Changes missing in the patch notes

User avatar
Markenzwieback
Captain
Posts: 1708
Joined: Tue 27 Oct 2015 17:06
Contact:

Re: Changes missing in the patch notes

Postby Markenzwieback » Sat 21 May 2016 16:45

Razzmann wrote:
Markenzwieback wrote:That it is already enough having the M2 Wilk in EB mechanized. We don't need T-72S1 and similar prized tanks without allowing equally capable tanks or actually slightly better ones on the other side of the iron curtain.

But where did I ever say that?

You didn't. And I never implied that you did.
Image

User avatar
orcbuster
More than 10 000 messages. Soldier you are the leader of all armies!
Posts: 12362
Joined: Fri 7 Sep 2012 21:04
Contact:

Re: Changes missing in the patch notes

Postby orcbuster » Sat 21 May 2016 16:46

Maybe add the infantry carbine changes?
Image
Viker for ingen!

User avatar
Razzmann
General
Posts: 7497
Joined: Fri 7 Mar 2014 15:29
Location: The land of flowing beer and Sauerkraut.
Contact:

Re: Changes missing in the patch notes

Postby Razzmann » Sat 21 May 2016 16:48

orcbuster wrote:Maybe add the infantry carbine changes?

Already did when I saw your post.

Markenzwieback wrote:You didn't. And I never implied that you did.

But you quoted me when you said that. So yes you implied it :P

User avatar
Markenzwieback
Captain
Posts: 1708
Joined: Tue 27 Oct 2015 17:06
Contact:

Re: Changes missing in the patch notes

Postby Markenzwieback » Sat 21 May 2016 16:51

Razzmann wrote:
orcbuster wrote:Maybe add the infantry carbine changes?

Already did when I saw your post.

Markenzwieback wrote:You didn't. And I never implied that you did.

But you quoted me when you said that. So yes you implied it :P

I just involved you in the argument between urograd and me, because you semi-contributed to the Wilk M2/tanks in mechanized discussion! :lol:
Image

urogard
Brigadier
Posts: 3062
Joined: Sun 4 May 2014 13:31
Contact:

Re: Changes missing in the patch notes

Postby urogard » Sat 21 May 2016 16:58

We're missing the Hashtags for DutchGerman Corps as well as the hashtags for SOVKOR/LANDJUT/NORAD

Markenzwieback wrote:
urogard wrote:-snip-

1) You are ignoring the TGMs in your equation. In particular the T-64BV bringing a 22AP stabilized missile that can easily turn the situation on a Leopard 2A4 and utterly annihilates common BLUFOR high-end tanks in mechanized.

T-64BVI, Chally 1 MK2 and T-72S1 have no TGMs
T-80BV and T-64BMs cobra are meh at best

I honestly don't care if the BV is included, its atgm is an outlier that overperforms in that price bracket you're right, it's also the reason I'm not even arguing about T-80A with its refleks.
But you're welcome to put forward your arguments vs adding the other 5 tanks I mentioned

Saying an agona turns the tide on a leo 2a4 is funny, it's something that actually gives it a fighting chance and justifies the 120 points cost on the BV, but if you don't hit the first missile (which is a 50/50 chance) then you're pretty much screwed, if you do hit, then it's still a 50/50 chance of which tank would win based on who gets screwed less with RNG.

Markenzwieback wrote:2) Lets look into the broader deck situation regarding mechanized: Running with Leopard 2A1 and M1A1 against T-72S1 or even the T-64BV (if your proposal gets accepted) isn't close to a fair fight

First time I would hear that infantry selection is relevant to which tanks get allowed into mechanized, please provide the appropriate quote.
If you were able to fight a T-64BV for 120 points head on by sending a Leo2A1 which costs only 100 points then something would really be screwed up with the balance of the game.

M1A1 vs BV, well it's a coin toss between hitting or not hitting that 1 agona and then it's a question who starts running first. Since their main guns are pretty evenly balanced 2 HP per hit vs 2.5 HP per hit and a 15% accuracy difference, but Abrams has an advantage the moment one of the two starts retreating. I see no issue, esp since the BV is more expensive by 5 points so some advantage has to exist, otherwise they should have the same price


Markenzwieback wrote:3) The M1A1HA is currently overpriced and already pretty much confirmed to go down by at least -5 points. viewtopic.php?p=934658#p934658 . But lets exclude that tank from our argument and focus on the Leopard 2A4.

Even if it goes to 135 pts, it's still 15 points, so over 10% more expensive than the highest cutoff point for mechanized tanks, so even then it will never be relevant to these considerations

urogard
Brigadier
Posts: 3062
Joined: Sun 4 May 2014 13:31
Contact:

Re: Changes missing in the patch notes

Postby urogard » Sat 21 May 2016 17:00

Razzmann wrote:It's part of the T-64s "flavour" to be included into armoured decks only. That goes for the whole line so they should be excluded from all the comparisons.

Same goes for the entire T-80 line.
But I don't agree that tanks should be included in spec decks (mecha/moto) simply because they belong to a line.

Germans get the Leo1 line into motorized but UK/CMW cannot get Chieftains and the entire PACT cannot get any T-72's?

User avatar
Markenzwieback
Captain
Posts: 1708
Joined: Tue 27 Oct 2015 17:06
Contact:

Re: Changes missing in the patch notes

Postby Markenzwieback » Sat 21 May 2016 17:12

urogard wrote:T-64BVI, Chally 1 MK2 and T-72S1 have no TGMs
T-80BV and T-64BMs cobra are meh at best

But you're welcome to put forward your arguments vs adding the other 5 tanks I mentioned

The point is that mainly PACT is getting a huge upgrade in their tank section in mechanized decks (beside Commonwealth, obviously). Chally 1 Mk.2 (aka Commonwealth) is somewhat able to stand against T-72S1, same goes for the M1A1 (Norad), but any other mechanized deck is screwed in that equation and will have to rely on ATGMs of all variations (which are way easy to counter).

urogard wrote:Saying an agona turns the tide on a leo 2a4 is funny, it's something that actually gives it a fighting chance and justifies the 120 points cost on the BV, but if you don't hit the first missile (which is a 50/50 chance) then you're pretty much screwed, if you do hit, then it's still a 50/50 chance of which tank would win based on who gets screwed less with RNG.

Isn't that the entire point of this game? Being screwed less by RNG?

urogard wrote:First time I would hear that infantry selection is relevant to which tanks get allowed into mechanized, please provide the appropriate quote.
If you were able to fight a T-64BV for 120 points head on by sending a Leo2A1 which costs only 100 points then something would really be screwed up with the balance of the game.

And if the only thing that you get in a mechanized deck is a 100 point tank, while the other side is able to field 120 point tanks in (almost) equal numbers. Is that balanced?
Image

urogard
Brigadier
Posts: 3062
Joined: Sun 4 May 2014 13:31
Contact:

Re: Changes missing in the patch notes

Postby urogard » Sat 21 May 2016 17:23

Markenzwieback wrote:Isn't that the entire point of this game? Being screwed less by RNG?

only way to do that is either make all tanks 100% acc or halve the accuracies by forcing tanks to take many shots which means it would average out. if instead of 6 shots with 65 acc to kill a tank you force tanks to take 14 shots, you'll have a lot less chances of battles ending with one tank getting panicked in 3 shots and the other tank winning without a scratch.
But instead you'll get whiners who'll say that it's unrealistic that "modern" tanks should have anything less than 90% accuracy

Markenzwieback wrote:And if the only thing that you get in a mechanized deck is a 100 point tank, while the other side is able to field 120 point tanks in (almost) equal numbers. Is that balanced?

If you want to keep listing the things one side has and the other doesn't, you'll be spending a lot of time on that.
MG3? Marder 2? etc, you get the point

there's still a difference between 120 and 130 points, notice how I never argued for the price bracket to go up, because that would invite arguments like yours "if we increase bracket to 125 points to include T-72S, why not make it 130 to include leo 2a4" etc.

Your'e arguing for a widening of the bracket, I'm arguing for inclusion of all tanks in the already defined bracket, two very different concepts.

For all I care they could allow you to field 1000 points of tanks in a mechanized deck and then go and pick whatever the p you want from all tanks. Then there would be no argument about which tanks should still be available to mechanized and which not, but that creates more balance problems than it solves.

User avatar
Markenzwieback
Captain
Posts: 1708
Joined: Tue 27 Oct 2015 17:06
Contact:

Re: Changes missing in the patch notes

Postby Markenzwieback » Sat 21 May 2016 18:10

urogard wrote:
Markenzwieback wrote:And if the only thing that you get in a mechanized deck is a 100 point tank, while the other side is able to field 120 point tanks in (almost) equal numbers. Is that balanced?

If you want to keep listing the things one side has and the other doesn't, you'll be spending a lot of time on that.
MG3? Marder 2? etc, you get the point

BLUFOR's main spamable MG3 line infantry just got nerfed. Decks which had the advantage of higher-end tanks (mixed BLU with M1A1 mainly) and the cost-effective MG3 spam got nerfed into being borderline useless. The Marder 2 is one highly restricted card that can easily be taken out by the following things: ATGMs on IFVs, 24AP launchers (where there are plenty of), BMP-1s en masse and any sort of tank worth a dime. Further, those BMP-1s can take on the enemy armor doing more damage than any other APC ever could due to weird HEAT mechanics.

The point is not what things one side has and the other doesn't, and vice versa. The point is that one mechanized deck is currently able to field a way more expensive and effective higher-end tank compared to all others. With your proposal, this would only be further pronounced.

urogard wrote:there's still a difference between 120 and 130 points, notice how I never argued for the price bracket to go up, because that would invite arguments like yours "if we increase bracket to 125 points to include T-72S, why not make it 130 to include leo 2a4" etc.

Your'e arguing for a widening of the bracket, I'm arguing for inclusion of all tanks in the already defined bracket, two very different concepts

My main problem is that there are simply no viable options in the 120 point price bracket that can compete with T-72S1s on the entire BLUFOR side (barring Commonwealth and the already available M1A1). You would make one of the most powerful mechanized decks there is (if not the most powerful since the quasi removal of mixed decks), even more powerful than it already is.
Image

User avatar
Mako
General
Posts: 7352
Joined: Sun 5 May 2013 20:00
Location: Cascadia
Contact:

Re: Changes missing in the patch notes

Postby Mako » Sat 21 May 2016 18:16

The Fasta now has only 3 missiles despite having 4 launchers on the model..
If there's two kinds of players, those that like challenges and those that want a fair game, pubstomps should make everyone happy.

Return to “Wargame : Red Dragon”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 49 guests