Why is the Roland 3 still 4 per card?

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

Re: Why is the Roland 3 still 4 per card?

Postby urogard » Sun 22 May 2016 18:33

Random wrote:
FoxZz wrote:Finally, stop fooling people, units are balanced between each other mainly.

dont even know what this means... with what would units be balanced if not other units, tomatoes?

Well apparently you do intend to balance units with tomatoes, since that's exactly what you claimed two posts up.
Random wrote:red units do not have to be balanced with blue units.

User avatar
urho
Second-Lieutenant
Posts: 886
Joined: Tue 29 Apr 2014 12:26

Re: Why is the Roland 3 still 4 per card?

Postby urho » Sun 22 May 2016 20:46

Besides the low availability, the reload time of the Roland systems is way higher than it should be.
Change it to 6s please.
Image

User avatar
morpher
Major-General
Posts: 3975
Joined: Sun 17 May 2015 21:03

Re: Why is the Roland 3 still 4 per card?

Postby morpher » Sun 22 May 2016 21:19

Random wrote:dont even know what this means... with what would units be balanced if not other units, tomatoes?


I tell you how it works. You have to compare unit by unit, you cannot balance decks. It doesn’t make sense to balance advantages and disadvantages between different factions.

All it matters is historical accuracy.

If a unit in ${my nation} is worse than the same type of unit in ${other nation} it should be standardized, if a unit in ${my nation} is better than ${every other nation} it is historical accurate because it is well known that ${my nation} was/is the best.

User avatar
chykka
Brigadier
Posts: 3387
Joined: Wed 28 Nov 2012 14:55
Location: Canada, Alberta
Contact:

Re: Why is the Roland 3 still 4 per card?

Postby chykka » Sun 22 May 2016 21:48

Maybe for Stats, but {price} should be on unit Effectiveness. Not the overall industry of a nation.
Image

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

Re: Why is the Roland 3 still 4 per card?

Postby Mako » Sun 22 May 2016 22:03

None of this changes the fact that the Roland 3 is underavailable for its price point.

It has the same pts/card value as a Patriot ffs.
If there's two kinds of players, those that like challenges and those that want a fair game, pubstomps should make everyone happy.

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

Re: Why is the Roland 3 still 4 per card?

Postby urogard » Sun 22 May 2016 22:25

chykka wrote:Maybe for Stats, but {price} should be on unit Effectiveness. Not the overall industry of a nation.

Price AND Availability depend on unit effectiveness, nothing else
Stats can be anything that should reflect what a unit could do IRL, but it shouldn't be any cheaper or more available
Last edited by urogard on Sun 22 May 2016 22:59, edited 1 time in total.

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

Re: Why is the Roland 3 still 4 per card?

Postby Random » Sun 22 May 2016 22:55

Mako wrote:None of this changes the fact that the Roland 3 is underavailable for its price point.




You have not shown that for it to be balanced it would be necessary that a unit in the same category must have roughly the same value if you multiply cost with availability.

Do you think it is a problem that the m41a1 costs 10 with availability 12 and the m41 dk1 cost 25 with availablity 12? does from this follow that we should set the availablity of the m41a1 to 30?


Mako wrote:It has the same pts/card value as a Patriot ffs.


True, and does this lead to one of the units being underpowered per cost? Do people not use the Roland because of this flaw? Are euro/german/WGNL-decks too weak because they must use 2 cards of anti-plane-AA? Should no deck have to use 2 cards of anti-plane-AA?

morpher wrote:You have to compare unit by unit, you cannot balance decks. It doesn’t make sense to balance advantages and disadvantages between different factions.


No you dont, yes you can and yes it does.

If you only balance units with units and not decks then I await your thread on why we should nerf around 50% of all prototypes because in a unit to unit comparison they are OP.

User avatar
wargamer1985
Brigadier
Posts: 3305
Joined: Sat 4 May 2013 00:36
Contact:

Re: Why is the Roland 3 still 4 per card?

Postby wargamer1985 » Sun 22 May 2016 23:00

urogard wrote:
chykka wrote:Maybe for Stats, but {price} should be on unit Effectiveness. Not the overall industry of a nation.

Price AND Availability depend on unit effectiveness, nothing else
Stats can be anything that should reflect what a unit could do IRL, but it shouldn't be any cheaper or more available

The Challenger 2 disagrees.
APPLY TO THE GLORIOUS CULT OF THE WARHAWK! LIBERATING NAZIS SINCE 1939!
Image

User avatar
morpher
Major-General
Posts: 3975
Joined: Sun 17 May 2015 21:03

Re: Why is the Roland 3 still 4 per card?

Postby morpher » Sun 22 May 2016 23:11

Random wrote:If you only balance units with units and not decks then I await your thread on why we should nerf around 50% of all prototypes because in a unit to unit comparison they are OP.


I was joking man, I know that the only thing that make sense is to balance decks. I was showing you how this forum works.

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

Re: Why is the Roland 3 still 4 per card?

Postby Markenzwieback » Sun 22 May 2016 23:47

Random wrote:
Mako wrote:None of this changes the fact that the Roland 3 is underavailable for its price point.

You have not shown that for it to be balanced it would be necessary that a unit in the same category must have roughly the same value if you multiply cost with availability.

Do you think it is a problem that the m41a1 costs 10 with availability 12 and the m41 dk1 cost 25 with availablity 12? does from this follow that we should set the availablity of the m41a1 to 30?

Are we comparing apples and oranges now? As in two different units that fill two different roles instead of similarly capable and similarly priced units of the same category?

And that example is flawed with the M41A1 sitting at 24/18/0/0/0 and the M41DK1 at 0/12/8/0/0. You cannot compare these units, as they fulfill two different roles. What you could compare is (following the M41A1 example), the ASU-85 and the M41A1 in their situation as 10 point fire support vehicles.

Random wrote:
Mako wrote:It has the same pts/card value as a Patriot ffs.


True, and does this lead to one of the units being underpowered per cost? Do people not use the Roland because of this flaw? Are euro/german/WGNL-decks too weak because they must use 2 cards of anti-plane-AA? Should no deck have to use 2 cards of anti-plane-AA?

Do people use the Roland, because it is the only option they have in the three decks you mentioned? Are other decks (those having access to the OSA) able to pick multiple cards of equally and more capable anti-plane AA units due to a bigger variation?

With mixed BLUFOR pretty much dead, the only nations/coalitions that would profit from an increase in Roland 3 availability are those who have no better option to field. It surely is a capable unit that can get the job done, but having it sit at the same level of availability compared to way more effective units of the same category is a downright disadvantage these decks face.

Even when you pick two cards of anti-plane AA in any deck, the EB and USSR/SOVKOR line-up will allow for long-range, high-end launchers (BUK and NEVA) as well as a medium-range, middle-ground launcher like the OSA and TOR on those two cards (the TOR is arguably a little expensive for a middle-ground option, but still). This gives you the option to adapt on cost-effectiveness as well as situational needs. Meanwhile Eurocorps/Germany/Dutch-German-Corps rely only on Roland 3s and get as much of them on one card, as EB and USSR/SOVKOR get of the BUK and TOR.

So the buff from the current 0/4/3/0/0 to the proposed 0/5/4/0/0 availability of the Roland 3s would slightly increase the effectiveness of the user nations/coalitions by allowing them to either use more Rolands per card or get a slight veterancy bonus while still having the same numbers of launcher platforms. And it would be far from OP considering the rather mediocre situation of these coalitions dedicated anti-plane air defense in comparison to EB and USSR.
Image

Return to “Wargame : Red Dragon”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 41 guests