ECM is far more important for a SEAD aircraft than having some alright SRAAMs.
Q-5D could use a 15 point price reduction. The Q-5D's damage output is nearly identical to that of the Harrier GR. 7, the former may have slightly more AoE from my experience due to higher HE per bomb. However, the Harrier is much more survivable. Therefore having them both at the same price point is entirely reasonable.
These two planes are some of the coalition's few useful choices, and the Feibao is its only SEAD. Therefore their prices need to be in line with other coalitions.
I think semi-active MRAAM equipped ASFs are overpriced, but that is another game wide problem that is beyond the scope of this topic.
Now we get to have some fun with the "little brother."
The Bochongsu (line infantry) don't have 5 point transport. Adding this would greatly help the Red Dragons' deck for minimal effort and one should assume cheap line infantry would be a North Korean specialty:
Otagan wrote:Add either BTR-50PK or ZSD-531A to Bochongsu.
These 5 point additions would help the coalition far more than it may seem at first glance. Bochongsu are much better 10 point line infantry than Zhanshi '75. Therefore making them affordable would help out the coalition a lot. It would give it a much more viable "spam infantry" option for both un-specialized and mechanized decks than the terrible Zhanshi '75. In a mechanized deck, the Zhanshi '85's AT punch and autocannon IFVs would synergize perfectly with the Bochongsu's anti infantry capability and cheap transport.
The VTT-323 Igla can be price buffed from 45 points to 40 points. This helps remove some of the price redundancy between it and the vastly superior Strela-10M.
The Tokchon 122mm should drop to 65 points. The Tokchon 130MM should drop to 75 points. 6 HE artillery pieces are terrible and asking 75 and 85 points for them is mortifying. I won't even bother posting comparisons with what you can get for 75-85 points, because everything else in that price range is better. Their supply usage should also be lowered, since it is rather high for such weak artillery pieces. [Courtesy of Frostypooky] Making these artillery pieces cheaper would help the coalition since, pathetically enough, they are some of its best artillery pieces. They have reasonable dispersion and a slightly faster aim time than the other artillery pieces that are available for the Red Dragons.
This is a difficult section because North Korean tanks have abnormally high AP for their price range.
Ch'onma Ho II should have its accuracy increased from 35% to 40%.
Ch'onma Ho IV should have its accuracy increased from 40% to 50%. The reasoning behind this is that the Ch'onma Ho IV supposedly had a large upgrade in its FCS. From a gameplay side this would help a struggling national deck immensely, while also adding to the low-end tank lineup of the Red Dragons as a whole:
Otagan wrote:I think you're a bit too quick to discard the value of the...CMH IV as far as the coalition is concerned...A CMH IV that was actually cost-effective relative to Blue equivalents could also potentially find a place in the low-end tank lineup. The T-90S is always going to control the high end, the mid-tier will be the realm of the ZTZ and T-72M, but there's room in the mid-low range for the Chonma-ho line to potentially have value if they were to receive some kind of buff (preferably acc and/or price).
Type 59-I can have its price lowered from 40 points to 35 points. Right now there is no reason to take it over the vastly superior Ch'onma Ho II and its stats, despite the AP, don't justify a 40 point price tag. This change would make it an interesting choice for a cheap, hard-hitting and available forest fighter within the coalition.
The MiG-29 9-12B received two more SRAAMs which is nice. However, the 130 point price tag is far too steep when compared to its counterparts. [Courtesy of KillaJules] The price should decrease to 110 points in order to match its capabilities. If this price drop occurred, the coalition would add a strong second line fighter to its ranks. Right now the MiG-29 9-12B sits in the armoury and collects dust. I don't even use it much in a North Korea deck because the MiG-23ML(!) does its job better.
The Su-7 S-5 rocket plane is 5 points more expensive than the Scandinavian F-100 despite having a smaller number of lower HE rockets. I'm sure this may be a wider issue as well, so it may be that the F-100 is too good for its price.
frostypooky wrote:Not that I expect North Korean Marine spec to be taken seriously [Author's Note: It will help the Red Dragons' marine deck as well. It doesn't have many planes to choose from and lacks many AA options.], but it's quite odd how it only has A-5, B-5, and F-6. There is plenty of footage of KPA joint air force/navy exercises with MiG-21s and MiG-23s, and indeed during the island crisis in 2010 MiG-23s were the chosen aircraft to perform CAPs in defense of North Korean coastal defense and naval assets. I know spec decks arent for milsperg unit formation recreation, but even from a gameplay standpoint the Marine deck is so bad you might as well include F-7/MiG-21/MiG-23 at the very least.
Unit Name Spelling Corrections and Historical Changes (No Stat Changes)
- Yuckjeondae (shortened "air assault force") to Gongbobyong ("light infantry"). In KPA Light Infantry refers to motorized SF brigades, so swapping names for correct unit representation.
- Gongbobyong to Ryukjeondae. Just swapping names as above suggestion, plus transliteration improvement for North Korean spelling of "Ryuk/yuk"
- Jeogockdae to Jeogyokdae. Transliteration error.
- Juckwidae to Jeokwidae. Transliteration consistency.
- Korshun...this is a Russian word, not a Korean, I don't think there's any source outside of an outdated MCIA handbook that North Korea calls their BMP-1s "Korshun" (it would be a very awkward word to spell/pronounce in Korean, with no meaning associated, hence my doubt)
- Pon'gae to Bongae. Transliteration consistency.
- Ban Tank Fagot to Bulsae-2
- Koksan to M-1978 Koksan
Proposals that have been entirely, or at least partially, placed into the game (Success Stories! Thanks Eugen!):
2. Change the HQ-7 from [F&F] IR to [GUID] with increased accuracy. It would be a nice boost to the system and is also historically correct. [Courtesy of Xeno426 and Countess Bathory] Currently the HQ-7 tends to spray its missiles inaccurately and then run out of ammo near-instantly, often without killing what it was aiming at. It is the coalition's only effective tool against the Longbow menace. This change would mean that it could operate slightly more independently, rather than always being tethered to a supply truck. The Red Dragons coalition would benefit from this a lot since their logistics trucks are not great at feeding supply hungry AA systems.
3. PTZ-59 should have its accuracy increased from 35% to 40%.
PTZ-89 should have its accuracy increased from 45% to 50%. I would personally push for 55%, but getting anything RedFor over 50% accuracy basically requires the infinite power of Jesus Christ.
As much as I would like to see this, it isn't necessary for a functional coalition. The PTZ-89 is still a wonderful little machine with 45% accuracy.
Otagan wrote:Further, the PTZs in the vehicle section are one of the other unique RD advantages that nobody else really gets. They were formerly a strength of China and the coalition as a whole until they got left behind by the light/medium tank buffs in the past. Don't give up on those accuracy buffs so easily. They're not autoloaded [Author Note: I thought the PTZ-89 is auto-loaded? I'm away from the game, so I can't confirm that.] so having more accuracy on them isn't necessarily infringing on the territory of the tanks in that price range.
S4BoT wrote:Yes indeed, to me it seemed like these were forgotten during the accuracy buffs. They used to be great vehicles, but now, due to their low accuracy in comparison to all other tanks ( especially that Vickers), they are rather mediocore. I'd like to see at least 10% increase to both, to bring them in line with other tanks and (what I call them) sniper vehicles.
4. Remove two of the PL-11s on the J-8C and replace them with two PL-8s. This would bring the armament to two good SRAAMs and two meh [SA] MRAAMs. The price would increase to 105 points (better than the MiG-23ML and far worse than the Mirage 2000C RDI). [Courtesy of Another505] The reasoning behind this is the current load-out on the J-8C is a complete waste of an otherwise useful air frame. With this load-out it would become a very viable second-line fighter for the coalition which would help fix another one of the coalition's big weaknesses: a lack of good anti-fixed wing AA. *More ambitious re-roll
5. Gongbobyong don't have any ground transport at all.
Otagan wrote:Add either BTR-50PK/ZSD-531A or BTR-60P/BTR-60PB to Gongbobyong.
Gives...some kind of less expensive ground-based transport for the shock RR teams.
Otagan wrote:I think you're a bit too quick to discard the value of the Gongbobyong...as far as the coalition is concerned. RD as a whole uniquely benefits from having access to more RRs because they don't have any ATGM squads worth a damn, and having those RRs on a platform that can also hold its own for more than two seconds on the battlefield can potentially be quite valuable. Having access to said units in more conventional transports than the garbage transport helos NK has available would give the RD a budget equivalent to the Hudou-Ren, and would be far more useful to RD than to BD. Tanke Shashou give a more effective RR at the price of non-shock status, no LMG and only 5 men, filling something of a different niche.
Flieger wrote:Should [my above proposals] not happen, ground transports for the Gongbobyong are a very important issue to finally provide the coalition with a viable 10-men shock squad.
6. The VTT-323 Susong-Po can be dropped to 15 points since the garbage ATGM isn't worth the extra price tag. It already takes an availability hit over the base version which is all it needs.
7. The Koksan should drop from 110 points to 90 points. The massive range is never really useful, it certainly does not justify such a massive price tag when the gun only has a pathetic 8 HE. The availability of the Koksan is also extremely low, it is recommended that it be increased to 4 trained, 2 veteran. The reasoning is if the HE has to remain pitifully low, it should at least be affordable and available in numbers. [Courtesy of Frostypooky] Right now you can only get two per card, yes two, Koksans in a Red Dragons' deck. For something this lackluster that availability, paired with the high price, makes this thing a massive lemon. If it was buffed, the Koksan would be one of the few kinda-meh artillery options that the coalition can get.
8. Real stabilizer stats should be given to all Chinese tanks starting with the ZTZ-88. I will let H-J speak to that and provide ample proof and justification for their inclusion in game:
H-J wrote:Here are youtube links:
Both show their good working gun-stabilization at work.
In fact, one of the good things of the more advanced Chinese tanks during the 80s and early 90s were their FCS and stabilizers, while their armor were still lacking behind the other western and eastern advanced armies of that time.
My original suggestion for the Chinese tank force before the Beta is pretty much what Japan now has in RD: Glass-cannons with accurate guns and good stabilizations suitable for cavalry-styled mobile warfare to rout the out enemy from the flanks, after crushing the enemy offensive with the help of the powerful stationary tank destroyers in the vehicle section. It would pretty much reflect the PLA's doctrine during that time, when they were facing the mechanized threat of the USSR along their flat northern border.
Instead, China now essentially has stationary paper-armored tank destroyers in the tank section and another set of paper-armored tank destroyers in the vehicle section, making it hard to conduct mobile warfare or to quickly exploit breaches or to counter-attack.
Just a bit more evidence for stabilizers on the ZTZ-88 and up:
Mosquevan wrote:Don't forget the results of the recent tank Biathlon in Russia - the ZTZ-96 (ZTZ-85-III offshoot), although with an underpowered engine, drastically outperformed the T72B3Ms in fields of stabilization and accuracy.
Giving the ZTZ-88 and up good stabilizers would provide the Red Dragons coalition with the only truly mobile tanks in its lineup. As H-J mentioned, it was part of the PLA's doctrine at the time and by the nature of the game's current balance the ZTZ-88/85 tank line is the Red Dragons coalition's backbone. If they are weak, the coalition is weak.
9. We ended up getting the Fagot-M which is a big improvement, even if it isn't a Konkurs. Courtesy of Flieger: Fagot --> reroll to Konkurs
NK operated the Konkurs in timeframe, and the Fagot is Cat-A already. Furthermore they have the same model. Thus nothing changes but the anti-tank capability of the coalition (which otherwise lacks ATGMs). *Author's note: This re-roll would be amazing for the coalition and is only a simple name and stat change.
Flieger wrote:Coming to think about recon... what about giving the M1992 a Konkurs instead of the Fagot. We know NK had the missile and the M1992 is Cat-A anyway.
Flieger wrote:Juckwidae --> 15-men
The Juckwidae come in 10pt transports, are thus expensive already. Furthermore the SMG is a bad weapon for militia-trained troops because of their low base accuracy. Even in CQC they are only marginally better than assault rifles. These two factors, SMG and transports, make them really bad for the price. Upgrading them to 15-men is thus worth a try – and it would be flavourful as NK should be the country relying on mass troops.
12. The latest patch dropped the price of the Soviet BTR-80A to 20 points, however the North Korean BTR-80A is still stuck at 25 points. It is the East German SPW-80 vs Soviet BTR-80 thing all over again.
Proposal Graveyard (RIP):
Flieger wrote:My current proposal is this:
North Korean Infantry improvements
Gongbobyong --> give CQC-MG
Compared to the CSSR Lekha Pechota they have a more or less equal RR, but lack the CQC MG which is important for anti-infantry duties and given to most shock troops anyway.
2. The VTT-323 IFV line could use some price and stat readjustments:
The VTT-323 Hwasung-Chong is bizarre right now. It supposedly has a "Strela-3" except that it has the HE and range of an Igla and the accuracy of a Strela-2M. I would personally like it to get 8x Strela-2Ms, a Susong-Po (it is on the model after all) and be dropped to 20 points.
3. Alternatively for the MiG-29 9-12B:
Xeno426 wrote:DPRK MiG-29 9.12B should have 2xR-27R and 4xR-60M. Authentic and unique. *More ambitious re-roll
4. Change the North Korean T-72M into an M1 with the same stats and price as the East German version. Justification being that the DPRK never received either, so any historical arguments are irrelevant, and the model that is in game is that of an M1, not an M.
Please keep in mind that this thread is intended to be the heavily realistic, minimalist counterweight to the optimistic "Broken Dreams."
http://www.wargame-ee.com/forum/viewtop ... 55&t=49883