A confession: I don't want a Wargame 4.

User avatar
Broth3r
Chief Warrant Officer
Posts: 627
Joined: Mon 10 Mar 2014 19:25
Location: Lisbon, Portugal
Contact:

A confession: I don't want a Wargame 4.

Postby Broth3r » Sun 20 Nov 2016 07:47

Not for quite a while, at least.

I know it's poor form to present an example right away than building my argument first, but please bear with me.

IL-2 Sturmovik. A brilliant flight sim, improved and built upon the base game for over five years. The result was a game almost unmatched in content and flexibility, covering the entirety of WW2 both in theatres and in aircraft. Me and my mates play it to this day - the years do not weight on it. And as someone who values variety as much as I do, its incredible number of aircraft (at that level of detail) still leaves me in awe - particularly considering a lot of its obvious gaps were intended, and would probably not be there had those sets of aircraft not been purposefully left out (Battle of Britain-er aircraft for Cliffs of Dover, non-Russian/German 1946 aircraft, etc.). And it profoundly saddens me to see the state of the franchise today, with episodic games set on isolated battles with an extremely limited number of aircraft, each sold at full price - an absolute disgrace.

Thing is, as I look at Red Dragon today, I'm starting to see a bit of IL-2. Or the potential for it, at least. The core gameplay of RD is fantastic and well future-proofed, and proof that it aged well is it hasn't changed that much since EE. True, it's not perfect by any extent - but as a Battlefield fan, I'm quite used to massive patches well into the game's life, all for the rightful sake of improving it. Part of RD's initial appeal, naval combat, is a mostly failed sideshow. And it remains (only) visually set in Asia.

And yet, none of those are limiting to RD's potential, as we've seen with the successful nation packs. And it's been quite the ride watching their development. More than mere pieces of DLC, they been true products of love by the community's part - going back to DLC 1.

I know I'm an interested party, and this is a matter that goes much further than anyone's preference, but personally it'd far rather see Red Dragon be continually improved through patches and more nation packs than a hypothetical fourth Wargame. Because as much as I'd enjoy a fresh Wargame with all it could bring, I'd much rather observe, and in part partake in, the development of what was just another game in a series into a timeless leviathan of the genre.

Fodder
Sergeant Major
Posts: 284
Joined: Fri 7 Oct 2016 20:15
Contact:

Re: A confession: I don't want a Wargame 4.

Postby Fodder » Sun 20 Nov 2016 08:25

i agree
i dont want it too

codextero
Lieutenant Colonel
Posts: 2334
Joined: Sat 13 Dec 2014 02:52
Contact:

Re: A confession: I don't want a Wargame 4.

Postby codextero » Sun 20 Nov 2016 09:21

I completely disagree because I think unlike IL-2, WG:RD suffers from systemic problems as a results of its direct heritage from WG:EE and WG:ALB. Eugen developed these games in a very short period of time; ALB was released 1 year and 2 months after EE, and RD only 10 months after ALB.

The "standard" development cycle for an AAA game is about 3 years. When you look at "annual" AAA game like COD, there's 3 studios developing on their own 3 year cycles for annual releases; Treyarch, Infinity Ward, Sledgehammer. WG is not an AAA game, but even so, 1 year is a very short amount of time for game development and turnaround, which means a lot of former assets are re-used, and you don't have the time to do a detailed analysis of what went right and what went wrong. You can make game version 1.5+ in a year, not game 2.0.

There's things they needed/should have changed in the ALB to RD transition, but didn't, and as a result, RD is fairly weak in a number of systems, but remains playable because the fundamental mechanics of Wargame are very good. All these nation packs added on only adds content, but doesn't really fix many of the core issues with the game. Those issues can not be fixed without a "reboot edition" like Gray Goo or AOA got, and WG:RD is too far in it's life cycle to justify that.

This is my personal thesis. Eugen is not that big of a company, it doesn't have the staff to do full time development of 2 projects at once. So when AOA flopped and didn't sell very much, they needed RD Nation Packs to keep the lights on while the next product finishes it's development cycle, since RD nation packs are relatively cheap to develop. AOA released about a year ago, which means that we have about another year before Eugen releases another full game.

The 2.5 year break between WG:RD and ALB gives Eugen the chance to look at a lot of data, a lot of player feedback, and a much more mature meta to let them make a better Wargame 4. It's my hope that they do.

Anyhow, top 5 wishlist for WG 4

1. Matchmaking for casual games
2. WYSIWYG unit information. Display unit stats in relevant terms; rolls/minute rather than ROF for automatic weapons, some sort of numerical tooltip for the current "adjective" stats (Stealth, optics)
3. A more robust tools library to allow player map creation and easier modding. Currently, Eugen does not own a lot of the programs they used to make WG:RD, which means they can't give players map modding tools. Starcraft 2 is the gold standard, one that will probably never be reached, but a good indication of what powerful modding tools can do for a community.
4. More unit control options, which would allow players to manage larger amounts of units. Things like "match speed", showing current route, easier sub-selection of units within a larger group, the ability to toggle off weapon groups (all ATGM off, all RAD weapons off etc.)
5. "planning" tools. The ability to draw lines on a map, both for player use and to set behaviors for units. The battle planner in Hearts of Iron 4 really opened up a lot of possibilities for macro control. Imagine drawing a line in a forest, assigning a bunch of tanks to that line, and they automatically space themselves out evenly. Then when you tell that line of tanks to attack another line, they stay in a line and maintain the same spacing instead of bunching up. That makes you feel like an actual commander giving orders to subordinate units, rather than the cat-herder in the sky scurrying to save your M1A2 driving infants.

All of these are not content problems, because those are relatively easily fixed. They are programmer problems, which are difficult to fix without a new game giving programmers more freedom to do their thing.

urogard
Brigadier
Posts: 3055
Joined: Sun 4 May 2014 13:31
Contact:

Re: A confession: I don't want a Wargame 4.

Postby urogard » Sun 20 Nov 2016 11:44

codextero wrote:Anyhow, top 5 wishlist for WG 4

1. Matchmaking for casual games
...

All of these are not content problems, because those are relatively easily fixed. They are programmer problems, which are difficult to fix without a new game giving programmers more freedom to do their thing.

6. A lot of UI changes in the menus (you can't order games if the list is still refreshing, you can't order your decks in the lobby, you don't even have flags for all coalitions to name your decks, unit filters are a series of AND filters so you cannot select e.g. all units that are wheeled but filter out the ones with KE weapons)

User avatar
Narcissistic Black
Major
Posts: 1887
Joined: Tue 14 Jan 2014 01:58
Contact:

Re: A confession: I don't want a Wargame 4.

Postby Narcissistic Black » Sun 20 Nov 2016 12:57

codextero wrote:I completely disagree because I think unlike IL-2, WG:RD suffers from systemic problems as a results of its direct heritage from WG:EE and WG:ALB. Eugen developed these games in a very short period of time; ALB was released 1 year and 2 months after EE, and RD only 10 months after ALB.

The "standard" development cycle for an AAA game is about 3 years. When you look at "annual" AAA game like COD, there's 3 studios developing on their own 3 year cycles for annual releases; Treyarch, Infinity Ward, Sledgehammer. WG is not an AAA game, but even so, 1 year is a very short amount of time for game development and turnaround, which means a lot of former assets are re-used, and you don't have the time to do a detailed analysis of what went right and what went wrong. You can make game version 1.5+ in a year, not game 2.0.

There's things they needed/should have changed in the ALB to RD transition, but didn't, and as a result, RD is fairly weak in a number of systems, but remains playable because the fundamental mechanics of Wargame are very good. All these nation packs added on only adds content, but doesn't really fix many of the core issues with the game. Those issues can not be fixed without a "reboot edition" like Gray Goo or AOA got, and WG:RD is too far in it's life cycle to justify that.

This is my personal thesis. Eugen is not that big of a company, it doesn't have the staff to do full time development of 2 projects at once. So when AOA flopped and didn't sell very much, they needed RD Nation Packs to keep the lights on while the next product finishes it's development cycle, since RD nation packs are relatively cheap to develop. AOA released about a year ago, which means that we have about another year before Eugen releases another full game.

The 2.5 year break between WG:RD and ALB gives Eugen the chance to look at a lot of data, a lot of player feedback, and a much more mature meta to let them make a better Wargame 4. It's my hope that they do.

Anyhow, top 5 wishlist for WG 4

1. Matchmaking for casual games
2. WYSIWYG unit information. Display unit stats in relevant terms; rolls/minute rather than ROF for automatic weapons, some sort of numerical tooltip for the current "adjective" stats (Stealth, optics)
3. A more robust tools library to allow player map creation and easier modding. Currently, Eugen does not own a lot of the programs they used to make WG:RD, which means they can't give players map modding tools. Starcraft 2 is the gold standard, one that will probably never be reached, but a good indication of what powerful modding tools can do for a community.
4. More unit control options, which would allow players to manage larger amounts of units. Things like "match speed", showing current route, easier sub-selection of units within a larger group, the ability to toggle off weapon groups (all ATGM off, all RAD weapons off etc.)
5. "planning" tools. The ability to draw lines on a map, both for player use and to set behaviors for units. The battle planner in Hearts of Iron 4 really opened up a lot of possibilities for macro control. Imagine drawing a line in a forest, assigning a bunch of tanks to that line, and they automatically space themselves out evenly. Then when you tell that line of tanks to attack another line, they stay in a line and maintain the same spacing instead of bunching up. That makes you feel like an actual commander giving orders to subordinate units, rather than the cat-herder in the sky scurrying to save your M1A2 driving infants.

All of these are not content problems, because those are relatively easily fixed. They are programmer problems, which are difficult to fix without a new game giving programmers more freedom to do their thing.




You're missing 1 important thing, If it's truely going to be wargame then it needs to include all of Units and Countries from Wargame 4.

Although here are some other things that could be improved on..

Bring back the Circle Optics and Range circle. It's truely needed and would be helpful toward making tactical decisions.
Image
Image


Please for the love of my loyalty for buying AoA bring back the command room and remove that black background. PLEASE.
Image

Image

Also whats WYSIWYG stand for?
The First Narcissist
Image
Click signature to see Modification, Alpha Released. Try now.

User avatar
FrangibleCover
Lieutenant
Posts: 1448
Joined: Mon 14 Nov 2016 21:34
Contact:

Re: A confession: I don't want a Wargame 4.

Postby FrangibleCover » Sun 20 Nov 2016 13:10

I don't want another Wargame soon, certainly, not with all the excitement about different nations going on. I think the best thing to do would be to keep on pushing out nation packs until they run out of nations the community can muster up some interest for (around 2030 probably, with the addition of Ecuador, the Phillipines and Chad :D ), while at the same time preparing Wargame: Global Offensive (or something) which is where the Gameplay/QoL improvements happen and where all of the DLC nation packs can be mashed together into one or more cohesive storylines with map assets from around the world. Then the DLC, possibly FreeLC because Eugen have a history of it, is focused on providing maps.

Oh, and bring back MP campaigns!
What if Wargame stuck to timeframe?
Image

User avatar
Demonicjapsel
Chief Warrant Officer
Posts: 680
Joined: Sat 26 Jul 2014 20:58
Location: Triggering HRCK and his warcrime denying Yugoboos

Re: A confession: I don't want a Wargame 4.

Postby Demonicjapsel » Sun 20 Nov 2016 13:32

Narcissistic Black wrote:
Also whats WYSIWYG stand for?


What You See Is What You Get.

normally used in tabletop wargaming to indicate that all upgrades need to be modeled

User avatar
PzAz04Maus
Lieutenant
Posts: 1365
Joined: Sat 22 Mar 2014 01:42
Contact:

Re: A confession: I don't want a Wargame 4.

Postby PzAz04Maus » Sun 20 Nov 2016 14:29

I completely disagree because I think unlike IL-2, WG:RD suffers from systemic problems as a results of its direct heritage from WG:EE and WG:ALB. Eugen developed these games in a very short period of time; ALB was released 1 year and 2 months after EE, and RD only 10 months after ALB.

For one, infantry gameplay needs to be worked on.

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

Re: A confession: I don't want a Wargame 4.

Postby morpher » Sun 20 Nov 2016 14:50

You fools! Wargame 4 NAO!

RedFive
Warrant Officer
Posts: 400
Joined: Wed 6 Jan 2016 15:22
Contact:

Re: A confession: I don't want a Wargame 4.

Postby RedFive » Sun 20 Nov 2016 15:30

If they were spending that sweet expansion pack money on adding new features to the game rather than content I would agree. But it seems like any suggestion for new/changed features for WG:RD is met with "no serious code changes at this point in the game's development", so it looks like all we'll get is bugfixes and balancing (aside from new units/factions in DLC).

I am fine with this. A new Wargame can make bigger changes than revisions to the current one can, and would likely be a bigger revenue source for the developers when released. Hopefully the DLCs are funding development of the next iteration.

Return to “Wargame : Red Dragon”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 24 guests