Nighthawk

User avatar
FrangibleCover
Lieutenant
Posts: 1465
Joined: Mon 14 Nov 2016 21:34
Contact:

Re: Nighthawk

Postby FrangibleCover » Tue 10 Jan 2017 13:42

Artruis wrote:
Solo wrote:With Spike LR/MR teams now being in the game I think USA should get an I-TOW team.

Actually, since spike in real life is F&F, I don't see why javelin can't get the same treatment...

Or implement either of the two competitor systems for the AAWS-M contract which would both be SA like Spike. Sure, they never made it off the drawing board but that's no longer a dealbreaker.
What if Wargame stuck to timeframe?
Image

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

Re: Nighthawk

Postby AmberT » Tue 10 Jan 2017 17:24

Markenzwieback wrote:
cheer up wrote:hmm a guy who streams ranked usa for the past 1-2 weeks nearly everyday vs a guy who complains about map size playing 4v4 on 2v2 maps (last parts you btw)

On point one: He linked one video. That video I watched and commented on accordingly. In addition, I randomly clicked another video on his channel and saw him playing something else but USA. If he'd linked or told me what you told me (watch latest video basically), my entire comment wouldn't have been posted in the first place. But hey, I cannot be bothered to check all videos when there isn't even a differentiating title tbh...

On point two: I barely remember complaining about map size. My complaints were mostly about artillery saturation back than. Also, my opinion on that hasn't changed since than even with me moving up the ranked queue quite a bit myself and mostly playing games with appropriate player numbers per map nowadays.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SYNSNK7-kSI

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

Re: Nighthawk

Postby Xeno426 » Tue 10 Jan 2017 18:21

AmberT wrote:I dont care about SOVKOR and yes! i think Eugens makes strange thinks. Just because they do not understand the game. Each patch 2 steps in forward and 1.5 steps back.

Eugen also has stats like win rates for different decks and coalitions, and of the top three winners USSR is in that group. NORAD (and US) isn't.
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
morpher
Major-General
Posts: 3975
Joined: Sun 17 May 2015 21:03

Re: Nighthawk

Postby morpher » Tue 10 Jan 2017 18:24

Xeno426 wrote:Eugen also has stats like win rates for different decks and coalitions.


The problem is not if they have data, the problem is if they know how to read the data.

cheer up
Warrant Officer
Posts: 458
Joined: Fri 28 Aug 2015 20:57
Contact:

Re: Nighthawk

Postby cheer up » Tue 10 Jan 2017 18:50

Markenzwieback wrote:On point one: He linked one video. That video I watched and commented on accordingly. In addition, I randomly clicked another video on his channel and saw him playing something else but USA. If he'd linked or told me what you told me (watch latest video basically), my entire comment wouldn't have been posted in the first place. But hey, I cannot be bothered to check all videos when there isn't even a differentiating title tbh...

On point two: I barely remember complaining about map size. My complaints were mostly about artillery saturation back than. Also, my opinion on that hasn't changed since than even with me moving up the ranked queue quite a bit myself and mostly playing games with appropriate player numbers per map nowadays.


viewtopic.php?p=963832#p963832

Markenzwieback wrote:But on-topic: While I agree with most of the OP, the main problem we currently have in WG:RD (or at least it feels like it to me) is too small and too crowded maps compared to AirlandBattle. And the general map design relying too heavy on town/forest/CQC fighting and therefore being based very heavily on infantry combat. There is rarely the option to really make use of actual range and open field, in both denial of and advance across them with smoke and combine arty and tank/IFV movements. I miss that from earlier Wargame titles... :|


Who could have known 2v2 paddy/highway to seoul feels crowded when you play 4v4 on it

Seryn
Sergeant Major of the Army
Posts: 360
Joined: Mon 5 Dec 2016 06:00
Contact:

Re: Nighthawk

Postby Seryn » Tue 10 Jan 2017 20:33

cheer up wrote:
Markenzwieback wrote:On point one: He linked one video. That video I watched and commented on accordingly. In addition, I randomly clicked another video on his channel and saw him playing something else but USA. If he'd linked or told me what you told me (watch latest video basically), my entire comment wouldn't have been posted in the first place. But hey, I cannot be bothered to check all videos when there isn't even a differentiating title tbh...

On point two: I barely remember complaining about map size. My complaints were mostly about artillery saturation back than. Also, my opinion on that hasn't changed since than even with me moving up the ranked queue quite a bit myself and mostly playing games with appropriate player numbers per map nowadays.


viewtopic.php?p=963832#p963832

Markenzwieback wrote:But on-topic: While I agree with most of the OP, the main problem we currently have in WG:RD (or at least it feels like it to me) is too small and too crowded maps compared to AirlandBattle. And the general map design relying too heavy on town/forest/CQC fighting and therefore being based very heavily on infantry combat. There is rarely the option to really make use of actual range and open field, in both denial of and advance across them with smoke and combine arty and tank/IFV movements. I miss that from earlier Wargame titles... :|


Who could have known 2v2 paddy/highway to seoul feels crowded when you play 4v4 on it


Well, maps in Wargame are also suitable for 1 more player than their reccomendation.

User avatar
Markenzwieback
Captain
Posts: 1708
Joined: Tue 27 Oct 2015 17:06
Contact:

Re: Nighthawk

Postby Markenzwieback » Tue 10 Jan 2017 22:46

cheer up wrote:Who could have known 2v2 paddy/highway to seoul feels crowded when you play 4v4 on it

Rarely do I play 4v4 or did I play 4v4 on those two maps, simply because it is too much for the map size. 3v3 still works well, while 2v2 (obviously) is ideal. And even Paddy on 2v2 is too crowded and too small on certain areas, forcing you into hardcore CQC range forest fights if you play to win.

That still doesn't change the second part of my argument.
Image

ThePriyad
Corporal
Posts: 45
Joined: Sat 15 Oct 2016 23:37
Contact:

Re: Nighthawk

Postby ThePriyad » Wed 11 Jan 2017 01:26

AmberT wrote:
Markenzwieback wrote:Sure helps your point a lot when, in the video, you only play against a) a very inferior player in rank of 2nd Lt. or b) play USA vs. USA.

A) I`m playing USA after last patch you found all my game on youtube channel.
B) I thought it was cool that I won the best player for the US


I guess I should respond. I'm glad another well known player is using US in ranked and I look forward to seeing how he finds it as he continues. His style is slightly different than mine, and its refreshing to see.

For me, I was testing several units at once in my deck to see viability and a portion didn't seem very viable; specifically swapping the Pivads for an Avenger.

As for the nighthawk, reallocate its payload as Xenos argues in the plane changes post. Stealthy flying accurate delete buttons are cancerous.
Image
Making #US Great, One Ranked Match At A Time.

cheer up
Warrant Officer
Posts: 458
Joined: Fri 28 Aug 2015 20:57
Contact:

Re: Nighthawk

Postby cheer up » Wed 11 Jan 2017 03:01

Markenzwieback wrote:
cheer up wrote:Who could have known 2v2 paddy/highway to seoul feels crowded when you play 4v4 on it

Rarely do I play 4v4 or did I play 4v4 on those two maps, simply because it is too much for the map size. 3v3 still works well, while 2v2 (obviously) is ideal. And even Paddy on 2v2 is too crowded and too small on certain areas, forcing you into hardcore CQC range forest fights if you play to win.

That still doesn't change the second part of my argument.

"Rarely"

didn't know every time I see you is "Rare"

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

Re: Nighthawk

Postby Xeno426 » Wed 11 Jan 2017 07:01

cheer up wrote:"Rarely"

didn't know every time I see you is "Rare"

He's got over 1000 posts. You're probably just suffering from confirmation bias.
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.

Return to “Wargame : Red Dragon”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 32 guests