Lessons for the Next Wargame

User avatar
raventhefuhrer
Colonel
Posts: 2949
Joined: Wed 15 May 2013 08:47
Contact:

Re: Lessons for the Next Wargame

Postby raventhefuhrer » Fri 9 Oct 2015 16:20

To me the biggest lessons for the next Wargame is as follows, in no particular order.

Scale - Red Dragon got too out of control with adding in naval, new planes, super units, tons of nations...we need a more sharply defined scale that can be better focused and refined. Red Dragon tried to do too many things. We need a game with a defined era rather than one that covers essentially the entire four decades of the Cold War, that doesn't mess around too much with naval or amphibious, and which tones the power of planes and 'panic button airforces' down to focus more on in depth, meaningful ground combat.

Patching - One of the greatest failings of RD was the absolutely awful patch cycle, waiting months between noteworthy patches. More than anything, this was and still is strangling the game and going forward to the next Wargame, Eugen needs to commit to more frequent patches - whatever it takes to do that. If that means a series of smaller patches, fine, but the health of the game and the community would be tremendously improved if we were guaranteed a new patch at least once a month.

Map Design - Red Dragon has very poor map design. To the point that I consider 60% of the current maps basically unplayable due to imbalances, terrain that doesn't offer fun gameplay, or fighting focused around one or two choke points that become over congested spam fests. Advice for Eugen on map design could occupy its own thread, so I won't go into detail except to say that Eugen needs to be very open about maps going forward, and submit them to community approval and play-testing. I'd also say that, at present, Eugen can't change existing maps beyond rotating them or changing zones...the actual terrain is impossible to edit. Going forward, Eugen needs to develop a system of map creation that allows changing terrain post-creation to adjust for gameplay feedback.

Reconsideration of Game Modes - Right now the community is sharply divided into segments of preferences that make an already small playerbase increasingly fractured. Some people only play Conquest, some only play Destruction. Others do 'tactical' games, and still more stick to 10v10's, where one game devours the players that could be used for three or four normal-sized games. 10v10's are almost invariably low quality, 'quick fix' gameplay, fun though they can be. Maybe nothing can be done here, but at least some thought should be given to reducing available game modes to just one, and incentivizing the playing of smaller games rather than 10v10s.

Break the Lobby Sim - We need to find a way to decrease time spent finding a match. Reconsidering game modes like I mentioned above would be a start, but let's go beyond that. It may be time for a game-wide, mandatory matchmaker that makes a reasonable guesstimate of skill based on stats and orders you accordingly. Teams should be predominantly matched against other teams, although not exclusively...a 4 person team against a 3 person team with one skilled random isn't unreasonable. If Matchmaking isn't possible then I'd recommend removing the view profile button or reducing the information it shows.

The view profile button is meaningless anyways, because people's stats are distorted by pubstomping and 10v10 gameplay that may make people appear better or worse than they actually are. And since we can reset stats at will, the whole notion is rather silly. But it contributes to a toxic environment of suspicion in the lobby, where everyone is checking ratios and doing snap averaging of percentages to decide what team they want to be on. It's just awful, and should change.

---

I guess that's the most pressing things for me right now.
My YouTube Channel is Raven Wargaming. Message me to request videos on certain topics.

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

Re: Lessons for the Next Wargame

Postby throwaway » Fri 9 Oct 2015 17:02

raventhefuhrer wrote:Map Design - Red Dragon has very poor map design. To the point that I consider 60% of the current maps basically unplayable due to imbalances, terrain that doesn't offer fun gameplay, or fighting focused around one or two choke points that become over congested spam fests.


Eugen gets a lot of undeserved flak about the maps. Most of them are fine. Some of them have obviously had a lot of thought put into them. Some are bad, although nowhere near 60%. Your definition of "unplayable" is way too broad, if it catches more than 2-3 maps.

User avatar
Crotou
Colonel
Posts: 2604
Joined: Thu 12 Apr 2012 20:36
Location: DM's keep
Contact:

Re: Lessons for the Next Wargame

Postby Crotou » Fri 9 Oct 2015 17:17

throwaway wrote:Eugen gets a lot of undeserved flak about the maps. Most of them are fine. Some of them have obviously had a lot of thought put into them. Some are bad, although nowhere near 60%. Your definition of "unplayable" is way too broad, if it catches more than 2-3 maps.

Having played a lot on EE, I cry everytime I play on a RD map, except for 3 or 4 of them.
That's why I'm really excited by the incoming map patches and all the maps from EE they will bring.
Image

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

Re: Lessons for the Next Wargame

Postby Shrike » Fri 9 Oct 2015 18:41

^We could have Open Range, instead people voted for that awful Coppenhagen map.

Also I think the 5 point pricing system needs to be replaced with a 2 point one.

User avatar
CornProducts
Colonel
Posts: 2959
Joined: Mon 7 Apr 2014 06:48
Contact:

Re: Lessons for the Next Wargame

Postby CornProducts » Fri 9 Oct 2015 18:45

And most importantly...

Visible deck names in lobbies!




I'll show myself out. :mrgreen:
Image

ikalugin
More than 10 000 messages. Soldier you are the leader of all armies!
Posts: 10430
Joined: Sun 6 Nov 2011 01:00
Contact:

Re: Lessons for the Next Wargame

Postby ikalugin » Fri 9 Oct 2015 18:59

In a way that idea is a valid one, but it's disadvantages would be negated by the modified base deck concept, as your team mates could see what your core strength/playstyle would be, but you still have a degree of freedom in specifics to surprise the adversary.
Image
Spoiler : :
We need more missilez code for the missilez god.
Praslovan:
"Tactical Ikalugin inbound on this position in 10... 9..."
Image

User avatar
KattiValk
General
Posts: 6319
Joined: Tue 19 Nov 2013 03:39
Location: Houston, Texas (CST)
Contact:

Re: Lessons for the Next Wargame

Postby KattiValk » Fri 9 Oct 2015 19:06

Eugene can't patch people. Players will want to play on the better side, use the better units, and make sure they can have fun and not get rolled by one of those 2000+ game team stacks. The lack of a readily accessible community site that's used by the majority (we're basically a bunch of old guard + a few new faces and Reddit is...Reddit, don't know about 4chan though). or any sort of tutorial that's actually useful is very restrictive.

Shrike wrote:^We could have Open Range, instead people voted for that awful Coppenhagen map.
Copenhagen was not a bad map, the town itself often did result in a grind fest, but the surroundings weren't exactly unplayable. If you had good teams, it could prove to be a very fun map at times. I could definitely see a playable map based off Copenhagen with more room for FSVs like they're doing with TMI.

ikalugin
More than 10 000 messages. Soldier you are the leader of all armies!
Posts: 10430
Joined: Sun 6 Nov 2011 01:00
Contact:

Re: Lessons for the Next Wargame

Postby ikalugin » Fri 9 Oct 2015 19:18

Dual fields was the best map wargame series had.
Image
Spoiler : :
We need more missilez code for the missilez god.
Praslovan:
"Tactical Ikalugin inbound on this position in 10... 9..."
Image

User avatar
Mike
More than 10 000 messages. Soldier you are the leader of all armies!
Posts: 12406
Joined: Thu 20 Feb 2014 01:09
Location: Virginia, United States of America
Contact:

Re: Lessons for the Next Wargame

Postby Mike » Fri 9 Oct 2015 19:27

kiheerSEDMAN wrote:
Shrike wrote:^We could have Open Range, instead people voted for that awful Coppenhagen map.
Copenhagen was not a bad map, the town itself often did result in a grind fest, but the surroundings weren't exactly unplayable. If you had good teams, it could prove to be a very fun map at times. I could definitely see a playable map based off Copenhagen with more room for FSVs like they're doing with TMI.


The flanks on Copenhagen were actually pretty damn big iirc.
Image
Courtesy of KattiValk

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

Re: Lessons for the Next Wargame

Postby Random » Fri 9 Oct 2015 19:34

mapdesign, mapdesign, mapdesign.

ikalugin wrote:Dual fields was the best map wargame series had.

.


Why?
-easy to attack
-2 sectors which are faster to reach for each side, but easy to attack, because the other side gets a spawnpoint closer to them then the ememy spawn is.
-no rivers in the wrong places. NO FUCKING RIVERS IN THE WRONG PLACES.(rivers kill viable attacks if placed wrongly, see WRD)
- not too many buildings
-strategically important areas aren`t always sectors and aren`t easy to defend.
-no big cities.
-no chokepoints.
-many posibilities to flank
-a lot of space around the map
-(somewhat mirrored)

For good inplementation of rivers see rivers of blood (WEE)/orlskold...smth(WAB)


Also clean up, structure and give specific assignements to the marshalprogram. Make specific criteria for adding (and removing!)people to specific workgroups working on specific topics. Right now it`s just a disorganised, pointless mess producing nothing more then a slightly more useful version of the general forum.

Return to “Wargame : Red Dragon”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 35 guests