An idea for future gameplay - 3 factions

Steamfunk
Lieutenant
Posts: 1470
Joined: Sun 14 Dec 2014 06:19

An idea for future gameplay - 3 factions

Postby Steamfunk » Thu 29 Dec 2016 01:00

I've been quite vocal in my criticism of coalitions and nation pack DLCs, but it's only fair that I present an alternative. A few nations in RD really do not fit either side of the equation and would be better off somewhere else. By that I mean an real political alliance called the non aligned movement. This would be a third faction, with elements of NATO and Pact as well as those unique units we all like to see. It would not include individual nations but there would be a selection of units based on suitability and need.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-Aligned_Movement

The non-aligned faction could include China and Brazil, Indonesia, India and most of Africa. This is a diverse set of nations, many of which have struggled with internal conflict. There are opportunities for guerilla units as well as the regular army. In fact, I suggest that this mix becomes the strength of the third faction. On the other hand, NATO and Pact (let's forget about Blufor/Redfor for now), need to stick to their usual strengths and each country should have a fairly standard roster of units. This means no superweapons and no naval.

My aim is to create a varied and competitive style of gameplay - the 3 cornered RTS has been popular with tactical players and it isn't that difficult to balance. I think Eugen tried to do this with coalitions but there are problems with this approach. For one thing, the number of units is a major turn-off. We need to seriously consider whether this is in the interest of the series as the number of players has already reached a peak and we are ever-decreasing. Call it what you like, but we need to go back to factions instead of nations otherwise the majority will just walk away.
Last edited by Steamfunk on Thu 29 Dec 2016 01:09, edited 1 time in total.

M4jor
Sergeant Major of the Army
Posts: 390
Joined: Mon 13 Jun 2016 12:59
Contact:

Re: An idea for future gameplay - 3 factions

Postby M4jor » Thu 29 Dec 2016 01:05

I see what you did there, but a war has two sides only.

What I would like to see is an "open for all" mode where both sides can pick from ALL nations and coalitions available.

HTH 10vs10 servers provide such a feature and it is working very well.

User avatar
Fade2Gray
General
Posts: 8659
Joined: Wed 1 May 2013 23:30
Location: IED proof in Iraq
Contact:

Re: An idea for future gameplay - 3 factions

Postby Fade2Gray » Thu 29 Dec 2016 03:26

So...

you want BRICS pretty much? Also, I don't see China going along with this faction.

M4jor wrote:I see what you did there, but a war has two sides only.


You sure about that? From modern times you have that mess in Bosnia to ancient times with China and the Three Kingdoms era, war can easily be between fought between more than just two sides.
Last edited by Fade2Gray on Thu 29 Dec 2016 03:30, edited 1 time in total.
Image
Image
Think you have what it takes to enlist into the military? You sure about that?

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

Re: An idea for future gameplay - 3 factions

Postby FrangibleCover » Thu 29 Dec 2016 03:28

Steamfunk wrote: This would be a third faction, with elements of NATO and Pact as well as those unique units we all like to see. It would not include individual nations but there would be a selection of units based on suitability and need.

I don't think I follow. Are you suggesting that we throw out nations and go to a tripartite system of Mixed Blu, Mixed Red and Mixed Green?

The non-aligned faction could include China and Brazil, Indonesia, India and most of Africa. This is a diverse set of nations, many of which have struggled with internal conflict. There are opportunities for guerilla units as well as the regular army. In fact, I suggest that this mix becomes the strength of the third faction. On the other hand, NATO and Pact (let's forget about Blufor/Redfor for now), need to stick to their usual strengths and each country should have a fairly standard roster of units. This means no superweapons and no naval.

The strength of green for is going to be... their inability to compete with the other factions in a pitched meeting engagement, causing reliance on assymetric warfare? Also are we putting China and India on the same side here, because that's pretty much as bad as China and the USSR. Come to think of it, that's worse than China and the US. I partially agree with the superweapons bit though, what winds me up is stuff like the situation with the superheavy tanks where everyone has a prototype one. Could they not have just not included any of them? Also agreed on Naval, as are Eugen frankly. Bold attempt, near total failure.

My aim is to create a varied and competitive style of gameplay - the 3 cornered RTS has been popular with tactical players and it isn't that difficult to balance. I think Eugen tried to do this with coalitions but there are problems with this approach. For one thing, the number of units is a major turn-off. We need to seriously consider whether this is in the interest of the series as the number of players has already reached a peak and we are ever-decreasing. Call it what you like, but we need to go back to factions instead of nations otherwise the majority will just walk away.

Show me a three year old game in a relatively niche genre that's not losing players. If the answer is to go to factions instead of nations could we not just bundle up a couple of coalitions and sell it as an expansion pack alongside a marketing push. Put out a gold edition. Whatever. Saying 'faction' instead of 'coalition' or 'nation' or 'army' or maybe even 'unit pack' isn't going to make any difference when we're trying to get the punters in off the Steam Suggestions.

M4jor wrote:I see what you did there, but a war has two sides only.

At the moment in Syria I see at least five sides, in three broad factions (pro Assad, anti Assad and anti everybody). I could certainly envisage a situation in WW3 where, rather like Switzerland in WW2, the neutral nations of the world engage anyone who violates their airspace or borders. It's not much to turn that into a three way shooting war. What if both sides want through Austria? What if the Soviet Union crosses through northern Sweden going to Norway but NATO suppresses the Swedish ADN so the B-52s can have a clear run if they have to? What if China decides that while everyone is looking the other way they can settle some scores on Vietnam and in Taiwan? I don't consider Greenfor implausible. I consider Greenfor as a unified faction implausible.

What I would like to see is an "open for all" mode where both sides can pick from ALL nations and coalitions available.

HTH 10vs10 servers provide such a feature and it is working very well.

I agree. Especially with all of these iffily aligned countries I should be allowed to play as China and the US finally both going for Kim, as Finns with Swedish backing trying to halt the Soviet advance, as Russian airborne supported by Serbs against British forces supported by the local inferior Slavs and some high pitched singing.
What if Wargame stuck to timeframe?
Image

User avatar
Fade2Gray
General
Posts: 8659
Joined: Wed 1 May 2013 23:30
Location: IED proof in Iraq
Contact:

Re: An idea for future gameplay - 3 factions

Postby Fade2Gray » Thu 29 Dec 2016 03:34

FrangibleCover wrote:
M4jor wrote:I see what you did there, but a war has two sides only.

At the moment in Syria I see at least five sides, in three broad factions (pro Assad, anti Assad and anti everybody)


Damnit I was going to edit that in as well but you beat me to it. Curses! :P
Image
Image
Think you have what it takes to enlist into the military? You sure about that?

Comrade_Bane
First Sergeant
Posts: 231
Joined: Wed 16 Dec 2015 23:28
Contact:

Re: An idea for future gameplay - 3 factions

Postby Comrade_Bane » Thu 29 Dec 2016 04:55

This very idea (and others) was suggested by somebody I know:

viewtopic.php?f=155&t=44931

User avatar
Narcissistic Black
Major
Posts: 1892
Joined: Tue 14 Jan 2014 01:58
Contact:

Re: An idea for future gameplay - 3 factions

Postby Narcissistic Black » Thu 29 Dec 2016 06:16

Or how about no factions and anyone can be on any team they want.. At least could we have a game mode that allowed that.

:( i know its been denied but i stay faithful.
The First Narcissist
Image
Click signature to see Modification, Alpha Released. Try now.

Scheintot887
Sergeant
Posts: 50
Joined: Tue 27 Jan 2015 15:54
Contact:

Re: An idea for future gameplay - 3 factions

Postby Scheintot887 » Thu 29 Dec 2016 06:38

I suggest a third faction which is variable.

Blufor, Redfor and Green. Green consist of nations which are not realy relatable to Blufor or Redfor.
When you build a deck with green and you join a lobby these decks should be available on both sides. Blue and Red.

In my opinion this would be an easy solution, especially when countries like Pakistan, Israel and India are included.
Because right now Pakistan and Israel would be on Blufor which does not realy make sense.

Also it would make the balance much easier because you have nations which can make Blufor or Redfor stronger. Not just one of it.
It would literally expand the whole system.

Think about it.

User avatar
Narcissistic 2036
Sergeant
Posts: 72
Joined: Sun 25 Dec 2016 12:49
Contact:

Re: An idea for future gameplay - 3 factions

Postby Narcissistic 2036 » Thu 29 Dec 2016 07:37

GREENFOR is completely possible-and it doesn't have to be unified. Basically, what if GREENFOR was just a series of nations you could take with REDFOR side OR BLUFOR side? Given how unstable many of these such GREENFOR nations are, it isn't even that hard to imagine them fighting each other, along REDFOR and BLUFOR lines. I don't know if it's possible, but it should be-just by making two identical nations, one in the BLUFOR side and one in the REDFOR side. Like two Finlands. Hell, they don't have to be identical, either-it could solve some what-if equipment problems such as "If USSR didn't collapse, Finland would have MiG-29s and F-18s" versus "USSR collapsed, Finland has no MiG-29s, just F-18s!" Tbh, I wouldn't mind different skins either-maybe NATO-allegiance GREENFOR can wear UN helmets and have glorious, white and black UN paint on their tanks? At least different skin files-so that the community can change it. No more Czech Mi-35s in Soviet markings, for example.
The F-35 Lightning II is better at air superiority than the F-22 Raptor. Fight me!

User avatar
orcbuster
More than 10 000 messages. Soldier you are the leader of all armies!
Posts: 12362
Joined: Fri 7 Sep 2012 21:04
Contact:

Re: An idea for future gameplay - 3 factions

Postby orcbuster » Thu 29 Dec 2016 09:21

Been answered. Its a firm no

LOCKED
Image
Viker for ingen!

Return to “Wargame : Red Dragon”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 guests