US Changes: The Compiled and Proposed

User avatar
Sir Typhoon
Chief Warrant Officer
Posts: 517
Joined: Sat 30 Jan 2016 13:17
Contact:

Re: Compilation of Proposed US Changes

Postby Sir Typhoon » Sat 17 Sep 2016 23:36

QUAD wrote:ATACMS ;)


Nobody use this canderous unit in 1vs1, thanks god.

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

Re: Compilation of Proposed US Changes

Postby Random » Sun 18 Sep 2016 00:36

Razzmann wrote:
Random wrote:
Razzmann wrote:The Chally 2 being 3 per card is just as stupid.


why?

It is arguably the best superheavy and CMW already had a very strong tank tab.


I agree that the chally is very strong and that AV is more important then AP, but I consider the T-90/72BU and the M1A2 both superior.

Also arguments should be made in a structure like this (as long as all units of the same categories and priceranges are roughly similarly strong.) :
1.unit x is availaible to decks a,b,c
2.the strongest deck it is availaible to is deck b
3.deck b is too strong, therefor one way to achieve better balance would be to nerf unit x by price or statchange.

I think CMW is not OP, and in general I would rather have 2 cards of 2 superheavies then 1 card of 3.



codextero wrote:
Random wrote:
Razzmann wrote:The Chally 2 being 3 per card is just as stupid.


why?


Only 3 per card super heavy, and it's a pretty good one as well. I consider it better than Leopard 2A5 and T-90S because that 23AV lets it shrug off 25 AP missiles like TOW-2, which is the most popular high end ATGM.

Against say, a US deck, you can trade 2 CR2's for both the M1A2's and still have one left over to bully the hell out of the HC and HA's left.


You can get a F/A-18C, and if the chally ever goes outside of the woods you can get a guaranteed kill on it.

Even if you lose the F/A-18C, you can still get returnkills on enemy AA with sead or on ASF with AA or your own ASF. Also it will not die 100% of the time, considering the price of the F/A-18C and the chally 2 are almost the same, it should be +EV even, aswell as take one enemy superheavy out of the game.

This pretty much confines them to the woods for the most part.

Because of that I think it is not really a problem.

User avatar
Razzmann
General
Posts: 7497
Joined: Fri 7 Mar 2014 15:29
Location: The land of flowing beer and Sauerkraut.
Contact:

Re: Compilation of Proposed US Changes

Postby Razzmann » Sun 18 Sep 2016 00:48

Random wrote:Also arguments should be made in a structure like this

Says who? Other than you ofc.

And I say that unit should not get an artificial availability (or even worse, price) buff and giving it a better availability (or even worse, price) than a worse unit, just because it is in a weak deck is a stupid idea.

Imo the price and availability of a unit should never be buffed just because the deck the unit is in is bad.

If you want to buff a deck, give its units better stats.
Last edited by Razzmann on Sun 18 Sep 2016 01:01, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
QUAD
Colonel
Posts: 2766
Joined: Sun 10 Nov 2013 21:17
Contact:

Re: Compilation of Proposed US Changes

Postby QUAD » Sun 18 Sep 2016 00:58

Razzmann wrote:
Random wrote:Also arguments should be made in a structure like this

Says show? Other than you ofc.

And I say that unit should not get an artificial availability (or even worse, price) buff and giving it a better availability (or even worse, price) than a worse unit, just because it is in a weak deck is a stupid idea.

Imo the price and availability of a unit should never be buffed just because the deck the unit is in is bad.

If you want to buff a deck, give its units better stats.


Do you not believe in quantity>quality decks in some areas? I'm not being hostile or anything I just want to know.
Mobile Units Operational :!:

User avatar
Razzmann
General
Posts: 7497
Joined: Fri 7 Mar 2014 15:29
Location: The land of flowing beer and Sauerkraut.
Contact:

Re: Compilation of Proposed US Changes

Postby Razzmann » Sun 18 Sep 2016 01:01

QUAD wrote:
Razzmann wrote:
Random wrote:Also arguments should be made in a structure like this

Says show? Other than you ofc.

And I say that unit should not get an artificial availability (or even worse, price) buff and giving it a better availability (or even worse, price) than a worse unit, just because it is in a weak deck is a stupid idea.

Imo the price and availability of a unit should never be buffed just because the deck the unit is in is bad.

If you want to buff a deck, give its units better stats.


Do you not believe in quantity>quality decks in some areas? I'm not being hostile or anything I just want to know.

I don't get how you come up with such a question...? I mean, with what thought behind it...?
And even then this is a very vague question. There are different types of quality and it also depends on the unit type.

throwaway
Lieutenant
Posts: 1262
Joined: Fri 27 Feb 2015 21:23
Contact:

Re: Compilation of Proposed US Changes

Postby throwaway » Sun 18 Sep 2016 01:08

Razzmann wrote:Imo the price and availability of a unit should never be buffed just because the deck the unit is in is bad.

If you want to buff a deck, give its units better stats.


Those two are the same, unless you also include a price nerf with the better stats. If you do include a price nerf it's not really a buff to the deck, unless you're filling in missing capabilities. Is this all balancing should be, removing weaknesses and nerfing strengths down to a common baseline?
Last edited by throwaway on Sun 18 Sep 2016 01:18, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
QUAD
Colonel
Posts: 2766
Joined: Sun 10 Nov 2013 21:17
Contact:

Re: Compilation of Proposed US Changes

Postby QUAD » Sun 18 Sep 2016 01:13

Eugen's primary mode of balance is changing prices and availability.
Mobile Units Operational :!:

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

Re: Compilation of Proposed US Changes

Postby Random » Sun 18 Sep 2016 01:29

Razzmann wrote:
Random wrote:Also arguments should be made in a structure like this

1.Says who? Other than you ofc.

2.And I say that unit should not get an artificial availability (or even worse, price) buff and giving it a better availability (or even worse, price) than a worse unit, just because it is in a weak deck is a stupid idea.

3.Imo the price and availability of a unit should never be buffed just because the deck the unit is in is bad.

4.If you want to buff a deck, give its units better stats.


1.Fair point, I should have added an "I consider" or smth there. It is based on the fact that Eugen decided to balance the game around coalitions, and not all units 1:1 with each other (point 1 was stated by them, point 2 is obvious from certain units from certain different coalitions).

2. Well, what is the alternative, all units should have the same availability if they have the same price and have their prices acording to their stats, so that they are balanced 1:1? That would make WRD a different game, with less diversity and

3. fair enough, I think the opposite is the case.

4. I do not see how this works with the rest of your post at all, since this will, much like my suggestion create units which are in a higher strenght-category with lower price/higher availability. Also people who care about realism would veto such changes, most of the time.

User avatar
Werewolf
Sergeant Major
Posts: 292
Joined: Mon 25 Feb 2013 22:34
Contact:

Re: Compilation of Proposed US Changes

Postby Werewolf » Sun 18 Sep 2016 07:58

Sir Typhoon wrote:
QUAD wrote:ATACMS ;)


Nobody use this canderous unit in 1vs1, thanks god.


I guess I should play more 1v1s. :D
Last edited by Werewolf on Sun 18 Sep 2016 09:57, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
DeckCheney
Colonel
Posts: 2732
Joined: Sun 16 Aug 2015 01:32
Location: The Feudal Kingdom of White Suburbia- Seattle
Contact:

Re: Compilation of Proposed US Changes

Postby DeckCheney » Sun 18 Sep 2016 08:35

Random wrote:I agree that the chally is very strong and that AV is more important then AP, but I consider the T-90/72BU and the M1A2 both superior.


Just how the hell in the T-72BU/90S a better superheavy to the Challenger 2? For a top-tier tank the T-90S has anemic Accuracy/AP which isn't madeup for by an autoloder since Superheavies are used conservatively and pulled back well before panicked. T-90S is about on paar with the Leopard2A5; Average.
The USA is #1 exporter of freedom!
All other countries have inferior freedom!

Return to “Wargame : Red Dragon”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: meosuckhoe and 30 guests