WG4 decks + gameplay discussion

User avatar
QUAD
Colonel
Posts: 2750
Joined: Sun 10 Nov 2013 21:17
Contact:

WG4 decks + gameplay discussion

Postby QUAD » Sat 10 Jun 2017 05:08

1) command units that give buffs to surrounding units is a great idea and would make fights a little more realistic because you'd have to maintain platoons to gain an edge. Removal of CV from logistics tab and incorporation into unit type-with stats and avail change to something fitting-would compliment this.

2) coalition decks are horrible for balance and result in there only being one or two #1 decks. Coalitions are balanced around protos, unicorns, and flavor units, meaning some of its basic units will have to be trash. The only reason prototypes and flavor units exist is to make coalitions viable. In a situation where there are only mixed decks, every unit MUST be balanced with its peers to be worth using.
2A) prototypes can be balanced by absurd price, limiting to a certain amount per deck, or limiting to thematic decks.

3)thematic decks need to confer bonuses that don't encourage just spam. Extra veterancy is always nice but variable load outs depending on specialization would be incredible. Mechanized deck could get Motos '90 with RPG-22 and RPK for instance, while vanilla would have current weapons. Armored decks would receive better ammo for tank guns, airborne better aircraft load outs, and so on.

4) non proto unit cards need be standardized per unit type to a more reasonable amount with price amount per card being balancing factors. If I want to take 4 cards of 2 A-10 Thunderbolt in my deck, let me. There will be weaknesses elsewhere.

5) National and coalition decks should be a feature for roleplaying or fixed rule lobbies but confer no advantage in a standard settings game. If your playstyle truly matches a country, then you should be able to use just their units in a mixed deck and be at little disadvantage. If not, the meta is intruding and some unit class is over performing.

6) Now onto game mechanics. Mobility on most units is not large enough of a factor in WG currently because road speeds are standardized at 110 kph and 150 kph. MBTs, APCs and the like should be brought down to 100 kph, with an intermediate speed at 120 kph for things like the Sheridan.

7) the differences between shock and line is too high. Shock has better vet, speed, and loadouts with lines being taken for only transport, for MG grinding, or for being Fusilier 90. SD:44 has much more reasonable infantry balance and I hope the infantry fighting in WG4 is more fluid and built around RL tactics.

8) Choppers should have the ability to move while at a low altitude, with reduced speed and increased susceptibility to attacks.

9) more interesting unit load outs. Tanks with smoke rounds, mortars with white phosphorous, infantry with grenade launchers that you can use to create smoke screens, units that specialize in only thing and have to be used in conjunction with others. The DLCs did a good job of doing this but imo many more units should receive the treatment of something about them being fun or unique, if not through a unique loadout then through soft stats. For instance USA units as a rule having better than average optics, or Chinese units having better than average stealth. Really don't see why RPG-7 units can't have an HE warhead or two for instance.

10) better unit control. On map control groups, seeing unit tasks with shift, predeployment orders, would be nice. But formation commands (tanks into a wedge for instance) and escort commands (hold escort key and click on unit, selected unit will keep current distance to what unit you click) would be incredible.

Thoughts? This post is extremely dense but I'd like to start a discussion on the future of WG.
BUFF USA

User avatar
FrangibleCover
Lieutenant
Posts: 1383
Joined: Mon 14 Nov 2016 21:34
Contact:

Re: WG4 decks + gameplay discussion

Postby FrangibleCover » Sat 10 Jun 2017 13:29

QUAD wrote:1) command units that give buffs to surrounding units is a great idea and would make fights a little more realistic because you'd have to maintain platoons to gain an edge. Removal of CV from logistics tab and incorporation into unit type-with stats and avail change to something fitting-would compliment this.

No particular opinion either way, I've not played enough SD to know if this is a good plan in practice. Perhaps it would be possible to have CVs for zones as well as 'leaders' for buffing units.

2) coalition decks are horrible for balance and result in there only being one or two #1 decks. Coalitions are balanced around protos, unicorns, and flavor units, meaning some of its basic units will have to be trash. The only reason prototypes and flavor units exist is to make coalitions viable. In a situation where there are only mixed decks, every unit MUST be balanced with its peers to be worth using.
2A) prototypes can be balanced by absurd price, limiting to a certain amount per deck, or limiting to thematic decks.

5) National and coalition decks should be a feature for roleplaying or fixed rule lobbies but confer no advantage in a standard settings game. If your playstyle truly matches a country, then you should be able to use just their units in a mixed deck and be at little disadvantage. If not, the meta is intruding and some unit class is over performing.

These two statements, taken together, say "Coalition decks are horrible for balance and result in there only being one or two #1 decks. Therefore, remove everything from viability except Mixed RED and Mixed BLU." I agree that the game is currently balanced around prototypes and meme units, and that that's a bad thing. What this actually means is not destroying coalition and national decks and putting the prototypes in mixed mech, instead we should cull the top tier of balanced against themselves prototypes such as F&F ASFs (leaving one for the US) and Superheavy tanks (Leaving one for the USSR).

3)thematic decks need to confer bonuses that don't encourage just spam. Extra veterancy is always nice but variable load outs depending on specialization would be incredible. Mechanized deck could get Motos '90 with RPG-22 and RPK for instance, while vanilla would have current weapons. Armored decks would receive better ammo for tank guns, airborne better aircraft load outs, and so on.

Conceptually interesting but it seems like a lot of work to implement. It'd probably be easier if you removed all of the flavour and interest from the game, to be fair.

4) non proto unit cards need be standardized per unit type to a more reasonable amount with price amount per card being balancing factors. If I want to take 4 cards of 2 A-10 Thunderbolt in my deck, let me. There will be weaknesses elsewhere.

Agreed with the possible exception of really high-end units, but I think 3 cards ought to be enough for anyone.

6) Now onto game mechanics. Mobility on most units is not large enough of a factor in WG currently because road speeds are standardized at 110 kph and 150 kph. MBTs, APCs and the like should be brought down to 100 kph, with an intermediate speed at 120 kph for things like the Sheridan.

Easier than that: Bring back the old 130kph speed from Airland Battle. Then give it to light tanks and light tank based vehicles (CVR(T) series, Sheridan, BMD/BTR-D series, AMX-13 chassis). It's not terribly realistic for some of them but it could be interesting. If we also limited 5 point trucks to 130kph we could perhaps consider a phased reintroduction of them for standard infantry.

7) the differences between shock and line is too high. Shock has better vet, speed, and loadouts with lines being taken for only transport, for MG grinding, or for being Fusilier 90. SD:44 has much more reasonable infantry balance and I hope the infantry fighting in WG4 is more fluid and built around RL tactics.

Agreed, I don't think the 4 tier system is really flexible enough.

8) Choppers should have the ability to move while at a low altitude, with reduced speed and increased susceptibility to attacks.

This would pretty much fix attack helicopters, apart from the fact that susceptibility to attacks being reduced because they can now hide behind terrain. The problem is what this does to helorushing, which doesn't make it a bad idea but means it needs further consideration.

9) more interesting unit load outs. Tanks with smoke rounds, mortars with white phosphorous, infantry with grenade launchers that you can use to create smoke screens, units that specialize in only thing and have to be used in conjunction with others. The DLCs did a good job of doing this but imo many more units should receive the treatment of something about them being fun or unique,

I've very keen on this.

if not through a unique loadout then through soft stats. For instance USA units as a rule having better than average optics, or Chinese units having better than average stealth. Really don't see why RPG-7 units can't have an HE warhead or two for instance.

And less keen on these bits. That very definitely feels like Artificial Flavouring.

10) better unit control. On map control groups, seeing unit tasks with shift, predeployment orders, would be nice. But formation commands (tanks into a wedge for instance) and escort commands (hold escort key and click on unit, selected unit will keep current distance to what unit you click) would be incredible.

All good ideas, to be honest if the next Wargame is just the Med (ideally keeping all of RD's maps and assets as well), these improvements in point 10 and an LoS tool I'd be over the moon and I think much of the rest of the community would be too.
[Non-included Nation] Belgium - Spreadsheet
[Non-included Nation] Hungary - Spreadsheet
[Non-included Nation] Pakistan

ccuuttww
Private
Posts: 1
Joined: Thu 15 Jun 2017 16:02
Contact:

Re: WG4 decks + gameplay discussion

Postby ccuuttww » Thu 15 Jun 2017 17:39

How about map? it should be ‎symmetry
one of the extreme map like Apocalypse imminent there s a lot of cover in one side in another side is flattened which is hard to defend
http://www.wargame.wz.cz/Mapy_wargame_r ... tml#APOCA2 here is the map
In hotel there s a lake its blocking most land unit
also the hill u can set up ambush in the root of forest
however u only have few blocks for infantry in delta and a big hole between foxtrot and delta if eugen clone the hill from hotel it could be better
in my own exprience of playing this map U can only push up to charlie only (from left to right)
I also watch replay from youtube its just the same charile only no more
U may argue why don't u put some smoke screen in a real gameplay u are taking fire from every direction(from charlie to hotel) u have no way to fight with ambush since smoke screen blocking your recon or killed by ambush instantly
if u think smoke screen is work u can show me with replay

Faster Reinforcement from india is another issue due to the closer spawn point
Eugen should add bandwith or cooldown system in reinforcment
bandwith:
In current game u can spawn multi unit at same time ex. rifleman M1A1 Apache comvat......
tank they can add a queue force
u must spawn a rifleman first and followed by a M1A1 Apache comvat......with interval may be 1-2seconds
if u get charlie in new spawning system u can spwan multi unit with maximum like 2-3 at the same time. It is a bouns for leading team
cooldown:
C&C RA2 Generals AOC have cooldown in building unit u can bring this to WRD
U may have better spawning CD when u capture charile

Finally the ASF intercept :
its hardly to kill enemy s bomber becasue they only use it when your asf back to refuel and they always get away before your asf is in range
they can add warning horn like steel division and change the air detection feature to number with huge range like 10000m

throwaway
Lieutenant
Posts: 1247
Joined: Fri 27 Feb 2015 21:23
Contact:

Re: WG4 decks + gameplay discussion

Postby throwaway » Thu 15 Jun 2017 19:29

QUAD wrote:1) command units that give buffs to surrounding units is a great idea and would make fights a little more realistic because you'd have to maintain platoons to gain an edge. Removal of CV from logistics tab and incorporation into unit type-with stats and avail change to something fitting-would compliment this.


I liked the SD CVs on first glance and would like to see them in WRD too. Probably only for infantry, helping tanks is too much of a boost for the defender and helping AA is just too easy.

I'm not sure the removal of expensive capping CVs was such a good idea. In RD it is important to maintain a coherent frontline that protects your backline. In the handful of SD games I played, it didn't really matter if you let units through, and I don't like that. Further, CVs are a comeback mechanic, since the winning player has to spend resources on capping and that closes the gap with the loser a bit.

QUAD wrote:2) coalition decks are horrible for balance and result in there only being one or two #1 decks. Coalitions are balanced around protos, unicorns, and flavor units, meaning some of its basic units will have to be trash. The only reason prototypes and flavor units exist is to make coalitions viable. In a situation where there are only mixed decks, every unit MUST be balanced with its peers to be worth using.
2A) prototypes can be balanced by absurd price, limiting to a certain amount per deck, or limiting to thematic decks.


I disagree strongly with this. First, more than two decks are meta (and we should be talking about meta, the #1 formulation you use is a bit fuzzy). To a particular person there will only be 1-2 main decks, because nobody is equally good with everything, but we've had plenty of metas with 3+ different common ranked decks. Second, as already mentioned by FC, this isn't a solution.

Third, prototypes and unbalanced basic units exist to add variety. I can easily make as many as 1000 perfectly equally powerful factions. Just copy eurocorps and rename the units 1000 times. What makes the factions in the game different is that their units aren't the same when compared globally, one has a stronger SEAD plane, another has no AA helos at all. The challenge is to keep many of them toptier while preserving the differences. Any idiot can bring the game into perfect balance by making the unique units prohibitively expensive and making the stats of all other units the same so they look good in global contextless comparisons.


QUAD wrote:3)thematic decks need to confer bonuses that don't encourage just spam. Extra veterancy is always nice but variable load outs depending on specialization would be incredible. Mechanized deck could get Motos '90 with RPG-22 and RPK for instance, while vanilla would have current weapons. Armored decks would receive better ammo for tank guns, airborne better aircraft load outs, and so on.

This encourages spam though. What do you think mechanized will do when given omnipurpose line inf? To discourage spam, thematic decks should not get even more competent at their main tab, exactly the opposite, they need more viable everything else ((some) t-72 for moto! t-55 for airborne!).

RD has thematic decks that work and ones that don't. Airborne has shit infantry (transports), shit tanks, shit support tab, so it sucks. Mechanized only gives up on superheavies and the rare wheeled AA, so it doesn't suck. If eugen try to balance specializations instead of mostly defining them as a roleplay tool, they'll balance it.

An often overlooked aspect of specializations is that they also effectively give you more activation points. For example if you go armored but only take 4 tank cards, you have 3 more points than unspec with the same picks. Sadly this mostly only comes into play for mixed decks, coalitions already have plenty AP so for them this translates to as much as a fifth plane or as little as an extra logi card, depending on the deck. It would be more useful if the deck system was more flexible.

QUAD wrote:4) non proto unit cards need be standardized per unit type to a more reasonable amount with price amount per card being balancing factors. If I want to take 4 cards of 2 A-10 Thunderbolt in my deck, let me. There will be weaknesses elsewhere.

The reason SD allows this is that there's little variety within divisions. For most tabs and decks, you have n slots and m<n unique units to fill them. Like 5 recon slots, when the options are 2 types of infantry and 1 recon car. As for adding it to RD, sure, whatever. But it would require a much more rigorous prototype system, and in particular almost every plane would be proto, especially something as unique as thunderbolt.

QUAD wrote:5) National and coalition decks should be a feature for roleplaying or fixed rule lobbies but confer no advantage in a standard settings game. If your playstyle truly matches a country, then you should be able to use just their units in a mixed deck and be at little disadvantage. If not, the meta is intruding and some unit class is over performing.

As I said above, global contextless balancing is garbage. Longbow overperforming is fine if to use it you have to put up with bad AA and no infantry ATGM. Stormer overperforming is fine if they come in a deck with no answers to an enemy superheavy. Pre-nerf Mig-25PD overperfoming is fine in a deck with VDV and motostrelki, although it may be bad in a deck with pre-nerf burrito and pre-nerf mig-27. Pre-nerf type 63 is fine when placed in a deck with "dragon" in the name.

There are limits to this, the trump cards shouldn't be overly flashy or dominating (like giving someone a super ASF that is pointless to even fight), but global balancing doesn't only prevent super trump cards, it prevents minor, 10-20% performance differences. Hell, I'm not sure global balancing even prevents super trump cards - people use it to compare very similar tanks and ask for 5pt buffs, but comparing pre-nerf maglan to a cheaper ATGM squad doesn't show that they're so strong that one can open with 8 of them and no tanks, nor does a side by side of PD or burrito next to lesser units give a lot of information.

QUAD wrote:7) the differences between shock and line is too high. Shock has better vet, speed, and loadouts with lines being taken for only transport, for MG grinding, or for being Fusilier 90. SD:44 has much more reasonable infantry balance and I hope the infantry fighting in WG4 is more fluid and built around RL tactics.

Even in the middle of the jäger meta, I was reading posts about the atrocious weakness of line. It's like the one thing that always stays constant.

The MG rebalance made line the best option for almost everything. My ranked US deck has 5 cards of line. But there will always be someone bitching about line being UP. Man, line are only good for fighting other infantry with their MGs, for their transports, and for their AT. So bad. But we ran out of roles to give them, that's literally everything but city fighting. Maybe give them manpads and napalm launchers so the last two uses of SF can go away?

QUAD wrote:8) Choppers should have the ability to move while at a low altitude, with reduced speed and increased susceptibility to attacks.

Sounds cool, hopefully it ends up working well if they try it.

QUAD wrote:9) more interesting unit load outs. Tanks with smoke rounds, mortars with white phosphorous, infantry with grenade launchers that you can use to create smoke screens, units that specialize in only thing and have to be used in conjunction with others. The DLCs did a good job of doing this but imo many more units should receive the treatment of something about them being fun or unique, if not through a unique loadout then through soft stats. For instance USA units as a rule having better than average optics, or Chinese units having better than average stealth. Really don't see why RPG-7 units can't have an HE warhead or two for instance.

I agree.

QUAD wrote:10) better unit control. On map control groups, seeing unit tasks with shift, predeployment orders, would be nice. But formation commands (tanks into a wedge for instance) and escort commands (hold escort key and click on unit, selected unit will keep current distance to what unit you click) would be incredible.

Sure.

User avatar
another505
More than 10 000 messages. Soldier you are the leader of all armies!
Posts: 12960
Joined: Sun 21 Jul 2013 05:18
Location: Hiatus
Contact:

Re: WG4 decks + gameplay discussion

Postby another505 » Fri 16 Jun 2017 14:37

Going to write a bit since im on phone


Theme decks need buff not in their main role. Cause going more powerful like entente or scandi mech is just going to more spammy as someone said

Slightly giving them vet bonus to other category is the way to go
Allowing them to be slightly more independent as the game design is still one player in one or two fronts
Being more independent makes them more usuable thus more ppl pick it
More spammy and powerful will just lead more degenerate and singluar straregy and counter

Airborne getting vet bonus in recon and/ or two more slots in recon

Marine with vehicle vet

Moto deck maybe logistic slots and two vet bonus to recon

Mech and armores doesnt really need a buff
Image
Of Salt

User avatar
QUAD
Colonel
Posts: 2750
Joined: Sun 10 Nov 2013 21:17
Contact:

Re: WG4 decks + gameplay discussion

Postby QUAD » Sun 18 Jun 2017 09:50

I'll write a way more detailed response later but atm I'll just quickly reply to two things.

1) my proposal for specializations reduces spam because no additional slots are granted: the unit you specialize in just becomes better via vet, loadout, and cheaper slot cost. This would encourage that unit more in army composition, yeah, but that's why you should specialize..not to drown the enemy in sheer numbers.

2) Compressing line and shock performance and pricing does not equal line=suck I want buff. It just means making shock cheaper, slightly less effective, but still able to move fast and drop bombs. Shock/line compression (with price buffs to shock) would really help 15 man squads imo.

3)Pattons suck because NORAD has Abrams, AGS, and Leo 1 so there is no need for buffs. Coalition balance is an excuse to have many units sit and be basically useless. If it was removed, Pattons would have to be buffed in someway. This kind of relationship between units means that each coalition is also pigeonholed into an optional build and playstyle. Combine this with 4 "competitive" decks and you have a total lack of variety. The point of Wargame is to make your own Cold War army and fight, not choose one of a few basically premade (you can customize a little obviously) ones.

Will reply more in depth later.
BUFF USA

throwaway
Lieutenant
Posts: 1247
Joined: Fri 27 Feb 2015 21:23
Contact:

Re: WG4 decks + gameplay discussion

Postby throwaway » Sun 18 Jun 2017 13:08

QUAD wrote:I'll write a way more detailed response later but atm I'll just quickly reply to two things.

1) my proposal for specializations reduces spam because no additional slots are granted: the unit you specialize in just becomes better via vet, loadout, and cheaper slot cost. This would encourage that unit more in army composition, yeah, but that's why you should specialize..not to drown the enemy in sheer numbers.

The extra slots just give mech the ability to have variety, multiple types of IFV, atgm inf, manpads etc. If you wipe them out the deck will just have to focus on fighting units and ditch the fancier infantry types. Couple that with increased veterancy and it's even more rewarding to spam. If you restrict slots and availability to such an extent that even a tab of only fighting infantry can run out easily, they'll supplement with more plentiful types like militia and recon. The solution is to make it possible and rewarding to use the other tabs.

QUAD wrote:2) Compressing line and shock performance and pricing does not equal line=suck I want buff. It just means making shock cheaper, slightly less effective, but still able to move fast and drop bombs. Shock/line compression (with price buffs to shock) would really help 15 man squads imo.

Apologies for my initial rude response on that point. Anyway, what you describe is how most shock works in this very moment (exception being mot.). They can't win against their points cost in line, especially if transports get involved. They are less efficient. They are useful for their speed (=> ability to disengage from bad fights). There's no need for change because that's exactly how it works right now.

QUAD wrote:3)Pattons suck because NORAD has Abrams, AGS, and Leo 1 so there is no need for buffs. Coalition balance is an excuse to have many units sit and be basically useless. If it was removed, Pattons would have to be buffed in someway. This kind of relationship between units means that each coalition is also pigeonholed into an optional build and playstyle. Combine this with 4 "competitive" decks and you have a total lack of variety. The point of Wargame is to make your own Cold War army and fight, not choose one of a few basically premade (you can customize a little obviously) ones.

Will reply more in depth later.

Coalitions exist so the game can have nations like Canada be useful without too many fantasy units. Why do you think things will change if you put pattons in competition with AMX and nana-yon? They already are in competition with abrams and leopard, but eugen haven't gotten around to buffing.

Pattons can be made useful in airborne/marine/support. Same with t-55 and other alternative unpopular lines. But it would require eugen to drop the reenactment aspect of specializations in favor of gameplay.

User avatar
Holy_crap
Second-Lieutenant
Posts: 981
Joined: Fri 26 Oct 2012 21:25
Location: Putsie Capital Planet
Contact:

Re: WG4 decks + gameplay discussion

Postby Holy_crap » Sun 18 Jun 2017 16:49

I think that forcing specs is the way to go. General decks just offer too many strengths and not enough weaknesses, and when coalitions are factored in, it leads to the whole "these decks are shit, and these few decks are what you use to win" mentality.
Leader of the glorious Putsie Federation. Saucer 1st Class.
Image
Steam - Tactical Tile Placement

User avatar
another505
More than 10 000 messages. Soldier you are the leader of all armies!
Posts: 12960
Joined: Sun 21 Jul 2013 05:18
Location: Hiatus
Contact:

Re: WG4 decks + gameplay discussion

Postby another505 » Sun 18 Jun 2017 17:33

Holy_crap wrote:I think that forcing specs is the way to go. General decks just offer too many strengths and not enough weaknesses, and when coalitions are factored in, it leads to the whole "these decks are shit, and these few decks are what you use to win" mentality.

I disagree , not a lot of nations or even coalitiin could use spec. Most of them have maybe only one spec being viable


If you force spec, win deck mentality will still exist. No evidence that it woulsnt
Image
Of Salt

User avatar
Razzmann
General
Posts: 7427
Joined: Fri 7 Mar 2014 15:29
Location: The land of flowing beer and Sauerkraut.
Contact:

Re: WG4 decks + gameplay discussion

Postby Razzmann » Sun 18 Jun 2017 17:40

All the "general decks are the only way to go if you want to win" etc. mentalities are mainly BS. Every coalition has at least one viable spec, nearly all have several.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 15 guests