Idea: New Deck System for Potential Wargame Successor

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

Idea: New Deck System for Potential Wargame Successor

Postby RoadkillRodger » Fri 15 Jan 2016 06:58

Hi all,

Recently there's been a lot of talk on the forum about the deckbuilder in RD, much of it comparing the system unfavorably with its counterpart from ALB.

There are some valid reasons for this, and both systems have their merits. ALB's deckbuilder allowed unlimited cards/maximum utility from a tab that a nation might be strong in, while RD caps the number of cards you can take in a general deck at 5 across the board. This was done (imo) to prevent the abuse of coalitions, whose constituent nations might all possess stat clones of a certain highly effective unit that would be bad for gameplay if available in (effectively) unlimited numbers. Think things like upvetted stinger clones or MG3 shock infantry.
tl;dr ALB made each nation effective by allowing you to fully take advantage of their best tab, which would unfortunately make the new coalitions in RD a little too OP given their increased unit selection relative to individual nations

Proposal:
The ALB system, with a twist. Whereas in ALB the AP for a nation's tab might look something like 1/2/3/4/5/3/3/3/3 (don't remember actual number off the top of my head), I think that the same tab for a coalition under the new system might look something like 2/3/4/5/6/4/4/4/4.

This would be a way to cap coalition availability while still leaving nations viable. What do you think?

User avatar
Narcissistic Black
Major
Posts: 1892
Joined: Tue 14 Jan 2014 01:58
Contact:

Re: Idea: New Deck System for Potential Wargame Successor

Postby Narcissistic Black » Fri 15 Jan 2016 07:31

RoadkillRodger wrote:Hi all,

Recently there's been a lot of talk on the forum about the deckbuilder in RD, much of it comparing the system unfavorably with its counterpart from ALB.

There are some valid reasons for this, and both systems have their merits. ALB's deckbuilder allowed unlimited cards/maximum utility from a tab that a nation might be strong in, while RD caps the number of cards you can take in a general deck at 5 across the board. This was done (imo) to prevent the abuse of coalitions, whose constituent nations might all possess stat clones of a certain highly effective unit that would be bad for gameplay if available in (effectively) unlimited numbers. Think things like upvetted stinger clones or MG3 shock infantry.
tl;dr ALB made each nation effective by allowing you to fully take advantage of their best tab, which would unfortunately make the new coalitions in RD a little too OP given their increased unit selection relative to individual nations

Proposal:
The ALB system, with a twist. Whereas in ALB the AP for a nation's tab might look something like 1/2/3/4/5/3/3/3/3 (don't remember actual number off the top of my head), I think that the same tab for a coalition under the new system might look something like 2/3/4/5/6/4/4/4/4.

This would be a way to cap coalition availability while still leaving nations viable. What do you think?


2/3/4/5/6/4/4/4/4 considering coalitions have less activation points this would effectively kill off coalitions. literally 4 units in this tab would cost you 14 points and its not even the air tab.
The First Narcissist
Image
Click signature to see Modification, Alpha Released. Try now.

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

Re: Idea: New Deck System for Potential Wargame Successor

Postby RoadkillRodger » Fri 15 Jan 2016 08:00

Narcissistic Black wrote:2/3/4/5/6/4/4/4/4 considering coalitions have less activation points this would effectively kill off coalitions. literally 4 units in this tab would cost you 14 points and its not even the air tab.


The 2/3/4/5[...] coalition values were totally arbitrary; the point was just that coalitions' tabs would cost more to fill, although it could still be done.

1/2/3/4/5/3/3/3/3 is another potential figure... tbh I don't remember exactly what the tab costs were in ALB, and I didn't feel like reinstalling it at the moment. A simple +1 to every slot if you go coalition was my initial idea, assuming it doesn't put us into the aforementioned 20 AP/tab sillyness.

delor
Lieutenant
Posts: 1231
Joined: Mon 21 Apr 2014 23:39
Contact:

Re: Idea: New Deck System for Potential Wargame Successor

Postby delor » Fri 15 Jan 2016 08:27

RoadkillRodger wrote:1/2/3/4/5/3/3/3/3 is another potential figure... tbh I don't remember exactly what the tab costs were in ALB, and I didn't feel like reinstalling it at the moment.


So... you think RD capped category picks at 5 to stop coalitions from spamming a bunch of similar powerful units cherry-picked across the factions they had access to, and consequently propose a solution where the cost per card abruptly goes down if you take more than 5 of the card?

That seems counterproductive. You've made it harder to take 5 of a card by making the cost ramp up more rapidly, to be sure, but then once you've paid that initial cost it suddenly becomes more cost-effective per card to spam a bunch more in that category instead of taking more than 2-3 cards in a different category. You're encouraging spamming a bunch of units in a single category, instead of discouraging it.

User avatar
Narcissistic Black
Major
Posts: 1892
Joined: Tue 14 Jan 2014 01:58
Contact:

Re: Idea: New Deck System for Potential Wargame Successor

Postby Narcissistic Black » Fri 15 Jan 2016 08:32

RoadkillRodger wrote:
Narcissistic Black wrote:2/3/4/5/6/4/4/4/4 considering coalitions have less activation points this would effectively kill off coalitions. literally 4 units in this tab would cost you 14 points and its not even the air tab.


The 2/3/4/5[...] coalition values were totally arbitrary; the point was just that coalitions' tabs would cost more to fill, although it could still be done.

1/2/3/4/5/3/3/3/3 is another potential figure... tbh I don't remember exactly what the tab costs were in ALB, and I didn't feel like reinstalling it at the moment. A simple +1 to every slot if you go coalition was my initial idea, assuming it doesn't put us into the aforementioned 20 AP/tab sillyness.


They are.

LOG 1/1/1/1/2/2/3/3/4
INF 1/1/1/1/1/2/2/3/3
SUP 1/1/1/2/2/3/3/4/5
TANK 1/1/1/1/2/2/3/3/4/4
REC 1/1/1/2/2/3/3/4/5
VEHI 1/1/1/2/2/3/3/4/5
HELI 1/1/2/2/3/3/4/4/5
PLN 1/2/2/3/3/4/4/5/5


So i guess that would be the regualr deck and a coalition would look something like this?



LOG 1/1/1/2/2/2/3/3/4
INF 1/1/1/1/2/2/3/3/4
SUP 1/1/2/2/3/3/4/5/5
TANK 1/1/1/2/2/3/3/4/4/5
REC 1/1/2/2/3/3/4/4/5
VEHI 1/1/2/2/3/3/4/4/5
HELI 1/1/2/3/3/4/4/5/5
PLN 1/2/2/3/3/4/4/5/5

I just through something together based off of your words.
The First Narcissist
Image
Click signature to see Modification, Alpha Released. Try now.

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

Re: Idea: New Deck System for Potential Wargame Successor

Postby RoadkillRodger » Fri 15 Jan 2016 08:54

delor wrote:
That seems counterproductive. You've made it harder to take 5 of a card by making the cost ramp up more rapidly, to be sure, but then once you've paid that initial cost it suddenly becomes more cost-effective per card to spam a bunch more in that category instead of taking more than 2-3 cards in a different category. You're encouraging spamming a bunch of units in a single category, instead of discouraging it.


You're not wrong. The new system would allow for increased spam on the level of coalitions- but it would also go a ways towards making national decks more viable, and allow for players to make decks with decidedly more 'flavour' if they wanted. As-is, you need to choose a spec if you want to fill a tab beyond 5 cards.

Thanks to Narcissistic Black for the tab slot costs
Narcissistic Black wrote:
LOG 1/1/1/1/2/2/3/3/4
INF 1/1/1/1/1/2/2/3/3
SUP 1/1/1/2/2/3/3/4/5
TANK 1/1/1/1/2/2/3/3/4/4
REC 1/1/1/2/2/3/3/4/5
VEHI 1/1/1/2/2/3/3/4/5
HELI 1/1/2/2/3/3/4/4/5
PLN 1/2/2/3/3/4/4/5/5


The goal here is to allow for increased expansion into a nation's desired tab, while largely prohibiting that same behavior in coalitions (ie, make it difficult for coalitions to take more than 5 cards of a tab). One way to this might be to add +1 to slot cost for every card after the 5th in coalitions (eg, infantry becomes 1/1/1/1/1/3/3/4/4).

Given that you'd be working with ~30 AP under such a system, this could be rather effective. I'm just tossing ideas out here though. Another possibility would be to simply cap coalition decks at 5 cards per tab and call it a day.

User avatar
Narcissistic Black
Major
Posts: 1892
Joined: Tue 14 Jan 2014 01:58
Contact:

Re: Idea: New Deck System for Potential Wargame Successor

Postby Narcissistic Black » Fri 15 Jan 2016 09:43

RoadkillRodger wrote: I'm just tossing ideas out here though. Another possibility would be to simply cap coalition decks at 5 cards per tab and call it a day.


Hey man never know sometimes the best ideas come because someone just tossed an idea around.
The First Narcissist
Image
Click signature to see Modification, Alpha Released. Try now.

User avatar
MILINTarctrooper
Major
Posts: 1911
Joined: Mon 27 Jan 2014 04:19

Re: Idea: New Deck System for Potential Wargame Successor

Postby MILINTarctrooper » Fri 15 Jan 2016 19:34

Narcissistic Black wrote:
RoadkillRodger wrote: I'm just tossing ideas out here though. Another possibility would be to simply cap coalition decks at 5 cards per tab and call it a day.


Hey man never know sometimes the best ideas come because someone just tossed an idea around.

I would be more inclined to adjust the coalitions down a bit.

Coalitions means you get benefits of two nations covering the weakness of the other. However, currently Coalitions are the ultimate max-min decks. There is no downside to taking a coalition at this moment. Its more toxic than the old ALB Mixed Redfor/Bluefor decks. At least in ALB we didn't have to worry about the the battle-turning prototypes from appearing everywhere. But in RD this is a problem.

I am still not sold on the coalition balancing argument to this day. Eurocorp/SovKor/Norad are three coalitions that just have no real disadvantage...because the prototypes are available.

I would think Coalitions should either have numbers or veterancy advantage...but no Prototypes...because you can cover for the other nations weakness with another nations units.
Nationals have the Prototype/Reservist capacity. and some availability more so than Coalitions
While Mixed Decks means you have full access to non-prototyes and can really cover the weaknesses of your side Bluefor/Redfor but reduced numbers and no prototypes.

I would think that in the WG:X the lessons and successes of ALB need to be considered...and the failures of RD need to be learned.

ALB qualitatively was superior...although RD did open up some new avenues, but it feels too constrained versus ALB.
Image
52.2% 1v1 Ranked 32.2% Multi since Open Beta.

User avatar
hansbroger
Lieutenant General
Posts: 4428
Joined: Sun 28 Jul 2013 03:45
Contact:

Re: Idea: New Deck System for Potential Wargame Successor

Postby hansbroger » Fri 15 Jan 2016 20:01

One of the ways I feel restricted by RD's deck system is in the recon and vehicle tabs. Having a good picture of the front and conducting offensive recon requires not only a diversity of units but also a large number of units as well. Considering how buggy LoS can be and how Recon AFVs tend to be a priority target for high AP weapons I tend to feel constrained by only having five slots in most decks.

I also liked having more spots to take vehicles for more specialist roles.
Projectnordic in game! will likely see you on pact/red dragons/french!
Image

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

Re: Idea: New Deck System for Potential Wargame Successor

Postby RoadkillRodger » Fri 15 Jan 2016 21:31

MILINTarctrooper wrote:
I am still not sold on the coalition balancing argument to this day. Eurocorp/SovKor/Norad are three coalitions that just have no real disadvantage...

ALB qualitatively was superior...


The game is currently balanced around coalitions, and I've got no issues with that. Trying to put nations like Canada on par with the USSR is a ludicrous concept.

I disagree with you on that last point, RD feels more polished and the competitive game (1v1 conquest) is much more refined. Not EVERY faction is viable, but 5+ viable deck choices is a far cry above most AAA RTS games nowdays.

What I'm suggesting here is something that would allow people to make more flavorful decks if they wanted to play a certain minor or coalition, while preventing abuse of the units provided by the coalition mechanic.

hansbroger wrote:One of the ways I feel restricted by RD's deck system is in the recon and vehicle tabs. Having a good picture of the front and conducting offensive recon requires not only a diversity of units but also a large number of units as well.


In a perfect world this would also let players tailor decks to better suit their unique playstyle, one of the perceived advantages of the ALB system.

Return to “Wargame : Red Dragon”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 24 guests