US Changes: The Compiled and Proposed

codextero
Lieutenant Colonel
Posts: 2334
Joined: Sat 13 Dec 2014 02:52
Contact:

Re: US Changes: The Compiled and Proposed

Postby codextero » Thu 6 Oct 2016 14:53

Sleksa wrote:
Kasrkin229 wrote:the US get's shafted in almost every category.


Clearly this is the case when the riflemen '90 run around with a at launcher that some coalitions would kill for, or the smaw teams, or the garbage AA with a 3325 range chap and patriot, or the worst AP superheavy in the game with a bunch of poopy secondary options like the marine abrams, or f&f apaches, the engineering m60 tanks, supercobras with nearly 4km anti-plane range aam's, best stealth planes in the game, a a-10 with more rear armor than the su-25 family & tom cruise himself.

Clearly there's a vast conspiracy here to intentionally humiliate usa by forcing them to have a bad shilleilagh on a goddamn starship.


Sweden also has AT4 line infantry, the Dutch get shock AT4 for just 5 points more. The brits get LAW 80 for the same price. The factions that would kill for cheap AT4 are RD and BD, the two disliked children of coalitions.

Smaws were good, now they aren't at the same price as minimi shock.

Marine Abrams is no better than Twardy and STRV 121. Standard power for a 155 point tank. Unless you have a marine deck fetish of some sort.

Chap G is worse than crotale, tunguska M1, and now Tan Sam. So that leaves scandi and BD with worse Sorad.

CEV is mediocre after aimtime change. Gets tagged by an RPG and the shot goes flying. Then it's 15 seconds for the next shot.

Supercobras cost 115 points each. Not price effective in any way shape or form.

Rafale is the best stealth plane in the game.

Then two gimmicky useless cards. A-10 requires ESP to use well, since the threat is likely long gone by the time it's 500 kph rear gets there. You can't loiter it waiting for a target because 40-50 seconds of the TOT is gone from just getting to the front.

Kasrkin229
Chief Warrant Officer
Posts: 598
Joined: Thu 20 Feb 2014 06:31
Location: United States of America
Contact:

Re: US Changes: The Compiled and Proposed

Postby Kasrkin229 » Thu 6 Oct 2016 21:51

Sleksa wrote:
Kasrkin229 wrote:the US get's shafted in almost every category.


Clearly this is the case when the riflemen '90 run around with a at launcher that some coalitions would kill for, or the smaw teams, or the garbage AA with a 3325 range chap and patriot, or the worst AP superheavy in the game with a bunch of poopy secondary options like the marine abrams, or f&f apaches, the engineering m60 tanks, supercobras with nearly 4km anti-plane range aam's, best stealth planes in the game, a a-10 with more rear armor than the su-25 family & tom cruise himself.

Clearly there's a vast conspiracy here to intentionally humiliate usa by forcing them to have a bad shilleilagh on a goddamn starship.


AT-4 being an AT weapon that Coalitions would kill for? What? The only people who don't have something superior if not vastly superior is the Blue/Red Dragons. And they're basically the skeleton in the closet that no one wants to deal with.

SMAW Teams are were fantastic, after nerf hammer they're relegated to 'good'.

Because the Patriot, of which you get two, which to my knowledge was the only heavy AA piece not buffed with the Missile speed. That any competent player can easily avoid? So now lighter pieces (HAWK,KUB,BUK ect.) Now have superior ability to kill aircraft because now they get more shots off?

Chaps that are good, yes. But are vastly inferior to Cortales, HQ-7', Tunguska (both varients)?

A2 Abrams is good, yes. But using the HC as an argument platform is irrelevant. No one plays Marine Decks, not seriously at least. And lets please go into how the early Abrams line all has 'poor' optics and 2100m range. Not as if the M1IP has the exact same FCS, fires the exact same round, and has the exact same gun as the South Korean K1.

Sure, Longbows are fantastic. If they don't get insta gibbed by any of the previously mentioned AA that outrange it, And the AA that 'meets' it. Being things like the STROP II, and OSA AKM

115 Points for a 6 HP Helicopter, that will get insta gibbed by most AA out there. If it doesn't, it's down to 1 HP and panics,only to be killed by follow up shot.

'Best Stealth Plane(s)' in game'. One aircraft? That is rarely used because it has limited survivability mid to late game and it's long RR time extremely limits it's use. This is after the LGB nerf.

Sure the A-10 has 1 extra armor in the rear. Probably because it's entire missile payload is god awful. And you're lucky to hit with 2/6 missiles in one pass. And that it's so slow that the battle will be over with by the time it arrives, or better yet, opponent sees it from miles away and giggles with his Tunguska-M.

And lets get into how Riflemen 90' lack 'authenticity' because it's convenient. Not as if the US adopted the M249 in 1982.

Or how Bradley's get nerfed to 'Poor' Optics even though they have almost as advanced optics as the Abrams series.

Or how the M242 Bushmaster is at 200 r/m, making it effectively useless at supporting Infantry and engaging other IFV's. Even though it's RoF bracket is identical to that of the BMP-2's 2A42.

200- 500 r/m. On both of them.
Image

Tactical Fister in-game

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

Re: US Changes: The Compiled and Proposed

Postby QUAD » Thu 6 Oct 2016 23:45

Yakhont wrote:Also video game simulations should not be used as basis for realism in other video games that approximate different thing from real life with their own internal balance.


Are Bradleys balanced compared to price peers, or the relative strength of the current NORAD deck? :?:

BMP fuel tanks are also right by the rear doors, and the vehicle is so cramped that squads can't bring lots of heavy weapons like RPGs or PKMs. Per Soviet doctrine if the squad leader dismounts the vehicle drastically loses optic and C2 ability as well, whereas in western doctrine the vehicle is a separate entity from the squad. Ammo is directly in the fighting compartment too.

I'm not a technical guy at all, but its very strange playing mil-sims and then jumping to Wargame where units that are in both games perform completely differently for "balance", yet this balance itself is most of the time crap based on severe abstractions of real life and selectivity based on random flavor, and not comprehensive faction design like any other RTS game.

Like, I'll sum it up: Wargame clearly isn't a milsim, but a realistic real time tactics game with a modern theme. There is no realism with regards to balance (Scandinavians being better at human wave assaults than the RD, USSR airforce) so therefore it all must be part of a vision where each faction has an identity, like versatile Terrans, fast Zerg, expensive but specialized Protoss... wait, nope.
Mobile Units Operational :!:

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

Re: US Changes: The Compiled and Proposed

Postby throwaway » Fri 7 Oct 2016 00:51

Well, Eugen try to please everyone. It's not a milsim but it obeys realism where possible (maglan and mg rebalance are examples for realism-motivated stuff in last patch). There's realism in balancing, but it's not the end-all-be-all. Same with faction identities, there are some but it seems to me like eugen only started intentionally building in weaknesses and strengths in factions after release, which is why we have RD/BD with unique units but not really coherent tab-based weaknesses/strengths, while Israel and NL were both presented by the developers themselves as intentionally designed to lack in AA or w/e.

User avatar
PzAz04Maus
Lieutenant
Posts: 1368
Joined: Sat 22 Mar 2014 01:42
Contact:

Re: US Changes: The Compiled and Proposed

Postby PzAz04Maus » Fri 7 Oct 2016 02:07

There is no realism with regards to balance (Scandinavians being better at human wave assaults than the RD, USSR airforce) so therefore it all must be part of a vision where each faction has an identity, like versatile Terrans, fast Zerg, expensive but specialized Protoss...

That's how Wargame should be. The game by design is completely inaccurate, otherwise you'd be fielding cards of unit formations like it's the Close Combat series which would determine what the quality of your equipment is. Instead of bringing a card of M2A0 Bradleys, you'd be picking up a battalion card of New York National Guard.

User avatar
wargamer1985
Brigadier
Posts: 3305
Joined: Sat 4 May 2013 00:36
Contact:

Re: US Changes: The Compiled and Proposed

Postby wargamer1985 » Fri 7 Oct 2016 02:33

HrcAk47 wrote:
QUAD wrote:I won't doom prophet, Red Dragons and USA (lesser extent) are all shafted but that's more Eugen not knowing what to do/not playing the game enough/doing things seemingly randomly. I think that the Dragons and US are going to be getting many stat changes and re-rolls in the future.

@codextro-imho durable IFVs are very good for gameplay, and "flavor" and "realism" wise it makes zero sense for Soviet IFV to have superior protection to equivalent US IFV. give M2 and M2A1 5 fav, give M2 medium and M2A1/A3 good optics.

IMO a Bushmaster buff would be nice in lieu of good optics but again, flavor. I like the concept of modeling Bradley's advanced electronics and FCS, and buffed Bushmasters would invalidate other IFVs due to this hypothetically Bradley re-work including armor buffs.



How does a 25 mm aluminium slab deserve 5 FAV?

What are "advanced electronics"? Details on the FCS?

Can you bear the fact that Bradley of the period was F-35 of the day - an expensive and useless stillborn only saved by the fact it no longer had to fight anything capable.

Firstly, even the basic M2A0 has far more than 25mm of aluminum, and a certainly better protected against most threats than a BMP-2. Secondly, while monetary investments in the Bradley were large, they eventually bore a product that is still on par with other top of the class vehicles, and is certainly not "useless."
APPLY TO THE GLORIOUS CULT OF THE WARHAWK! LIBERATING NAZIS SINCE 1939!
Image

User avatar
Bullfrog
General
Posts: 5308
Joined: Sat 11 Aug 2012 23:48
Contact:

Re: US Changes: The Compiled and Proposed

Postby Bullfrog » Fri 7 Oct 2016 02:52

Faction identity is a pretty blurry claim when we are coming up on 20 individual factions with overlapping "flavor"
Does not affiliate with members who post in #MakeAmericaGreatAgain
Image

User avatar
Killertomato
More than 10 000 messages. Soldier you are the leader of all armies!
Posts: 13730
Joined: Mon 9 Jul 2012 02:46
Contact:

Re: US Changes: The Compiled and Proposed

Postby Killertomato » Fri 7 Oct 2016 03:33

Bullfrog wrote:Faction identity is a pretty blurry claim when we are coming up on 20 individual factions with overlapping "flavor"


Especially since they're all selling things to eachother.
orcbuster wrote:USSR gets prototype marsupials, why would you need moose when you got stuff with kickers like that AND transport capability? And I'm not even gonna START on the french Marsupilami, I don't even think thats a real animal! Why no trolls for Norway?

codextero
Lieutenant Colonel
Posts: 2334
Joined: Sat 13 Dec 2014 02:52
Contact:

Re: US Changes: The Compiled and Proposed

Postby codextero » Fri 7 Oct 2016 05:26

Killertomato wrote:
Bullfrog wrote:Faction identity is a pretty blurry claim when we are coming up on 20 individual factions with overlapping "flavor"


Especially since they're all selling things to each other and not using the equipment they made themselves.


fixd for USA.

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

Re: US Changes: The Compiled and Proposed

Postby QUAD » Fri 7 Oct 2016 08:27

Bullfrog wrote:Faction identity is a pretty blurry claim when we are coming up on 20 individual factions with overlapping "flavor"


each coalition, with the exception of Israel and USA/USSR, is a unit of balance and flavor though. Its not per nation. I'm fine with Canada filling holes USA has, and (lol) NK filling holes USSR has.

Also, BMP-2 fuel is inside the troop compartment. Overall BMP2 being more survivable and having equal optics to an M2 Bradley is literally the most absurd relationship in Wargame. The autocannon should be better, but the optics and survivability should not be at all.
Mobile Units Operational :!:

Return to “Wargame : Red Dragon”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 34 guests