Bringing the Frontline System to Wargame

User avatar
steppewolf
Second-Lieutenant
Posts: 971
Joined: Mon 26 Aug 2013 10:38
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Contact:

Re: Bringing the Frontline System to Wargame

Postby steppewolf » Thu 20 Jul 2017 14:55

CV sniping and helo rushes are realities of modern warfare. US used since Vietnam Air Cavalry/helo airborne big units and targeting enemy HQs with SOF and helicopters it is a reality of modern battlefield.

Having vehicles and weapons that can punch at a much longer distance than WW2 ones it makes superfluous to think a military conflict such as that with a fixed frontline that one can see it/feel is.

Moreover, with that line you are kind of forced to cover the entire width of map, you cannot sneak anything behind enemy lines etc.

There are other game mechanics that need to be added to a WG , much more valuable than this.

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

Re: Bringing the Frontline System to Wargame

Postby Fade2Gray » Thu 20 Jul 2017 17:43

throwaway wrote:things like whether the controls are snappy or your units are actively fighting you every time you try to get them to do something, whether the game looks good, etc.

Fade2Gray wrote:
throwaway wrote:I guess one thing regarding CV sniping would be, with a frontline mechanic pushed by only one unit per section per side, that one unit would be fairly easy to find and cluster.

Why would there only be one CV per player?

One CV per section of the map, because they are expensive and there isn't much benefit to spamming them to the same place.

Doesn't sound much different from how things are currently. Most maps you generally only have 1 CV per lane plus one back in the spawn.

steppewolf wrote:Of course I realize a Sherman is moving with 48 km/h on road while a M1 with 72 km/h and 60 tons beasts are expected to drive trough some houses and trees while a WW2 tank wasn't expected to do that (see SD). I also realize the speeds from Wargame are rather a type of convention that tried to replicate the difference between wheels and tracks and have little resemblance with RL speeds.

Uh, you realize how much of a Really Bad Idea(TM) driving a many ton vehicle into a house that you don't know is, right? There's these things called basements that you can easily fall into.

steppewolf wrote:CV sniping and helo rushes are realities of modern warfare. US used since Vietnam Air Cavalry/helo airborne big units and targeting enemy HQs with SOF and helicopters it is a reality of modern battlefield.

Helo rushes in the context of getting to a city/key terrain features with infantry, sure. However, "helo rushing" in the essence of swarming with helicopters in hopes of killing all CVs right off the bat? Yeah, no.
Having vehicles and weapons that can punch at a much longer distance than WW2 ones it makes superfluous to think a military conflict such as that with a fixed frontline that one can see it/feel is.

Moreover, with that line you are kind of forced to cover the entire width of map, you cannot sneak anything behind enemy lines etc.

As already posted you already are kind of forced to cover the entire width of the map. Front line is simply a good way to improve upon conquest, that's all.

There are other game mechanics that need to be added to a WG , much more valuable than this.

Such as?
Image
Image
Think you have what it takes to enlist into the military? You sure about that?

thenosh
Lieutenant
Posts: 1456
Joined: Wed 11 Sep 2013 19:32
Contact:

Re: Bringing the Frontline System to Wargame

Postby thenosh » Thu 20 Jul 2017 18:16

Honestly, I tried the frontline system and it didn't work out for me... took mostly immersion.
"Where is my T-80UK CV with top mounted BUK-M1?"

-Wargame global chat, somewhen somewhere-

throwaway
Lieutenant
Posts: 1262
Joined: Fri 27 Feb 2015 21:23
Contact:

Re: Bringing the Frontline System to Wargame

Postby throwaway » Thu 20 Jul 2017 19:01

Fade2Gray wrote:Doesn't sound much different from how things are currently. Most maps you generally only have 1 CV per lane plus one back in the spawn.


The issue is that the frontline system would heavily telegraph where your CV is. If only a handful of units affect the frontline, all you need is to draw a perpendicular line to it from your own CV to find the enemy one. It could be solved if the player only sees his own frontline and the two frontlines are decoupled from each other, or with enough fuzzing, but it's a potential tripping point.

Fade2Gray wrote:As already posted you already are kind of forced to cover the entire width of the map. Front line is simply a good way to improve upon conquest, that's all.


I may have missed it, but I don't think you've ever explained why you think a frontline system improves conquest. Razz on the other hand made a good case for why it doesn't (the part about geography trumping everything when zones aren't there to balance out tactically-poor areas)

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

Re: Bringing the Frontline System to Wargame

Postby Razzmann » Thu 20 Jul 2017 20:14

PzAz04Maus wrote:I feel that the frontline mechanic affords players more flexibility by allowing them to choose what to hold and how to hold it. They are not penalized by an arbitrarily placed cap points that force them down the same roads or work through the same topography. If they find a chunk of terrain that's unimportant to their defense, they don't have to hold every arbitrary inch of it.

Capture points magnetize the player's attention to a handful of places that matter, concentrating forces into a predetermined killzone. No other place on the map, no matter how good the terrain is, will ever hold as much value.

I don't think that is true, especially the 2nd point.

From my experience (and others) the frontline allowing you to push "anywhere" is mostly an illusion. You still always push sides where the map offers cover, buildings, a strong position. You don't push through an open field and stop midway through. You push where you can get in cover, where the enemy will have trouble pushing you back.

The same goes for Wargame and the sectors. There are a LOT of maps with important buildings or forests that are key but not in a zone. If you ignore them just because they are not in a sector, you're gonna lose hard.

The same works the other way around, just because a certain area is in a sector, does not mean you should invest into it, or only put units at the edge of it. Often you have to push beyond if you want to successfully hold it.

The fact that some maps even have strategies where your initial push is not even in a zone, demstrates this.

User avatar
Shrike
Lieutenant General
Posts: 4515
Joined: Sun 22 Sep 2013 04:30
Location: Central California, US
Contact:

Re: Bringing the Frontline System to Wargame

Postby Shrike » Thu 20 Jul 2017 22:49

steppewolf wrote:CV sniping and helo rushes are realities of modern warfare. US used since Vietnam Air Cavalry/helo airborne big units and targeting enemy HQs with SOF and helicopters it is a reality of modern battlefield.

Not saying that mass helicopter deployments can be done, they have been done. However a mass of cobra gunships flying around like a swarm of mosquitos one inch apart from one another? Give me a break.

damoj wrote:The frontline system is a Paradox grand-strat mechanic that is based on the logic of force projection in the context of attrition warfare (Destruction gamemode).

It translates awfully into the conventions of maneuver warfare, which is where Wargame shines (Conquest gamemode).

If you want to encourage WW1-style entrenchment and charges, great. Not for mechanised and highly fluid warfare.

In other words, if you like spending 500pts on artillery in a huge-ass 10v10 map, sure, I'm confident you'll love a frontline for Wargame 4.

Spoiler : :
Hell. No.

Sadly wargame is already like thing is many cases where player can effectively lock down an area with tons of artillery and aircraft making attacks a waste of points. Which is why tactics like cv sniping and plane trains were a thing because changes to the game encouraged that sort of thing. Especially considered in ALB you and way too many planes and helicopters at your disposal.

I still think planes need more nerfing. Something in the form of lag time so they don't instantaneously deploy onto the map and fly out to quickly repair, rearm, and refuel.

Also don't forget ATACMs sniping from the early days of RD and using Pions and M110s to snipe In ALB. Or using swarms of rocket planes to weaken AA nets.

User avatar
PzAz04Maus
Lieutenant
Posts: 1368
Joined: Sat 22 Mar 2014 01:42
Contact:

Re: Bringing the Frontline System to Wargame

Postby PzAz04Maus » Fri 21 Jul 2017 00:26

Razzmann wrote:I don't think that is true, especially the 2nd point.

From my experience (and others) the frontline allowing you to push "anywhere" is mostly an illusion. You still always push sides where the map offers cover, buildings, a strong position. You don't push through an open field and stop midway through. You push where you can get in cover, where the enemy will have trouble pushing you back.

The same goes for Wargame and the sectors. There are a LOT of maps with important buildings or forests that are key but not in a zone. If you ignore them just because they are not in a sector, you're gonna lose hard.

The same works the other way around, just because a certain area is in a sector, does not mean you should invest into it, or only put units at the edge of it. Often you have to push beyond if you want to successfully hold it.

The fact that some maps even have strategies where your initial push is not even in a zone, demstrates this.


In my estimation, the front line allows more strong positions to be viable because they do not have any relationship with arbitrary sectors. Yes, The number is still finite because you can only work on one map therefore certain types of terrain , but Wargame's sectors still arbitrarily weigh down the scales on which points are valuable and which are not, where units need to critically hold, and where they do not. That relationship still dominates decision making.

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

Re: Bringing the Frontline System to Wargame

Postby Fade2Gray » Fri 21 Jul 2017 01:37

throwaway wrote:
Fade2Gray wrote:Doesn't sound much different from how things are currently. Most maps you generally only have 1 CV per lane plus one back in the spawn.


The issue is that the frontline system would heavily telegraph where your CV is. If only a handful of units affect the frontline, all you need is to draw a perpendicular line to it from your own CV to find the enemy one. It could be solved if the player only sees his own frontline and the two frontlines are decoupled from each other, or with enough fuzzing, but it's a potential tripping point.


Compared to some maps with stupid tiny sectors where it is stupid obvious where the CV is parked 9 times out of 10, I don't really see much of a difference. Also, this is also assuming you have CVs "bumping" into each other and pushing each other's influence zone. It could be something experienced players learn to watch out for, and could be a sort of cat and mouse game. Especially with heavy CVs that can take much more abuse than say, jeep versions, I don't think it would exactly be a super bad thing.

throwaway wrote:
Fade2Gray wrote:As already posted you already are kind of forced to cover the entire width of the map. Front line is simply a good way to improve upon conquest, that's all.


I may have missed it, but I don't think you've ever explained why you think a frontline system improves conquest. Razz on the other hand made a good case for why it doesn't (the part about geography trumping everything when zones aren't there to balance out tactically-poor areas)

This is Wargame, not Combat Mission. In a multiplayer game it is all about the meeting engagement, you have both sides just looking to kill each other and gain territory. I don't think you can really argument that set sectors is really more "realistic" in this case. If you had missions in multiplayer, ie attack/defend or whatever, then sure having designated sectors would be the smart thing, but overall I don't really think sectors fits the "more realistic" narrative.

Granted, I have not played SDN much, but from watching a lot of games I've noticed that the "front" in SDN does seem to flow a lot more than in WGRD. In WGRD, unless there's a catastrophic engagement for one side and they get routed, the fighting generally stays pretty much centered around a few zones and there are not really deep movements in the front line. You don't really see the front really move much back and forth because there's no incentive to really keep pushing unless you've totally broken the enemy. If you take your lane, generally you just dig in and move to assist someone in the next lane over. In SDN it seems like the front flows all over the place.

Anecdotal evidence I know, but this is the impression that I get from watching SDN. I honestly believe that the front line system is really the way forward for EUGEN's brand of conquest, it just needs a lot more polish.
Image
Image
Think you have what it takes to enlist into the military? You sure about that?

User avatar
Saavedra
Chief Warrant Officer
Posts: 505
Joined: Thu 10 Apr 2014 21:53
Contact:

Re: Bringing the Frontline System to Wargame

Postby Saavedra » Fri 21 Jul 2017 19:02

There is no point in bringing the Frontline system to RD if you don´t bring whatever else makes it work in SD.

The slow speed of units so flanking has to be done well if you want the best results, the LOS-blocking terrain and scouting system so you can´t stop those telegraphed flanking maneuvers by just planting a single heavy tank in a freaking forest, scout units not pushing the frontline and all surrounded units taking penalties to morale unless they are airborne...

User avatar
steppewolf
Second-Lieutenant
Posts: 971
Joined: Mon 26 Aug 2013 10:38
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Contact:

Re: Bringing the Frontline System to Wargame

Postby steppewolf » Mon 24 Jul 2017 09:23

Fade2Gray wrote:
There are other game mechanics that need to be added to a WG , much more valuable than this.

Such as?


There were tons of threads on this theme. 5 examples, from the top of my head, suggested by many others, that would be a priority anytime vs the visible frontline:

Revamped urban combat, buildings, and infantry mechanics.
A rethink of how naval is used e.g. keep only fluvial ships on same map with ground units, completely rework naval stuff (Cold War without navies as well is hard to be conceived) and use it as an off map support
Multiplayer campaigns
Adjust speed to slowest unit order to all units
Smoke launchers on tanks and IFVs

Return to “Wargame : Red Dragon”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 44 guests