Wargame Sequel, Wargame 4, Next Wargame, Expansion Directory

[Fodder]

moar boats pls

I don't care that other people don't know how to use them, I need moar!
kthx.

+1
But no more destroyers plz

[Scheintot887]

I think this thread can get closed. There is no next Wargame appearently because too many people are losing their hope. Why Eugen should wait that long and let this happen? Would be a strange buisness move. Right - Because there is no Wargame 4. Even if it was the most successfull franchise here. Weird.
And if it is, the theatre is Africa.

[Knorrway]

It would be cool to see a Mediterranean theatre seeing how Mediterranean nations have been completely ignored throughout wargame's history.

[Sonki3]

You know what would be cool too?

The best would be if you can create your own Coalitions. A system where every nation deck starts with 60 points and if you choose a coalition with another nation (like Entente = 2) you would lose 5 points. If you add another nation (like eastern bloc = 3) you lose 5 more points to 50.

It would create more diversity in the decks and since you get the +5 pre 85 and +10 pre 80 you can do quite a lot with it.

Yeah and they should just get rid of bugs and fix the game. Than I say it would be quite nice.

[Scheintot887]

You know what would be cool too?

The best would be if you can create your own Coalitions. A system where every nation deck starts with 60 points and if you choose a coalition with another nation (like Entente = 2) you would lose 5 points. If you add another nation (like eastern bloc = 3) you lose 5 more points to 50.

It would create more diversity in the decks and since you get the +5 pre 85 and +10 pre 80 you can do quite a lot with it.

Yeah and they should just get rid of bugs and fix the game. Than I say it would be quite nice.

I think we can expect a deck build system update in wargame 4 but not in wargame red dragon. I think there is too much stuff hardcoded to implement something like this. But I've had the same idea already and I would appreciate it aswell. There should be units excluded from custom coalitions (like if you choose a nato deck you can't have all units available on nato).

Also like I've mentioned already a new spotting mechanic, where spotters first need to be deployed instead of seeing everything instantly in their spotting radius. It should take time. As longer they're deployed, as better the results should be. Inspired by real scouts which get deployed on a position and carefully observe and collecting meta data from their surroundings.

Increasing the reloading time for bombers would also be a good thing. To make bombers more exclusiv. Same goes for AA. Decreasing the availability but making them more effective and SEADers more importent. It would require skill on both sides to be as effective as possible with bombers and AA.

Units which can deploy HMGs, ATGMs or mines (and AP-mines) would also be a nice addition to it. Tanks which can easily drive over AP mines (and disarm them by it) but will get heavily damaged by at mines and vice verca for infantry (making engineers able to spot and disarm mines).

They should not change the damage system in my opinion because it is good as it is. (Please no Steel Divison damage system (haven't played the new version of SD yet but the old one was horrible). Except making it more realistic (physics and bouncing projectiles) and a key for switching between heat and APFSD.

[urogard]

Units which can deploy HMGs, ATGMs or mines (and AP-mines) would also be a nice addition to it. Tanks which can easily drive over AP mines (and disarm them by it) but will get heavily damaged by at mines and vice verca for infantry (making engineers able to spot and disarm mines).

Mines are strategic assets, not tactical ones.
Hence have no business in WG setting.

[Scheintot887]

Units which can deploy HMGs, ATGMs or mines (and AP-mines) would also be a nice addition to it. Tanks which can easily drive over AP mines (and disarm them by it) but will get heavily damaged by at mines and vice verca for infantry (making engineers able to spot and disarm mines).

Mines are strategic assets, not tactical ones.
Hence have no business in WG setting.

Well, thats your opinion. In MY opinion mines would be a nice to have.

[urogard]

Units which can deploy HMGs, ATGMs or mines (and AP-mines) would also be a nice addition to it. Tanks which can easily drive over AP mines (and disarm them by it) but will get heavily damaged by at mines and vice verca for infantry (making engineers able to spot and disarm mines).

Mines are strategic assets, not tactical ones.
Hence have no business in WG setting.

Well, thats your opinion. In MY opinion mines would be a nice to have.

Actually it's not my opinion but EUGEN opinion.
And EUGEN doesn't care if you'd like to have what they declared to be a strategic asset.

[alphafoxtrot]

Actually it's not my opinion but EUGEN opinion.
And EUGEN doesn't care if you'd like to have what they declared to be a strategic asset.

... and not to mention that EUGEN currently has a bit of a US hate boner at best as well... but that's beside the point for now.

The biggest thing that a WG4 would have is genuine modding capability. Not this half-assed shit but 'if you got the tools, guts, and time, then you can do it' modding like the various mods for the CnC franchise for example.

[KattiValk]

... and not to mention that EUGEN currently has a bit of a US hate boner at best as well... but that's beside the point for now.

Let’s not call Eugen US hating so fast. It’s more them being negligent than anything. Not putting in the effort to modernize the US to the standard some of the other nations are.