WG4 decks + gameplay discussion

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 22:36

Razzmann wrote: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.


Indeed, here are examples of very viable to competitive spec

Scandi Mech Armored
CMW armored
USSR armored/airborne
Entente Mech/armored
EB Mech/Armored
FinPol Moto
EC Armored
DCG Armored/Mech

NORAD moto? Havent seen it being played for a long time so i can't say. It was quite common for a while

I would use to say NORAD mech is viable but the TH 495 price nerf hits it quite a lot.
and BD and RD dont have viable specs.
Image
Of Salt

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

Re: WG4 decks + gameplay discussion

Postby throwaway » Mon 19 Jun 2017 01:24

another505 wrote:I would use to say NORAD mech is viable but the TH 495 price nerf hits it quite a lot.
and BD and RD dont have viable specs.


RD armor is apparently competitive with RD general.
BD, I played a few ranked games as mech against Yoji's general BD shortly after it got buffed, and he said he himself ditched it because he couldn't stand the AA or make it work on mud fight. I found it fine since mistrals are OP but eventually moved on to US. I think Ronin also went for mech over general when the 20pt chu-mats were a thing.

Wasn't tansam in armored, years ago? I remember a friend used to prefer BD out of all blue armored decks, and when I laughed at him for using an armored deck with a subpar superheavy, he said it's the only one with long-range antihelo. But checking now it's the reverse, with chappy in armored and tansam not.

Now that you bring up NORAD moto, I wonder about trying it. Didn't like it before since it locked out SMAW, but I guess at this point the only good units it removes are the 3fav browning boxes and the heavy tanks. They even added the recon cobra to it.

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 » Mon 19 Jun 2017 02:29

throwaway wrote:
another505 wrote:I would use to say NORAD mech is viable but the TH 495 price nerf hits it quite a lot.
and BD and RD dont have viable specs.


RD armor is apparently competitive with RD general.
BD, I played a few ranked games as mech against Yoji's general BD shortly after it got buffed, and he said he himself ditched it because he couldn't stand the AA or make it work on mud fight. I found it fine since mistrals are OP but eventually moved on to US. I think Ronin also went for mech over general when the 20pt chu-mats were a thing.

Wasn't tansam in armored, years ago? I remember a friend used to prefer BD out of all blue armored decks, and when I laughed at him for using an armored deck with a subpar superheavy, he said it's the only one with long-range antihelo. But checking now it's the reverse, with chappy in armored and tansam not.

Now that you bring up NORAD moto, I wonder about trying it. Didn't like it before since it locked out SMAW, but I guess at this point the only good units it removes are the 3fav browning boxes and the heavy tanks. They even added the recon cobra to it.


How is rd armored as good as rd general?
You lose your long range Aa
Lose luzhandyi90 and lijian75, iirc even lie ren?
Wz551 which is rd only other better cost effective unit is cut out
And ty90 which is one of the main purpose of rd

Maybe most of these dont hurt losing in 1v1 but crotale and lijian seems pretty important

I cant remember tansam, but tansam was generally mediocre and unreliable for most of thr game history

I just dont see much competitiveness in bd mech or armored. There are just so many better options. It really doesnt bring much to the table just like rd

About norad moto
After smaw nerf you arent really losing much
You had eyrx and highlander90 with lr90 makes it pretty interesting strategty than just konkursm or milan3 in defense choice
Problem with norad moto is canadian airborne, the main fighting force, iirc lost its edge with mg rebalance but im not sure. I cant keep up with mg hierarchy

I just wish norad mech is back but without th495 spams....
Image
Of Salt

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 » Mon 19 Jun 2017 03:05

another505 wrote:
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

just create a roster of fully fleshed nations :roll:
Leader of the glorious Putsie Federation. Saucer 1st Class.
Image
Steam - Tactical Tile Placement

User avatar
James-Bond
Sergeant First-Class
Posts: 138
Joined: Mon 9 Jul 2012 18:08
Contact:

Re: WG4 decks + gameplay discussion

Postby James-Bond » Mon 19 Jun 2017 04:13

QUAD wrote:
Spoiler : OP :
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


1) seems too artificial, like imagine a supply truck but if gives buffs instead

2) Disagree, I think most coalitions have a viable deck (sorry red dragons) if Mixed deck was majority, it would literally be only 2 main decks with minor variations.
2A) I don't think this is the correct way to go balancing Prototypes

3) Half Agree, yes there could be other way to have bonuses, but I think this way makes decks more extreme.

IMO I would go the opposite way I'd have less restrictions on what unit can be picked on thematic decks
So I could Pick a super Heavy Tank in a motorized deck, however since it's a unit that doesn't normally belong in the deck it has a penalty attached in the form of Availability &/or in veterancy.

5) Disagree, sure that would mean any deviation from thee meta deck, is just putting yourself at disadvantage unnecessarily . I Think nations & coalition are interesting decision that effect deck choice.

6) Agree, every unit has it's own Road speed stat, so no reason why it has to be wheeled speed vs non-wheeled. Also different speeds might* reduce the opening Artying of Roads as it isn't as predicable.

9) would have to be careful about this, like in CnC Red Alert 3 every unit had a 2ndry ability which meant more micro.
Soft Stats I think would be too artifical, wouldn't the strengths be reflected in the units balanced state.
e.g Chieftain is an armoured Tank, would be strange if I picked UK and all vehicles got +1 front armour.
I did like it in CnC Generals (Zero hour) where each general had a focus. so it split the base faction into a specific style. But I don't think this would suit for WG imo.

10) Yes, also would like it if I could draw a line of where i want to smoke with arty


---------------------------------------------------

My Views on WG4 stuff

1) Deck UI Change,
(Faction/Coalition/Nation) x (Themes) x (ERA) = 34x 7 x 3 = 714 decks choices
That in the current list format would be stressful.
Something like an interactive Spider Diagram could be things a lot nicer.
Example say it was set up by different level
Faction (Blue*/Red) > Nation/Coaltions (.../UK/...) > Theme (.../Motorized/...) > Era (.../None/...) > My Deck

2) Naval Transports, Any unit deployed into the sea automatically get a tranport (if they can afford it)
if not, choose to spawn the unit on land, imo this change alone could make 'Smoke on the Water' More popular & 'Strait to the point' wouldn't have that extreme focus just in the middle.

3) National /Coalition Balance, no units in any categories missing, e.g. Poland has no Mortar.

4) Unranked Match making, you can use filters (Faction/Map/Era etc) if you are being picky (stacking/stackers is Toxic)

5) Price Balancing, any Integer value, doesn't need to be in 5pt steps.

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 » Mon 19 Jun 2017 11:31

Holy_crap wrote:
another505 wrote:
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

just create a roster of fully fleshed nations :roll:

right, as if denmark would suddenly have 30 ap atgm planes and super heavies in the 80s......
Image
Of Salt

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

Re: WG4 decks + gameplay discussion

Postby FrangibleCover » Mon 19 Jun 2017 13:06

another505 wrote:
Holy_crap wrote:
another505 wrote: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

just create a roster of fully fleshed nations :roll:

right, as if denmark would suddenly have 30 ap atgm planes and super heavies in the 80s......

I think what he means is remove everyone who can't be viable solo and bring us down to US, USSR, UK, West Germany, France, China and maybe Yugoslavia.

I don't like that at all. I'd even prefer just accepting that Denmark is never going to be good but they can be in the game for a laugh, like in ALB.
[Non-included Nation] Belgium - Spreadsheet
[Non-included Nation] Hungary - Spreadsheet
[Non-included Nation] Pakistan

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 » Mon 19 Jun 2017 21:45

FrangibleCover wrote:I think what he means is remove everyone who can't be viable solo and bring us down to US, USSR, UK, West Germany, France, China and maybe Yugoslavia.

I don't like that at all. I'd even prefer just accepting that Denmark is never going to be good but they can be in the game for a laugh, like in ALB.

So less deck choices, which means more win deck mentality?
Image
Of Salt

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

Re: WG4 decks + gameplay discussion

Postby QUAD » Thu 22 Jun 2017 20:48

More detailed responses to everyone coming soon.

National/coalition decks are bad because they revolve around draw units and line units can arbitrarily be bad or good because of them.

Mixed decks would FORCE all units to be balanced according to their performance, not what coalition they are in. Mixed deck focus also increases player retention because you get the feeling of making a fantasy Cold War army from scratch-not selecting your favorite nation and scratching your head as to why it's missing iconic units and has OOTF kit in the name of "coalition balance." Look at Steel Division-it has the least amount of customization and the player base is decreasing because people are getting tired at the lack of choice.

If mixed decks become exclusive then there's suddenly a need to make the Patton line competitive with the Leo 1 series-because they are directly and literally competing for a deck slot. Unit to unit balance gets better, freedom of choice gets better, and players are encouraged to experiment. Prototype implementation in a mixed deck only system is the only thing I'm scratching my head about.

throwaway wrote:
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.


I also want the slot system to go back to ALB though. IE you make your infantry tab how you want it, and if you want more powerful or more experienced tools you specialize. As it is now you basically choose between some lines, a terminator, and teams or you go full mech spam where you get everything plus quality.

If the pivot of balance becomes mixed decks, Canada doesn't have to be useful on its own. If you like the playstyle of Canadian units, you will just put more of them in your deck. I've been thinking of a system that rewards national decks to a slight degree (ill elaborate on it later) but mixed decks are far more rewarding if the unit sandbox is balanced.

Pattons aren't being buffed because the US and NORAD have other toys. That unit is just one of many examples where units are intentionally made unattractive because coalition balance.

Razzmann wrote: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.


Not a faction balance discussion though. More so unit on unit balance discussion, and why mixed decks if units are balanced correctly are more rewarding. I'd love to watch tourneys where top players actually experiment and have their own playstyle as opposed to having prototype loaded decks and basically out micro each other with mortars, superheavies, and planes. Mixed balance focus would also cut down on toxic balance discussions between USA and USSR fanboys.

James-Bond wrote:
QUAD wrote:
Spoiler : OP :
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


1) seems too artificial, like imagine a supply truck but if gives buffs instead

2) Disagree, I think most coalitions have a viable deck (sorry red dragons) if Mixed deck was majority, it would literally be only 2 main decks with minor variations.
2A) I don't think this is the correct way to go balancing Prototypes

3) Half Agree, yes there could be other way to have bonuses, but I think this way makes decks more extreme.

IMO I would go the opposite way I'd have less restrictions on what unit can be picked on thematic decks
So I could Pick a super Heavy Tank in a motorized deck, however since it's a unit that doesn't normally belong in the deck it has a penalty attached in the form of Availability &/or in veterancy.

5) Disagree, sure that would mean any deviation from thee meta deck, is just putting yourself at disadvantage unnecessarily . I Think nations & coalition are interesting decision that effect deck choice.

6) Agree, every unit has it's own Road speed stat, so no reason why it has to be wheeled speed vs non-wheeled. Also different speeds might* reduce the opening Artying of Roads as it isn't as predicable.

9) would have to be careful about this, like in CnC Red Alert 3 every unit had a 2ndry ability which meant more micro.
Soft Stats I think would be too artifical, wouldn't the strengths be reflected in the units balanced state.
e.g Chieftain is an armoured Tank, would be strange if I picked UK and all vehicles got +1 front armour.
I did like it in CnC Generals (Zero hour) where each general had a focus. so it split the base faction into a specific style. But I don't think this would suit for WG imo.

10) Yes, also would like it if I could draw a line of where i want to smoke with arty




1) just a thought to make unit fights more interesting. Not entirely sure if they would trully work in WG.

2) If unit balance between peers is done correctly so every card option is attractive, mixed decks will have infinitely more variety than coalition decks. Think of the synergy between UK tanks and M2A2 Bradleys for instance, or TY-90s and MI-28. If a unit is directly crappier than its peer, then its availability or price should be changed until its an attractive unit.

3) In game design positives are always better than negatives imo. I think slight specialization would encourage people to have their own playstyle more so I'm not opposed to your idea, but I'm cooking up what I think is a superior system that will be posted later.

6) exactly.

9) That's not exactly what I meant. I just mean units from a certain country having natural synergy with each other because that's how it was. I think soft stat buffs would be a good way of rewarding national decks because it represents doctrine. (If all units in your deck are Canadian, your infantry will fight better or something.) I'm unsure on soft stats though because it could be really gamey.

10) formations would also be great though. :lol:
Last edited by QUAD on Thu 22 Jun 2017 22:15, edited 1 time in total.
BUFF USA

User avatar
James-Bond
Sergeant First-Class
Posts: 138
Joined: Mon 9 Jul 2012 18:08
Contact:

Re: WG4 decks + gameplay discussion

Postby James-Bond » Fri 23 Jun 2017 00:28

QUAD wrote:2) If unit balance between peers is done correctly so every card option is attractive, mixed decks will have infinitely more variety than coalition decks. Think of the synergy between UK tanks and M2A2 Bradleys for instance, or TY-90s and MI-28. If a unit is directly crappier than its peer, then its availability or price should be changed until its an attractive unit.


Think you hit the nail on the head with this one.
Key word in this one is Balance.

Agree it would be awesome if you did have freedom to pick which one you think is best for your play style.

I think the 120pt T-72's are a good example of doing little variations of similar units.
(E-Ger) Most Armoured + fast, but least accurate
(Pol) slightly more accurate & bit better RoF bit slower bit less armour
(Fin) one's hard hitting & accurate but has bad armour.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 15 guests