The Next Big Thing for Wargame

scottslater
Corporal
Posts: 44
Joined: Mon 10 Feb 2014 03:55
Contact:

The Next Big Thing for Wargame

Postby scottslater » Fri 2 Dec 2016 01:59

So I've been looking at the new nations introduced today (they are great by the way) and I really believe that it is time for a reroll of many units and an introduction of new units for the OG nations of Wargame.

If you look at the newest nations to the game, the Netherlands, Israel, Yugoslavia, and Finland, a common theme comes across to me and that is that these nations feel like they are excellent stand alone nations (though the Netherlands could use some FSV and I want an American version of the Apache Escort!). At the same time, we have nations like France that should be excellent stand alone nations but are not. I feel that it is time to look at coalitions as more of a flavor thing (Eurocorps is a perfect example) rather then a balancing tool.

Here are some other things that I think could really help the game feel fresh (these are things I want to see brought to Wargame: Red Dragon before we move on):

1. Reroll Tanks:

So my thinking here is we are getting heavier and heavier tanks in the Recon Tab with each new nation (which personally I am all for, though I think the new Yugo Recon Tank should be nerfed to Good optics or price nerfed). For each nation, there should be one or more of the medium to heavy medium tanks (80-140 pts) that should get Good optics and slid into the Recon Tab. Two reasons for this, first we get something that Armor and General Decks should have, which is a real tank(s) in the Recon Tab. Secondly, and more importantly to me, is tanks that don't see any play have a chance to see play as they wouldn't be fighting for spots in the same tab against Super Heavies and cost effective/availability. Anything that adds more tanks to the battlefield I like!

2. Blufor's lack of MLRS:

While it is known that Redfor loved their MLRS, it wasn't like Blufor nations also didn't use them. In fact, almost every nation in the game had the M270 MLRS in their armies! I propose that every nation that had it (the only ones that didn't would be Sweden, AZNAC, and Canada) get one card of 2 for each a HE and Cluster variant, so a total of 2 cards. And let the USA keep the ATACMS, but switch it to HE so that it can be used against "soft" targets as well.

3. Tactical Missiles:

I want to see the Honest John and Scud in the game! And for the more advanced option you have access to the Lance and Tochka as well. Lastly, as a flavor of more of that French independence during the time period, let's have the Pluton and Hades added! What I like about having more access to these type of assets is that they are a huge strain on your supplies and are expensive units. These combined can help with the next thing. And lastly I would look for an advanced option for USSR as a counter to the ATACMS (and let's get rid of the Patriot while we are at it!).

4. Remove the Panic Button (planes):

With the introduction of more ground based assets that require preplanning (MLRS and Tactical Missiles, maybe even give them their own tab, lol), planes can be less of a panic button option and more of a preplanning option. If you want Air Coverage, you better call in your ASF/Interceptors before you see those bombing runs coming in as it takes 5 or 10 seconds before they are able to have an effect! If all ground based assets (and helicopters) require time to enter the game, why don't planes? This has always bugged me and gives them a Panic Button feel which sucks. And I would like to see more CAS/COIN roles on planes.

5. The next Nations Pack, Rivals:

I want to see Italy and Iran in the game. These nations are perfect as adversaries against Yugoslavia and Israel! On top of that, Italy actually has original kit to add to Blufor. And Israel really needs someone that is in their theatre to beat up on, lol.


So to sum up:

More MLRS/Tactical Missiles, less Panic Button (instant planes)
More Tanks in the Recon Tab
Next Nation Pack has got to be Italy and Iran (and then add two more Redfor nations)
Last edited by scottslater on Sat 3 Dec 2016 05:24, edited 1 time in total.
Give me Freedom or give me Death.

Falcrack
Lieutenant
Posts: 1418
Joined: Sat 18 Feb 2012 21:10
Contact:

Re: The Next Big Thing for Wargame

Postby Falcrack » Fri 2 Dec 2016 05:05

My wish list for the next Wargame:

1. Custom, or at least much more varied, loadouts for aircraft. You select an airframe (it has a base price), and there are available loadouts that differ in cost based on the weapons. For example, AIM-120 would be 10 points each, AIM-9L 5 points each, LGB 15 points each, you get the idea. Each airframe could choose from 5-10 different loadouts for different missions, which are historically accurate. This way, we would not know what type of mission an aircraft would be performing just by seeing "F-16" for the unit name.

2. Pop-up smoke for units which had it, auto ability which has chance for activation based on unit veterancy

3. Ability to generate smoke for longer term (like tanks creating smoke screens, at the price of increased fuel usage)

4. Delay for calling in air units

5. Delay at start of match for artillery firing (rid us of the cancer of blind firing on roads at the start of the match plz)

6. Option for jamming pods on planes which have the effect of reducing accuracy of radar missiles for the plane, multiple jamming pods can also provide an ECM boost to nearby allied planes within a given radius as well.

7. Longer fuel times (maybe 2x current values)

9. Dynamic campaign similar to RD but with multiplayer (vs or coop), campaign editor, and can play either side for campaign. Bring it back to Europe. Additional linear story driven (non-dynamic) campaign to satisfy demands of those who want it.

10. Infantry can dig in (activated ability which increases their "armor" as long as they remain stationary, takes a few minutes to complete)

11. Counterbattery radar units which can spot location of firing artillery. A ping which last for several seconds appears next to the spot where arty or rockets fired from.

12. Much less visibility to player of incoming artillery, maybe arty and rockets only become visible in the last quarter of their flight, or when they get close enough to be seen by player units. Reduced visibility to player of enemy launched ATGMs, seeing ATGMs in flight should require some recon to see like other units. Same goes for smoke, bombs, napalm, smoke from rocket launches, etc, they all require recon to see. So unless you have good recon, you may not be able to see that incoming ATGM until it is right on top of you.

13. VISIBLE WAYPOINTS. Highlight unit, press shift, and you can see where the unit(s) have been ordered to go, and the route they will take to get there. Press shift when selecting units, and you can drag waypoints around. Waypoints for vehicles moved close to roads will snap to roads to use them preferentially. Ability to issue commands at certain waypoints ahead of time (like load/unload), which is currently implemented, but would become visible with this

14. Range circles for selected units, for weapons range, line of sight, etc.

15. Drop naval, retain amphibious ability for some units, fewer bridges for maps in general.

16. Engineering units which can create temporary, destructable bridges. Regular bridges are destructable.

17. Command vehicle concept radically changed, CV are still required to continue fighting, but no longer needed to capture zones. If your last personal cv dies in a team game, your units are inherited by another player, and you are out of the game. Large price decrease for CV units, but verylimited availability. Zones capture is decided simply by presence of land units, becomes contested when land units from different sides are in the same zone.

18. Starting zone never changes sides or is contested, at least one air corridor and land reinforcement route is always open.

19. Unit inheritance rules changed, player inherits friendly units based on proximity to their own units, not the order in the lobby.

20. Global rating based on wins/loss which scales according to the strength of your opponent (ie wins vs stronger opponents gives larger increase in rating, losses to weaker opponents gives larger loss in rating). In lobby, a quality score based on aggregate rating of all players to help ensure balanced games. Option to host unrated games where game outcome does not affect rating and which rating is not visible.

21. Enemy units which have been spotted require less recon ability to keep eyes on them, as long as there is still line of sight. If a recon unit dies, the tank with bad optics can still see it since it was informed previously of the enemy location. If the tank can see well enough to fire on it, it should be able to keep eyes on it even if the spotting unit which saw it first died.


A new game that simply adds new nations or new units would be a waste, gameplay changes like some I listed would go a long way to improving the game, in my opinion.

User avatar
molnibalage
General
Posts: 6683
Joined: Thu 1 Aug 2013 22:54
Location: Hungary
Contact:

Re: The Next Big Thing for Wargame

Postby molnibalage » Fri 2 Dec 2016 09:38

scottslater wrote:
1. Reroll Tanks:

So my thinking here is we are getting heavier and heavier tanks in the Recon Tab with each new nation (which personally I am all for, though I think the new Yugo Recon Tank should be nerfed to Good optics or price nerfed). For each nation, there should be one or more of the medium to heavy medium tanks (80-140 pts) that should get Good optics and slid into the Recon Tab
.
I agree, it is insane how strong the new recon tank.

2. Blufor's lack of MLRS:

While it is known that Redfor loved their MLRS, it wasn't like Blufor nations also didn't use them. In fact, almost every nation in the game had the M270 MLRS in their armies! I propose that every nation that had it (the only ones that didn't would be Sweden, AZNAC, and Canada) get one card of 2 for each a HE and Cluster variant, so a total of 2 cards. And let the USA keep the ATACMS, but switch it to HE so that it can be used against "soft" targets as well.

Without adding new unit is impossible for US. Eugen won't do it. As I can remember in RL HE munition for M270 later arrived and was called OOTF. I have to say is quite a funny reasoning considering how fantasy units got nations in DLC packs...

3. Tactical Missiles:

I want to see the Honest John and Scud in the game! And for the more advanced option you have access to the Lance and Tochka as well. Lastly, as a flavor of more of that French independence during the time period, let's have the Pluton and Hades added! What I like about having more access to these type of assets is that they are a huge strain on your supplies and are expensive units. These combined can help with the next thing. And lastly I would look for an advanced option for USSR as a counter to the ATACMS (and let's get rid of the Patriot while we are at it!)
.
Pls. no. How many times have to be explained the RL acc of tactical missiles? They only role was carry nuclear or chemical warheads. The Lance is even enough cancerous in DB.

4. Remove the Panic Button (planes):

With the introduction of more ground based assets that require preplanning (MLRS and Tactical Missiles, maybe even give them their own tab, lol), planes can be less of a panic button option and more of a preplanning option. If you want Air Coverage, you better call in your ASF/Interceptors before you see those bombing runs coming in as it takes 5 or 10 seconds before they are able to have an effect! If all ground based assets (and helicopters) require time to enter the game, why don't planes? This has always bugged me and gives them a Panic Button feel which sucks. And I would like to see more CAS/COIN roles on planes.

You cannot removes planes and is enough CAS AC in game. COIN role is someting different WG does not model COIN warfare.

thenosh
Lieutenant
Posts: 1456
Joined: Wed 11 Sep 2013 19:32
Contact:

Re: The Next Big Thing for Wargame

Postby thenosh » Fri 2 Dec 2016 09:44

If you end up saying "more mlrs" you took the wrong turn somewhere. Right now it seems that mlrs is dominating the bigger games up to an annoying level.
"Where is my T-80UK CV with top mounted BUK-M1?"

-Wargame global chat, somewhen somewhere-

scottslater
Corporal
Posts: 44
Joined: Mon 10 Feb 2014 03:55
Contact:

Re: The Next Big Thing for Wargame

Postby scottslater » Fri 2 Dec 2016 13:32

thenosh wrote:If you end up saying "more mlrs" you took the wrong turn somewhere. Right now it seems that mlrs is dominating the bigger games up to an annoying level.


To be fairly honest, I would rather deal with MLRS/Tactical Missile spam then Plane spam, at least you can try to outmaneuver those.

And making MLRS/TM balanced wouldn't be very difficult. These are game altering type of units, so lets treat them as such. Make every unit one per card with a max of 2 cards, increase their CP cost, increase their aim/reload time, and their supply cost. At least these units would have some sort of strain on a long game unlike Planes with their "unlimited" supply.
Give me Freedom or give me Death.

User avatar
Shi-Shi Mao
Specialist
Posts: 16
Joined: Mon 28 Nov 2016 16:09
Location: Republic of Perkele
Contact:

Re: The Next Big Thing for Wargame

Postby Shi-Shi Mao » Fri 2 Dec 2016 16:33

I call it. Taliban for the next Wargame. The Taliban-controlled Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan fits the timeline after all (1996-2001). Just imagine all of those suicide-bomber recon units, and all those 4x4 suicide bomb vehicles doing 24 HE damage ;) Also, just hearing them shout "Allahu Akbar!" and "Takbir!" over the radio will be well worth it.


Okay, all joking aside, I think the way the ships function should be reconfigured. There is a lot of tweaking and inventing to be done. The navy system shouldn't stay the way it is right now, but on the other hand taking the ships away altogether in the next Wargame would be a step back, not a step forward. If they by some miracle can incorporate submarines in the spirit somewhat akin to Act of War: High Treason (as I suggested in a separate thread), then that would be very pleasant.

I think the most natural way to go forward is for Eugen to take the alternate timeline of Wargame to the early 21st century and to draft a meaningful alternate history that would bridge the mid 90s (where the game series currently is) and the alternate early 2000s neatly together. New technology and new units will arrive to the decks and the units that used to be high-tier will now have greater availability and perhaps lower price (and this will apply more or less for all the factions currently in the game). Of course, some of the new equipment would have to be altered from their real-life counterparts (for example, Finland would not get Leopard 2A4s as it did in real life, but would probably get T-72BU/T-90s due to its affiliation with Soviet Union within the game etc).

Of course, some new countries that I would like to see added would include Italy, Taiwan, Singapore and Iran, all of which I believe will have something unique to add within a early 21st century timeline.

User avatar
Spielführer
Second-Lieutenant
Posts: 950
Joined: Sun 28 Apr 2013 12:35
Location: Germany
Contact:

Re: The Next Big Thing for Wargame

Postby Spielführer » Fri 2 Dec 2016 16:35

Falcrack wrote:text


Very good points!
Soldier of passion. Diplom rerum militarium
Image

User avatar
FUBAR1939
Warrant Officer
Posts: 412
Joined: Thu 13 Jun 2013 06:24
Contact:

Re: The Next Big Thing for Wargame

Postby FUBAR1939 » Fri 2 Dec 2016 17:41

The next big thing for Wargame will be W WWII, a famous youtuber already called it.
Image

scottslater
Corporal
Posts: 44
Joined: Mon 10 Feb 2014 03:55
Contact:

Re: The Next Big Thing for Wargame

Postby scottslater » Fri 2 Dec 2016 17:47

I should clarify, I'm not talking about the next Wargame. These are things I want to see in the current game.
Give me Freedom or give me Death.

User avatar
Mike
More than 10 000 messages. Soldier you are the leader of all armies!
Posts: 12406
Joined: Thu 20 Feb 2014 01:09
Location: Virginia, United States of America
Contact:

Re: The Next Big Thing for Wargame

Postby Mike » Fri 2 Dec 2016 17:48

Oh look, another one!
Image
Courtesy of KattiValk

Return to “Wargame : Red Dragon”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 32 guests