10vs10 in general

User avatar
molnibalage
General
Posts: 6706
Joined: Thu 1 Aug 2013 22:54
Location: Hungary
Contact:

Re: 10vs10 in general

Postby molnibalage » Thu 16 Jun 2016 12:51

M4jor wrote:The "formation" you get when holding down the mouse when ordering units to move cannot be combined (at least not to my knowledge) with an attack move oder move fast order. So its virtually not usefull. Also, the units will only form the "formation" when reaching the destinated area, not before.

This is not exactly true. If your tanks are in column and you move them far away into line, they start forming the line very quicky. The problem is you cannot define wedge, box or other formation not mentioning you cannot define loose of dense formation for group. The spread icon has no use.

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

Re: 10vs10 in general

Postby morpher » Thu 16 Jun 2016 13:28

molnibalage wrote:
M4jor wrote:The "formation" you get when holding down the mouse when ordering units to move cannot be combined (at least not to my knowledge) with an attack move oder move fast order. So its virtually not usefull. Also, the units will only form the "formation" when reaching the destinated area, not before.

This is not exactly true. If your tanks are in column and you move them far away into line, they start forming the line very quicky. The problem is you cannot define wedge, box or other formation not mentioning you cannot define loose of dense formation for group. The spread icon has no use.


How many tanks do you use to need "wedge" and "box" formations?

User avatar
molnibalage
General
Posts: 6706
Joined: Thu 1 Aug 2013 22:54
Location: Hungary
Contact:

Re: 10vs10 in general

Postby molnibalage » Thu 16 Jun 2016 13:36

morpher wrote:
molnibalage wrote:
M4jor wrote:The "formation" you get when holding down the mouse when ordering units to move cannot be combined (at least not to my knowledge) with an attack move oder move fast order. So its virtually not usefull. Also, the units will only form the "formation" when reaching the destinated area, not before.

This is not exactly true. If your tanks are in column and you move them far away into line, they start forming the line very quicky. The problem is you cannot define wedge, box or other formation not mentioning you cannot define loose of dense formation for group. The spread icon has no use.


How many tanks do you use to need "wedge" and "box" formations?

For 4 vehicle cell would be a great tool, but you forget someting. In the mentioned older games you could designate as many units as you wish and you could apply group formations. Same case of WG just wish more deepe setting by counting the unit type. So for ex. if you set double line, the AD units automatically could be assigned into 2nd line just behind the first and in case the formation is kept = with set same speed order.

Considering how advanced on many areas WG it is uberly shit on unit controls and unit, knows less than some 15 year old RTS...

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

Re: 10vs10 in general

Postby morpher » Thu 16 Jun 2016 13:46

molnibalage wrote:For 4 vehicle cell would be a great tool, but you forget someting. In the mentioned older games you could designate as many units as you wish and you could apply group formations. Same case of WG just wish more deepe setting by counting the unit type. So for ex. if you set double line, the AD units automatically could be assigned into 2nd line just behind the first and in case the formation is kept = with set same speed order.

Considering how advanced on many areas WG it is uberly shit on unit controls and unit, knows less than some 15 year old RTS...


But those 15 years old games lack a lot of wargame mechanics like cover, recon, los. It made sense because the gameplay was more similar to a medieval combat than modern war.

Unless you are in open desert, strict formations are useless.

User avatar
molnibalage
General
Posts: 6706
Joined: Thu 1 Aug 2013 22:54
Location: Hungary
Contact:

Re: 10vs10 in general

Postby molnibalage » Thu 16 Jun 2016 14:07

morpher wrote:Unless you are in open desert, strict formations are useless.

Pal, you do not have to be open desert. In WG it would be great if you could set your tanks follow the inf. what you have to micro to the death... I can say tons of situation where with "set the same speed", or keeping a formation with same speed is essential in WG. These cases are only gambling in WG and makes a tactical RTS a f*cking reflex game which is totally stupid.

This is also true for aircraft useage. You cannot setup VISIBLE waypoints to optimize the radar coverage and make less vulnerable to ambush whee a lucky player send his/her fighter when your just turn back and can't fire back. This is just a sad consquence of compressed distances. Now a turn radius of a fighter is on the same salce as missile ranges...

M4jor
Sergeant Major of the Army
Posts: 390
Joined: Mon 13 Jun 2016 12:59
Contact:

Re: 10vs10 in general

Postby M4jor » Thu 16 Jun 2016 14:08

morpher wrote:
molnibalage wrote:For 4 vehicle cell would be a great tool, but you forget someting. In the mentioned older games you could designate as many units as you wish and you could apply group formations. Same case of WG just wish more deepe setting by counting the unit type. So for ex. if you set double line, the AD units automatically could be assigned into 2nd line just behind the first and in case the formation is kept = with set same speed order.

Considering how advanced on many areas WG it is uberly shit on unit controls and unit, knows less than some 15 year old RTS...


But those 15 years old games lack a lot of wargame mechanics like cover, recon, los. It made sense because the gameplay was more similar to a medieval combat than modern war.

Unless you are in open desert, strict formations are useless.


Considering the fact, that unecessary bugs with buildings, stupid immobility crits, burning trees and other "sh...." stuff makes it a sheer pain to fight anywhere but in the open, most of the battles in Red Dragon actually happen there, out in the open, where formations are ofc a big matter.

In EE, woods were infantry territory.
In ALB, woods were tank lank
In RD, woods are just death traps for anything that moves inside of it.

Would also be fun to see Infantry and vehicles advancing in that "death" trap with the same speed...

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

Re: 10vs10 in general

Postby morpher » Thu 16 Jun 2016 14:14

molnibalage wrote:
morpher wrote:Unless you are in open desert, strict formations are useless.

Pal, you do not have to be open desert. In WG it would be great if you could set your tanks follow the inf. what you have to micro to the death... I can say tons of situation where with "set the same speed", or keeping a formation with same speed is essential in WG. These cases are only gambling in WG and makes a tactical RTS a f*cking reflex game which is totally stupid.

This is also true for aircraft useage. You cannot setup VISIBLE waypoints to optimize the radar coverage and make less vulnerable to ambush whee a lucky player send his/her fighter when your just turn back and can't fire back. This is just a sad consquence of compressed distances. Now a turn radius of a fighter is on the same salce as missile ranges...


I agree that some more tools like set same speed would be fantastic, also visible markers to estimate ranges.

For the formations I am still not convinced, in WG position is everything and it is what make the difference between good and bad players (let rephrase) winning and losing.

M4jor
Sergeant Major of the Army
Posts: 390
Joined: Mon 13 Jun 2016 12:59
Contact:

Re: 10vs10 in general

Postby M4jor » Thu 16 Jun 2016 15:36


For the formations I am still not convinced, in WG position is everything and it is what make the difference between good and bad players (let rephrase) winning and losing.


Correct.
And maybe better formation options for units, no matter if grouped or not, would encourage even inexperienced players to move their units some more and make it easier for experienced players to use the advantages of maneuver warfare.

Zoring
Warrant Officer
Posts: 489
Joined: Fri 31 May 2013 11:50
Contact:

Re: 10vs10 in general

Postby Zoring » Thu 16 Jun 2016 18:30

10v10 is basically cancer to wargame, balance and gameplay are thrown out the window in a pointless massive brawl, the true game is 3v3 and lower. Anyone who attempts to speak about balance and mentions 10v10 opinion can basically be discarded.

I refuse to defend my position, but know that my opinion is correct.
Want to know how to make 116 redundant units usable? Click to read my thread on Recon Refitting!
Image

User avatar
F-22
Lieutenant
Posts: 1225
Joined: Thu 30 May 2013 03:13
Contact:

Re: 10vs10 in general

Postby F-22 » Thu 16 Jun 2016 20:27

I posted my salty rant on 10v10's a few pages back without listing any attempts to try to improve it and that was my mistake, and I wanted to remedy it with some more sugar based posting.

If you wanted to actually make 10v10 more viable you could (This is based of my experience in my 50 10v10 games):

--Limit artillery per player (This is a bad idea I know, but hear me out to the next point)
1 person with a support deck and basic knowledge of counter artillery avoidance can stagnate a game with ease especially on some of the absolutely terrible maps people decide to play on. Even for the greatest wargame player, having to consistently dodge ATACAM's, Smerch Strikes, or Artillery gets very annoying very fast even if you're not taking damage from them. This solution I think is out of the games scope because it's difficult to hard balance 10v10's like this, but can be remedied by my next point.

--The use of maps that aren't terrible in 10v10 would help.
Straight to the Point is the worst map for any 10v10 to be on, there's no room for maneuver warfare and any concentrated use of artillery will stop the game, yet I see people continually playing on it. It's like playing Wargame in the most linear fashion possible. 9/10 times people use massive waves of helicopters for the opener because it's not a fight for land, it's a fight for bridges. You have to use all-in strategies to prevent 45 minutes of sitzkrieg.

Couple this with decently high income and you've made the problem 2x worse. Other maps suffer from the sitzkreig as well, Jungle Law 10v10 is too narrow for 10v10 play with the amount of artillery present yet I see it being played as well. Maps need to be wide for 10v10 without too many direct choke points. Private servers are in a different field I know, but a lot of them are just set up really terribly yet I see people consistently play them.

--Tactical games
I'm not going to really touch on these because some people seem to enjoy them, I personally find them 1-3 unit micro simulator but there certainly a player base for them. These games can generally be played on standard maps so they're not that bad, but they're not my cup of tea at all.

--The addition of a 10v10 auto-match
In my experience 10v10's are a playground for groups of people to utterly wreck pubbies and noobs consistently. This is discouraging people to continue to play and learn Wargame as people are generally directed to 10v10 to learn the game, yet they're consistently getting utterly wrecked. 10v10 should/could be where people can casually pick up a game and feel things are relatively equal without having to play Wargame Lobbysim.

Official matches in 10v10 need to be balanced so that for every scrub you have on your team it is matched with an equally scrub player. Same with decent players, decent players should be matched up against decent players. Currently you can easily predict who will win games by just glancing at stats. Having a 10v10 automatch will add an air of tension back into the games albeit you'll still be at the mercy of your teammates but at least it's equal right. This solution would be much better for player retention.

---

Note some people are in the camp of removing 10v10's entirely, and I can't say I would be against that but I feel 10v10 can actually be improved to be a more useful part of the wargame experience if things are actually changed to shape it up that way. For actual unit balance it just doesn't seem feasible to balance units in 10v10 without doing something real funky to 4v4 and down, so if 10v10 can not be improved with unit balance improve it in other departments.

Return to “Wargame : Red Dragon”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 16 guests