Make the USSR "Sufficient" Again!

User avatar
Killertomato
More than 10 000 messages. Soldier you are the leader of all armies!
Posts: 13730
Joined: Mon 9 Jul 2012 02:46
Contact:

Re: Make the USSR "Sufficient" Again!

Postby Killertomato » Sun 11 Dec 2016 19:47

Is it really not Commonwealth?
orcbuster wrote:USSR gets prototype marsupials, why would you need moose when you got stuff with kickers like that AND transport capability? And I'm not even gonna START on the french Marsupilami, I don't even think thats a real animal! Why no trolls for Norway?

AmberT
First Sergeant
Posts: 228
Joined: Fri 20 Sep 2013 10:46
Contact:

Re: Make the USSR "Sufficient" Again!

Postby AmberT » Sun 11 Dec 2016 20:12

Xeno426 wrote:
AmberT wrote:agree! give us the opportunity to explore this "data"

Suspicious air quotes. Do you somehow think Eugen is making up the data they have or is fabricating it?

i thing data is good but for making balances you need understand the game, love this game, play this game and keep an eye on best players ranked.

User avatar
Shrike
Lieutenant General
Posts: 4515
Joined: Sun 22 Sep 2013 04:30
Location: Central California, US
Contact:

Re: Make the USSR "Sufficient" Again!

Postby Shrike » Sun 11 Dec 2016 20:34

Azaz3l wrote:-TO-62: isn't even a real tank. Flamethrower tanks were rapidly dropped with TO-55.

Don't touch my mobile smoke screens plz.

http://www.armyrecognition.com/russia_r ... video.html
- T-62 flame-thrower: A flame-thrower version of the T-62 is in service under the designation of TO-62. This has a flame gun mounted coaxially with the 115 mm gun with an effective range of 100 m.


http://www.tanks-encyclopedia.com/coldw ... t_T-62.php
T-62 converted into a flamethrower tank, mounted co-axially to the main 115 mm gun.


There is also a book called Red Steel: Soviet tanks which mentions the TO-62.

User avatar
BTR
General
Posts: 6298
Joined: Fri 9 Dec 2011 21:16
Location: Россия
Contact:

Re: Make the USSR "Sufficient" Again!

Postby BTR » Sun 11 Dec 2016 21:02

There were three flamethrower tank projects from WW2. 481 > OT-54, 482 > OT-55 and 483 also produced on T-55 chassis
no OT-62 project exists despite being mentioned widely in western sources.
Image

User avatar
hansbroger
Lieutenant General
Posts: 4428
Joined: Sun 28 Jul 2013 03:45
Contact:

Re: Make the USSR "Sufficient" Again!

Postby hansbroger » Sun 11 Dec 2016 21:31

Xeno426 wrote:
AmberT wrote:agree! give us the opportunity to explore this "data"

Suspicious air quotes. Do you somehow think Eugen is making up the data they have or is fabricating it?


Eh I think the data probably backs up the claims but its the comparison that's problematic. Sure lets assume that the USSR is the most popular national deck, what does that actually tell us? Sure this would have been a highly useful statistic back in EE/ALB when people actually played national decks with a high degree of frequency, but now? They're not making up data but its presentation and the framing of the discussion is flawed and the comparison made useless.

TL:DR
Sure the USA and USSR are viable national decks, that was great in EE/ALB but this is RD. In RD the USA and USSR play in a Meta where people mostly use Coalition and Mixed/Non-spec decks... Why? Coalition balance has destroyed the national deck as a standalone entity outside of coordinated 2v2/3v3 team games which means they are rarely used unless they are DLC nations or obligatory standalones like USA/USSR. Absurdly restrictive availability regimes do not adequately differentiate the number of unit cards you can bring in a Mixed deck compared to a USSR/USA deck giving you nearly as many cherry picked better units in a Mixed deck as you can bring in a USA/USSR deck. The USA or USSR's viability as a "National Deck" is a practically irrelevant rubric to determine their actual position in game balance because the game is not balanced on a national deck basis as is repeatedly stated when people try to gain more comprehensive capabilities for nations such as the FRG or PRC. It's quite obvious that the USSR and USA rank highly on the national deck list, most non-DLC nations in game like France, PRC, DPRK, ANZAC, FRG etc have been relegated to a comparative capability level of an ALB third tier minor like Norway when compared to Mixed and Coalition decks that are the Meta. A convincing statistic would be to compare the frequency of USSR/USA standalone usage as compared to Mixed Blue/Mixed Red and coalitions rather than the misleading and irrelevant comparison to the use of other national decks. Furthermore only recent statistics will be relevant as the USSR has, with the neglect of Red Dragons, had the distinction of being the only consistently reliable national option out of only six RedFor nations with which to fill half the lobby slots in most non-private lobbies. It's certainly not the "Data" but it's certainly out of context.

The USA/USSR can be the "most viable national decks" and still be utterly insufficient in RD's Meta because.."It's Coalitions Stupid"
The USSR or USA as "The most popular/best National Deck" is a useless statistic because in most play, especially casual public, very few people take national decks. The "Coalition Balance" Meta of RD utterly destroys the standing of this argument because it has destroyed the viability of the individual national deck in the name of "Coalition Balance". To claim that the USSR or the USA need no attention simply because they rank highly on the "National Deck" viability list is to ignore the fact that most play in RD revolves around Mixed and Coalition deck based play. There are few if any non-paid DLC national decks in use and there is a convincing case to be made for the outright superiority of the USA and USSR over individual national decks anyway.

"USSR is the most popular national deck" is misleading and irrelevant because the most popular deck that the USSR plays against in RD isn't national, if anything it is Non-spec/Mixed or coalition and the USSR is forced to compete as a stand alone "National Deck" against decks that have the benefit of forming comprehensively capable and tailored capabilities. Sure the USSR or USA have comprehensive capabilities as in any given role is covered by something... But many coalitions, and certainly Mixed are capable of bringing superior units at every level in order to build a comprehensive portfolio of capabilities superior to those available to the national deck. This would not be a problem except for the fact that the availability regimes under which the USSR and USA operate are so restrictive as to place them nearly on par with Non-Spec decks, there is little to any incentive to limit yourself to the less capable offerings of a national deck like USSR/USA when you can bring almost as many cherry picked units under similar availability regimes that are comprehensively more capable.

RD is an expansion built and balanced around coalitions and non-spec mixed decks TO THE EXCLUSION of the comprehensive national capabilities of individual coalition partners, of which the USSR was and USA still is to the detriment of both. Once capable decks like the FRG for example missed out on modernization and kit due to their inclusion in coalitions and now have a comparative capability profile of a ALB 3rd tier national deck like Norway. Given the repeated dismissals of national deck improvement proposals on the basis of coalition balance it beggars belief that the USA and USSR are considered to be balanced on a national rather than mixed/coalition level.

The existence of the USA and USSR inside coalitions at various points and this further insistence on balancing them against national decks in RD has further exacerbated the situation as it curtailed their chances for modernization despite their being forced (as USSR currently is and US likely will) to exist as standalone nations in a world of Coalitions and Mixed decks.

The more apt comparison would be to show the frequency of USA/USSR national deck use in comparison to Mixed/Coalition decks. Furthermore comparisons should be made in the recent timeframe of the recent "supernational" DLC nations/coalitions rather than long term trends. Why not long term? There were six nations on RedFor USSR, CSSR, DDR, Poland, PRC, DPRK. Of these six only USSR and debateably DDR/PRC were popularly played as national decks given the ignored problem child status of the Red Dragons and the preference for taking EB nations as... well... a Coalition deck. It is again misleading to cite the popularity of the USSR in timeframes where it was the only capable RedFor national deck available to fill lobbies and it is only recently that there were any other compelling options to take a national deck other than the USSR.

To sum up, it doesn't matter how capable the USSR/USA is as a national deck because it (was/will be) is forced to play against coalitions and mixed decks as if it was itself a coalition. The lack of compelling national or indeed coalition RedFor competitors to the USSR for much of RD further skews the statistics in its favor, masking its status as an average player in a field of at times mediocrities. Only more recent comparisons encompassing the frequency of use of USSR/USA national vs COALITIONS and MIXED will provide an informative view of their comparative popularity and publicly perceived viability compared to the decks actually used in real play. With the aforementioned information in mind we can consider any claim of USSR/USA viability based on their popularity as national decks to be of dubious usefulness considering they are being compared to a field of nations neutered to fit into the Meta of "Coalition Balance". Bearing in mind their highly restrictive AP and availability regimes, a comparison of true merit would be to compare the frequency of use of these coalitions in all but name (for thats what they are truly forced to function as and fight against) to that of Mixed/Non-spec and Coalition decks.... While the Data of USSR/USA popularity as "National Decks' is probably perfectly accurate and factual, it is almost useless for determining their actual viability in the Meta of RD and should not be cited as such.
Projectnordic in game! will likely see you on pact/red dragons/french!
Image

User avatar
Xeno426
Carbon 13
Posts: 11965
Joined: Tue 13 Mar 2012 21:27
Location: Acheron, Hadley's Hope
Contact:

Re: Make the USSR "Sufficient" Again!

Postby Xeno426 » Sun 11 Dec 2016 22:52

hansbroger wrote:
Xeno426 wrote:
AmberT wrote:agree! give us the opportunity to explore this "data"

Suspicious air quotes. Do you somehow think Eugen is making up the data they have or is fabricating it?


Eh I think the data probably backs up the claims but its the comparison that's problematic. Sure lets assume that the USSR is the most popular national deck, what does that actually tell us? Sure this would have been a highly useful statistic back in EE/ALB when people actually played national decks with a high degree of frequency, but now? They're not making up data but its presentation and the framing of the discussion is flawed and the comparison made useless.

They have win rates for the various decks. As in, what percent of the matches those decks play in that they win.
Image
CloakandDagger wrote:And you're one of the people with the shiny colored name. No wonder the game is in the state it's in.

User avatar
QUAD
Colonel
Posts: 2766
Joined: Sun 10 Nov 2013 21:17
Contact:

Re: Make the USSR "Sufficient" Again!

Postby QUAD » Sun 11 Dec 2016 23:05

National decks can compete with coalition decks if they have an equal amount of good units that fit, combined with increased card slots and availability. For instance, USSR is the equal to any Redfor coalition deck above 1v1. (In 1v1 it is hamstrung by the fact that all of the good units are expensive, and they lack good cheap units.)
Mobile Units Operational :!:

User avatar
hansbroger
Lieutenant General
Posts: 4428
Joined: Sun 28 Jul 2013 03:45
Contact:

Re: Make the USSR "Sufficient" Again!

Postby hansbroger » Mon 12 Dec 2016 00:01

Xeno426 wrote:They have win rates for the various decks. As in, what percent of the matches those decks play in that they win.


I'm not doubting the win rates, I'm doubting the relevancy of comparing national deck win rates in order to somehow quantify national deck viability in a Meta dominated by Mixed and Coalition decks.

It may actually be as viable as claimed but justification of such a claim at the "national deck" level rings a bit hollow.

It is already the best single national deck and the second most efficient all decks considered.
Not only is it sufficient, it is the very best nation out there ...

Single best national deck only matters when your only opponents are national decks. The USSR may be the best national midweight boxer in the game but it has to go in the ring with supranational Coalitions and Mixed. It would be useful to qualify the above statement by stating that Mixed/Coalition decks are amongst the decks considered. As it currently stands it appears that the claim is based on the USSR's leading status among "national decks".

The USSR is the best RedFor nation out there and this further skewes statistics to inflate the prominence of the USSR in ratings for the following reasons:

Half of most lobbies have to be filled with RedFor. Historically there have been six RedFor nations, none as viable as USSR and only three coalitions (SovKor, NSWP and RD) to take instead with only two approaching or surpassing the USSR'S viability (and then not even all the time). There is every incentive for a competitively minded player stuck on the Red side of the lobby to take and win with USSR over its stablemates. The popularity of USSR exists only in relation to the other offerings of RedFor and independently of those in Bluefor.

Secondly the diversity of capable decks in Bluefor prevents the same bandwagon effect as with USSR, providing a more diverse distribution of popular winning decks, the very proliferation of capability among the coalitions created from the 10+ Bluefor nations preventing an obvious and deceptively significant data point like the USSR's.
Projectnordic in game! will likely see you on pact/red dragons/french!
Image

User avatar
Xeno426
Carbon 13
Posts: 11965
Joined: Tue 13 Mar 2012 21:27
Location: Acheron, Hadley's Hope
Contact:

Re: Make the USSR "Sufficient" Again!

Postby Xeno426 » Mon 12 Dec 2016 00:24

hansbroger wrote:I'm not doubting the win rates, I'm doubting the relevancy of comparing national deck win rates in order to somehow quantify national deck viability in a Meta dominated by Mixed and Coalition decks.

I'm pretty sure they track coalitions as well, which is why NSWP is on the top of the heap.
Image
CloakandDagger wrote:And you're one of the people with the shiny colored name. No wonder the game is in the state it's in.

R3d Sh4mbala
Sergeant Major
Posts: 291
Joined: Thu 12 May 2016 06:17
Contact:

Re: Make the USSR "Sufficient" Again!

Postby R3d Sh4mbala » Mon 12 Dec 2016 06:58

Xeno426 wrote:
hansbroger wrote:I'm not doubting the win rates, I'm doubting the relevancy of comparing national deck win rates in order to somehow quantify national deck viability in a Meta dominated by Mixed and Coalition decks.

I'm pretty sure they track coalitions as well, which is why NSWP is on the top of the heap.

Two questions:
A) How far back is Eugen using the data. Because if we throw in data from BETA years it skews info, or if we take data from most recent DLC? Does this skew info?

B)Why is this idiotic coalition balance argument being passed out, when USSR HAS NO COALITION ANYMORE! [aka SOVKOR has been taken behind the proverbial Eugen workshop and shot.] This argument is still valid. There is a desperate need for rebalancing between mixed, coalitions, and nationals. So each group has a strength or weakness.

Or else would you like to see USSR pairing up with other nations again? :evil:

USSR is going to need buffs, or the nationals are going to need some working. Because this is getting ugly.

Return to “Wargame : Red Dragon”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 35 guests