Lessons for the Next Wargame

fiese_moep
Warrant Officer
Posts: 434
Joined: Wed 14 Mar 2012 20:37
Contact:

Re: Lessons for the Next Wargame

Postby fiese_moep » Fri 9 Oct 2015 23:25

KillaJules wrote:1) GENERAL GAMEPLAY
One issue that the Wargame series has had to deal with from the very beginning is map control and the dynamic between attacking and defending. The main issue here is that there has never been a strong enough incentive to attack in Destruction games. Conquest mode rectifies this somewhat, but Destruction is still flawed and is still the default mode. The issue arises from the fact that, although there is an immediate cost to an attack (killed units), there is no immediate benefit to an attack, especially since defenders get a kill ratio advantage (assuming there is no disparity in skill).

To encourage dynamic gameplay, there needs to be an immediate score penalty to pushing the enemy out of a sector and/or a score bonus to capturing an enemy sector. Another possibility is that unit availability could be tied to how many sectors a player holds. This would reduce the cost of capturing sectors held by the enemy and would solve my other concern: In WGRD, gameplay has at times revolved too much around protecting irreplaceable super-units. By having unit availability tied to the number of controlled sectors, a successful attack can compensate for any losses. It would also allow attackers to overwhelm campers, even when said campers get a good kill:death ratio for their units.


Destruction matches least by default 40 minutes increase the time to create more incentive. We play allways 60 min. Even if you fight 20 min to capture the first sectors it pays out unti the end of the game. So one solution would be to increase the default time.
Annother solution would be a conbination of destruction and conquest in one gamemode.

KillaJules wrote:3) FACTIONS AND UNITS
The poor implementation of China and especially North Korea in WGRD should serve as a lesson for Eugen not to bite off more than they can chew. The disappointment regarding the numerous missing units indicates that Eugen should focus on making factions fully fleshed out, NOT simply adding more half-done factions. Obviously, there is a limit to how many units can be added; the devs have a limited budget. Thus, Eugen needs to prioritize what units will be added. Adding pointless and outdated units like the WWII era South Korean MG truck or interesting but unnecessary prototypes (e.g. Zhalo) should NOT take precedent over giving every faction everything it needs in order to be competitive.


Agreed

KillaJules
Chief Warrant Officer
Posts: 507
Joined: Sat 5 Nov 2011 03:20
Contact:

Re: Lessons for the Next Wargame

Postby KillaJules » Sat 10 Oct 2015 03:05

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


The poor map design is a secondary issue to have a game mode that encourages attacks. Even if map layouts in RD strongly punished camping, it wouldn't be a complete solution. By giving an immediate compensation to players who make a successful attack, this would also make multiple game modes unnecessary and help unify the player base.

I've covered many of your concerns in the OP, except for the last one. I agree that getting rid of the view profile button is a big priority.

APSinc
Chief Warrant Officer
Posts: 555
Joined: Wed 3 Sep 2014 09:56
Contact:

Re: Lessons for the Next Wargame

Postby APSinc » Sat 10 Oct 2015 06:51

Random wrote: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.
What I would give to have Dual Fields (larger and smaller variants from EE) and Rivers of Blood in the new map "Patches".

I missed the whole new map survey. Shows what happens when you leave for a while.

User avatar
Demonicjapsel
Chief Warrant Officer
Posts: 680
Joined: Sat 26 Jul 2014 20:58
Location: Triggering HRCK and his warcrime denying Yugoboos

Re: Lessons for the Next Wargame

Postby Demonicjapsel » Sat 10 Oct 2015 13:00

while OP makes some good points, i disagree with a few of them, mostly his idea on deck specializations and his re-imagining of the Destruction mode.

To start with the Specialized decks, i consider this a bad idea since you don't really do anything except allowing people to min max even more, while putting the general deck build to be virtually identical, and as such, you will still see only a very limited amount of deck types in ranked play, not as much of a solution since it makes min-maxing even easier.

Personally, the problems with spec'ed decks doesn't lie as much with themselves (although some nation decks could use an included unit or 2) but rather with the fact the general deck offers to do better allround since it gets access to all the equipment, without any major drawbacks in availability, and as such, offers by far, the best option since you get all the toys.
So instead of trying to make spec'ed decks more attractive (which they won't be until there is a clearly defined edge to be gained) why not limit unspec'ed decks in their choice?
So for instance, the French Leclerc MBT, which is a very commonly seen tank, why not limit it to armoured decks only, meaning that a non specialized deck still gets a decent choice of tanks to pick form, but simply doesn't get the top choice anymore, which if you do want it, you have to make choices.
Likewise, certain Shock and elite infantry can be limited to Motorized/Mech, Top tier arty to Support decks and specialized gunships etc can be limited to airborne etc etc etc.
This way, you can opt for a more specialized line up, combined with the vet boni and the fact you can get units that are better at what they do then a general deck, you make choices in other department, while a general deck can do it all, but has to make do with less powerful units for the advantage of having more choice.

so for instance, a French national deck, that has no specialization would get access to the '75 legion, Chasseurs and '85 Chasseurs, Base Rima and some other support units.
the French Motorized would get all of these, along with the 90's Legion, 90's Rima etc etc etc, along with the generally higher Vet, meaning that you get a worthwhile trade out of limiting the amount of units you get.

the decision which units are limited and which aren't should preferably done by play testing and Marshall feedback. (and that means for instance, adding the Chinese Croatale to RD Armoured, while keeping it out of the French one)

on the subject of Destruction mode, yes the mode has issues, but i disagree on making Attacking trumps all idea OP seems to be proposing, for several reasons. for one, the thing that defending is more profitable is true, however, defense in depth is a viable military tactic, used by Russia in WWII and is generally considered to be one of the major elements in warfare. So yes, in destruction matches, i am quite happy to trade ground for letting my opponent run into a prepared trap, as my objective is to destroy the enemy, not gaining map control, so in short, i need to outlast the enemy. Compensating for losses incurred is a bit silly as it goes against, what for me, is one of the core tenets of Wargame, that your means are limited, and you have to use each one fullest potential, rather then, "Oh look, i lost 30 units of infantry, well time to call in another wave), so no thanks.

the problem with RD destruction mode is more of an artillery and map problem. currently most maps concentrate forces on a very small front, and backed up by large quantities of artillery makes attacking problematic as you are required to brave the overwhelming majority of the opposing team's firepower on a very small front. this is then made even worse by the large amount of cluster and rocket artillery that each player brings, which can shut down any attack in a very short amount of time by either destroying most of it, or stunlocking it.
So instead, Maps need to be wider, and generally extend the lines by a decent margin, in this case, to defend it all with limited means you need to stretch thin, and to quote Sun Tzu "He who tries to defend all, defends nothing" meaning that by laws of force application you can breach through as no player has the means to build a frontline that is powerful enough to resist a concentrated and sustained attack, Artillery or not wihtout committing reserves to contain the breach, which means that manouvre warfare becomes more important, which in turn, diminishes the impact of Artillery has on the game.

User avatar
Ultimaratio
Chief Warrant Officer
Posts: 641
Joined: Sat 11 May 2013 11:39
Location: Linz, Austria
Contact:

Re: Lessons for the Next Wargame

Postby Ultimaratio » Sat 10 Oct 2015 14:12

I like your idea for spec decks getting the protos and certain units. Makes them more attractive. Also bring back some specs from ALB like Air Assault.

How is the commuity open for the ALB deck system for the next RD in general?
Image
Peace to the Shacks! War on the Palaces!-Georg Büchner

User avatar
triumph
Major
Posts: 1830
Joined: Sun 31 Jul 2011 20:12
Contact:

Re: Lessons for the Next Wargame

Postby triumph » Sat 10 Oct 2015 15:07

One word: Accessibility. Get that right and we could see a healthy 5 to 8 thousand in each region every day intstead of 5 to 8 hundred.
Image
Transcend Excellence

User avatar
47andrej
Lieutenant
Posts: 1335
Joined: Sun 12 Feb 2012 19:22
Contact:

Re: Lessons for the Next Wargame

Postby 47andrej » Sat 10 Oct 2015 20:51

Drop lame "ug-bear" excuse.
Besides of W:RD made a lot of things pretty good. Dont f____g fix what aint brocken. By that i mean do not delete content in next Wargame (naval).
Next Wargame should just bring about 5 new nations, better graphics, new mechanics (paradrop or non-SLBM submarines, multi-level city warfare, there are enough mechanics to implement). Just as ALB and RD did.

Half Life Expert
Staff Sergeant
Posts: 84
Joined: Wed 22 Feb 2012 00:46
Contact:

Re: Lessons for the Next Wargame

Postby Half Life Expert » Sun 11 Oct 2015 03:54

I think it would be nice to add the ability to destroy your FOB and supply trucks to prevent them from falling into enemy hands.

No one would force you to do this, but it would be a nice thing to be able to do.

KillaJules
Chief Warrant Officer
Posts: 507
Joined: Sat 5 Nov 2011 03:20
Contact:

Re: Lessons for the Next Wargame

Postby KillaJules » Sun 11 Oct 2015 04:40

Demonicjapsel wrote:while OP makes some good points, i disagree with a few of them, mostly his idea on deck specializations and his re-imagining of the Destruction mode.

To start with the Specialized decks, i consider this a bad idea since you don't really do anything except allowing people to min max even more, while putting the general deck build to be virtually identical, and as such, you will still see only a very limited amount of deck types in ranked play, not as much of a solution since it makes min-maxing even easier.

Personally, the problems with spec'ed decks doesn't lie as much with themselves (although some nation decks could use an included unit or 2) but rather with the fact the general deck offers to do better allround since it gets access to all the equipment, without any major drawbacks in availability, and as such, offers by far, the best option since you get all the toys.
So instead of trying to make spec'ed decks more attractive (which they won't be until there is a clearly defined edge to be gained) why not limit unspec'ed decks in their choice?
So for instance, the French Leclerc MBT, which is a very commonly seen tank, why not limit it to armoured decks only, meaning that a non specialized deck still gets a decent choice of tanks to pick form, but simply doesn't get the top choice anymore, which if you do want it, you have to make choices.
Likewise, certain Shock and elite infantry can be limited to Motorized/Mech, Top tier arty to Support decks and specialized gunships etc can be limited to airborne etc etc etc.
This way, you can opt for a more specialized line up, combined with the vet boni and the fact you can get units that are better at what they do then a general deck, you make choices in other department, while a general deck can do it all, but has to make do with less powerful units for the advantage of having more choice.


The problem with this approach is that spec decks remain one-trick ponies. Making them really good at their one trick by doesn't fix the issue that spec decks have no real versatility and are very team dependent.

That said, I do like the idea of giving each spec deck exclusive access to e.g. prototypes.


Demonicjapsel wrote:on the subject of Destruction mode, yes the mode has issues, but i disagree on making Attacking trumps all idea OP seems to be proposing, for several reasons. for one, the thing that defending is more profitable is true, however, defense in depth is a viable military tactic, used by Russia in WWII and is generally considered to be one of the major elements in warfare.


In WWII, Russia won the war not by retreating all the way across Siberia and farming kills. They did trade land early, but they used defense in depth to achieve victory by conquering *territory*. Not by achieving a high kill:death ratio. Your example backs up my argument, not yours.


Demonicjapsel wrote:So yes, in destruction matches, i am quite happy to trade ground for letting my opponent run into a prepared trap, as my objective is to destroy the enemy, not gaining map control, so in short, i need to outlast the enemy.

No, that is a terrible idea for game play balance, unless there is a reason to attack AFTER you spring the trap. Within the current system, your approach only works if your opponent is clueless and desires to attack without realising that there is no rational reason to do so.

Trading ground to farm kills ought to be viable, but only if you plan on going on the offensive afterwards and capitalising on your kills. Otherwise, it creates a situation where players win by retreating which is idiotic.

Demonicjapsel wrote:Compensating for losses incurred is a bit silly as it goes against, what for me, is one of the core tenets of Wargame, that your means are limited, and you have to use each one fullest potential, rather then, "Oh look, i lost 30 units of infantry, well time to call in another wave), so no thanks.
the problem with RD destruction mode is more of an artillery and map problem. currently most maps concentrate forces on a very small front, and backed up by large quantities of artillery makes attacking problematic as you are required to brave the overwhelming majority of the opposing team's firepower on a very small front. this is then made even worse by the large amount of cluster and rocket artillery that each player brings, which can shut down any attack in a very short amount of time by either destroying most of it, or stunlocking it.
So instead, Maps need to be wider, and generally extend the lines by a decent margin, in this case, to defend it all with limited means you need to stretch thin, and to quote Sun Tzu "He who tries to defend all, defends nothing" meaning that by laws of force application you can breach through as no player has the means to build a frontline that is powerful enough to resist a concentrated and sustained attack, Artillery or not wihtout committing reserves to contain the breach, which means that manouvre warfare becomes more important, which in turn, diminishes the impact of Artillery has on the game.


Compensating for losses in *successful* attacks is not silly. Otherwise, the only rational action is camping. Just because you go up against players who haven't figured that out does NOT mean that the system isn't broken.

My system would not make units totally expendable, all it does is reward players who take smart risks. In my system, losing units hurts, but it hurts less if you successfully conquer sectors. In the current system, using units to their "full potential" means defending, hiding or camping, not attacking, which makes for bad and static game play.

There needs to be a positive incentive to attack. We have had this issue since EE beta, unit balance, arty and map design have nothing to do with it. They can contribute to the issue, but they are not the cause. The issue is far more fundamental than that.

User avatar
RoadkillRodger
Lieutenant
Posts: 1148
Joined: Fri 9 May 2014 07:24
Contact:

Re: Lessons for the Next Wargame

Postby RoadkillRodger » Sun 11 Oct 2015 06:32

Personally, I don't see why specialized decks should be the default. I really don't see nerfing unspec decks through unit restriction etc. as the way to improve the balance of specialized decks. It really doesn't add much to the game, and ensures that players get further shoehorned into 'that one tactic that works' when they start, diminishing the game's accessibility.

Practically speaking I don't see many of the suggestions concerning decks above as viable, specifically the ones where you have a 'base deck' and add on units/specializations/etc. We already have over a dozen nations, with maybe half that number of coalitions/superpowers. It's a challenge to balance a group this large, albeit not an insurmountable one.

BUT. There is no way, imo, that we could realistically balance that same group of a dozen nations, multiplied by ~6 specializations for each deck. It would be a monumental overtaking that would detract from the quality of the game in other areas.

As far as future Wargame titles go, I'd love to see
i)A deckbuilding system more akin to that of ALB (which would go a long way towards making those nations which rely heavily on a single tab viable again)
ii)Active protection systems on tanks, as well as the potential to have decreasing av with each shot on ERA tanks, heightening asymmetric balance opportunities
iii)Indirect fire flamethrowers (ie, they can actually shoot out to their full range in the forest)
iv)Accurate cth rolls/minute listed in the armory for infantry weapons
v)Slight bump in the timeline to take things maybe a decade beyond the RD timeline, although this gets into some serious what-ifs that might be better left untouched

and finally, a slight income bump (say by 20%) in all game modes, along with a commensurate increase in unit price. This wouldn't affect the more expensive stuff but would give the lower tiers (ie, infantry/apcs) some breathing room where price is concerned.

Return to “Wargame : Red Dragon”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 28 guests