USA and USSR the superpowers... or not?

User avatar
JoonasTo
Master Sergeant
Posts: 192
Joined: Thu 17 Nov 2016 21:30
Location: Somewhere in the Finnish woodlands
Contact:

Re: USA and USSR the superpowers... or not?

Postby JoonasTo » Sun 11 Dec 2016 14:49

With the current set of rules in Wargame being a superpower is more of a hindrance than an advantage.

The whole point of a superpower is that you can saturate the area with overwhelming amount of equipment and troops, regardless of where it is. It doesn't matter how expensive your deployment is either because you can afford it anyway. Due to how Wargame works these real life advantage don't exist in game. All sides are always equal in the battlefield here and expensive units are a hindrance.
If it was real life comparable you'd have US start with 5000000000000 deployment points and USSR decks would have 5000 slots, while Finland could afford to send, maybe one squadron of Mig-21s to Korea at best. Probably not even that, likely just a few volunteers. So likely all you'd have to pick from, would be one card of Nostoväki or something. If it was like this, then it'd be fine.

It is not though, in fact, I'd argue that USA especially is buffed like no tomorrow to make it playable in this game. Imagine what a squad of Bochongsu costs in real life, compared to a Riflemen squad?
Just for comparison, they have 1,200,000 active military personnel(around the same amount as the US,) making them the fifth largest military in the world, while being one of the poorest countries in the world. US military budget is 610 billion, NK total GDP is 17 billion. With numbers like that, the US military food costs are bound to be larger than the whole NK military spending. Think about that for a moment.
NK infantry shouldn't cost deployment points at all in game(or at most one) and as it's happening in Korea, they'd be able to bring all of it. How would it feel to call in your Riflemen squad in that Bradley when the NK player calls in 50 squads for that same amount? Of course you'd have airpower being the US but if you spend points on a bomber, the NK player will just keep calling in more and more infantry, after all, he has a five million more (wo)men to bring to the field. What will you do when your planes are resupplying? You will die, that's what.
Oh and that Unicorn F-22 Raptor you could technically get? You'd have one F-22 and over thirty cheap Migs(probably more actually) on the field for the same price. So be content that you don't have to pay ten times the points to get that F-15C out there compared to the redfor Migs. It doesn't matter how good it is if it would have to combat those odds. They could gun-run it at that point. :lol:
The psychotic Finnish wood-elf

User avatar
GuerreroDelAlba
Sergeant First-Class
Posts: 104
Joined: Mon 9 Mar 2015 05:10
Contact:

Re: USA and USSR the superpowers... or not?

Postby GuerreroDelAlba » Sun 11 Dec 2016 14:51

Razzmann wrote:
GuerreroDelAlba wrote:the problem is, Patriot/atacams/longbow are very situational. useful only in large games.

Is 2v2 already a large game for you?



Have u seen more than 5 guys playing 2v2 as USA? i don't think so, Before the nation dlcs, everybody was playing Commonwealth and Eastern Block, before that Mechanized and Mixed Decks were a thing, now everyone is playing israel and Yugoslavia/finland. USA and Norad are not being played that much anymore. Atleast not as much as when the game was released.

The main problem is Eugen nerfing something too much or buffing something too much, and sometimes, Both. leaving coalitions like Red and Blue Dragons Useless for example, and now in this case USA.

So, let's repeat this once again:

Terrible Inf
Terrible Inf Transports, the lav 25 is not available anymore even when it was a infantry transport for usa back in airland Battle
Mediocre AA
Decent Tanks but nothing really special
Awful Recon besides the longbow, but 2 choppers like any other can be killed easily, some players even rush cheap planes, and sometimes it works
Awful Support
and very dissapointing Airforce

Then again, i've played Norad for quite sometime now, and i don't follow trends that come out after everypatch where u always have a new op faction to exploit.

Edit: I forgot to mention the helicopter transports for the Infantry, Very few can be transported in Blackhawks. the rest is all bells.
Last edited by GuerreroDelAlba on Sun 11 Dec 2016 14:53, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Razzmann
General
Posts: 7497
Joined: Fri 7 Mar 2014 15:29
Location: The land of flowing beer and Sauerkraut.
Contact:

Re: USA and USSR the superpowers... or not?

Postby Razzmann » Sun 11 Dec 2016 14:51

GuerreroDelAlba wrote:
Razzmann wrote:
GuerreroDelAlba wrote:the problem is, Patriot/atacams/longbow are very situational. useful only in large games.

Is 2v2 already a large game for you?



Have u seen more than 5 guys playing 2v2 as USA?

No, but Norad.

User avatar
nuke92
Lieutenant
Posts: 1119
Joined: Tue 14 Jun 2016 21:51
Contact:

Re: USA and USSR the superpowers... or not?

Postby nuke92 » Sun 11 Dec 2016 15:02

Perhaps the term superpower is more strategic in meaning?
How do you represent 11 (or more) aircraft carriers and the largest fleet in the world in wargame?

You can't.

One could argue that minors can concentrate more firepower in a smaller area, because they are mostly defensive anyway. Also concentrating more on the ground war aspect of their native geographic environment and doctrines.
Rather than fighting in 5 different climatic zones at the same time.
Of course Wonsan Harbour doesn't take place in asia when you are fighting as Scands vs Poland.
Image
"Spike MR is more accurate I'll give you that but Konkurs has more range and isn't prototype" - Warchat™ July 2017
"ALB added planes, RD added ships, WG4 will add Ekranoplans" - Warchat™ August 2017

User avatar
GuerreroDelAlba
Sergeant First-Class
Posts: 104
Joined: Mon 9 Mar 2015 05:10
Contact:

Re: USA and USSR the superpowers... or not?

Postby GuerreroDelAlba » Sun 11 Dec 2016 15:22

JoonasTo wrote:With the current set of rules in Wargame being a superpower is more of a hindrance than an advantage.

The whole point of a superpower is that you can saturate the area with overwhelming amount of equipment and troops, regardless of where it is. It doesn't matter how expensive your deployment is either because you can afford it anyway. Due to how Wargame works these real life advantage don't exist in game. All sides are always equal in the battlefield here and expensive units are a hindrance.
If it was real life comparable you'd have US start with 5000000000000 deployment points and USSR decks would have 5000 slots, while Finland could afford to send, maybe one squadron of Mig-21s to Korea at best. Probably not even that, likely just a few volunteers. So likely all you'd have to pick from, would be one card of Nostoväki or something. If it was like this, then it'd be fine.

It is not though, in fact, I'd argue that USA especially is buffed like no tomorrow to make it playable in this game. Imagine what a squad of Bochongsu costs in real life, compared to a Riflemen squad?
Just for comparison, they have 1,200,000 active military personnel(around the same amount as the US,) making them the fifth largest military in the world, while being one of the poorest countries in the world. US military budget is 610 billion, NK total GDP is 17 billion. With numbers like that, the US military food costs are bound to be larger than the whole NK military spending. Think about that for a moment.
NK infantry shouldn't cost deployment points at all in game(or at most one) and as it's happening in Korea, they'd be able to bring all of it. How would it feel to call in your Riflemen squad in that Bradley when the NK player calls in 50 squads for that same amount? Of course you'd have airpower being the US but if you spend points on a bomber, the NK player will just keep calling in more and more infantry, after all, he has a five million more (wo)men to bring to the field. What will you do when your planes are resupplying? You will die, that's what.
Oh and that Unicorn F-22 Raptor you could technically get? You'd have one F-22 and over thirty cheap Migs(probably more actually) on the field for the same price. So be content that you don't have to pay ten times the points to get that F-15C out there compared to the redfor Migs. It doesn't matter how good it is if it would have to combat those odds. They could gun-run it at that point. :lol:


Superpowers, have Both Quantity And Quality. And having shitty minor nations like Israel or Germany having better units than usa make me puke.

User avatar
Razzmann
General
Posts: 7497
Joined: Fri 7 Mar 2014 15:29
Location: The land of flowing beer and Sauerkraut.
Contact:

Re: USA and USSR the superpowers... or not?

Postby Razzmann » Sun 11 Dec 2016 15:41

The game is balanced around coalitions. USA (Norad) and USSR are not supposed to be stronger than everyone else, whether you like it or not.

User avatar
Bougnas
Major-General
Posts: 3699
Joined: Sat 26 Apr 2014 18:24
Contact:

Re: USA and USSR the superpowers... or not?

Postby Bougnas » Sun 11 Dec 2016 15:48

Razzmann wrote:The game is balanced around coalitions. USA (Norad) and USSR are not supposed to be stronger than everyone else, whether you like it or not.


They could be as good however. Especially if both were standalone and fleshed out.
Image

User avatar
Razzmann
General
Posts: 7497
Joined: Fri 7 Mar 2014 15:29
Location: The land of flowing beer and Sauerkraut.
Contact:

Re: USA and USSR the superpowers... or not?

Postby Razzmann » Sun 11 Dec 2016 15:51

Bougnas wrote:
Razzmann wrote:The game is balanced around coalitions. USA (Norad) and USSR are not supposed to be stronger than everyone else, whether you like it or not.


They could be as good however. Especially if both were standalone and fleshed out.

But at the same time they are not garbage tier either, as other coalitions.

User avatar
Azaz3l
Brigadier
Posts: 3295
Joined: Sat 1 Oct 2011 10:38
Location: Bus 410
Contact:

Re: USA and USSR the superpowers... or not?

Postby Azaz3l » Sun 11 Dec 2016 15:56

USSR no spec deck generally has everything you'd ever need, but some units are totally overpriced in the current meta (BTR-60, IL-102, T-80BV, T-64BV1, Mi-24V, Tunguskas, the entire T-55 and T-62 lines...
USA is in worse state than USSR though which is saved a little by NORAD.
Image

User avatar
mvp7
Master Sergeant
Posts: 192
Joined: Thu 2 May 2013 15:22
Contact:

Re: USA and USSR the superpowers... or not?

Postby mvp7 » Sun 11 Dec 2016 16:11

USSR is easily the best standalone nation and offers almost as all-encompassing selection of various units as the best coalitions. USA is definitely under-modeled in comparison to many minor nations but from a gameplay point of view that's not much of an issue since the Norad coalition patches most of the glaring weaknesses in US unit palette.

They way Eugen seems to be thinking these days (based on the Reds dlc) is that every coalition and coalitionless standalone nation should be competitive. I think that's a lot better way to go than making superpowers overpowered just for the sake of it, as it kinda was in ALB. I hope the Eugen will release one more unit DLC for the game and address the biggest gaps in the current arsenals of various coalitions with the same level of thought and detail that was clearly put in designing the two new DLC coalitions.

Return to “Wargame : Red Dragon”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: knuckles47 and 52 guests