The Time has come for a Community Patch

User avatar
Grabbed_by_the_Spets
General
Posts: 6367
Joined: Fri 16 Mar 2012 11:40
Contact:

Re: The Time has come for a Community Patch

Postby Grabbed_by_the_Spets » Thu 30 Nov 2017 10:07

I've never seen the Buffalo IV used ever in the history of Wargame.
Image

urogard
Colonel
Posts: 2937
Joined: Sun 4 May 2014 13:31
Contact:

Re: The Time has come for a Community Patch

Postby urogard » Thu 30 Nov 2017 12:28

Grabbed_by_the_Spets wrote:I've never seen the Buffalo IV used ever in the history of Wargame.

Pick any tab, I haven't seen units from two thirds of that tab ever in RD.

User avatar
Yakhont
Colonel
Posts: 2870
Joined: Sat 31 Mar 2012 04:33
Contact:

Re: The Time has come for a Community Patch

Postby Yakhont » Thu 30 Nov 2017 14:34

Markenzwieback wrote:With Zelda going to 10 points, Bardelas is a viable alternative and Zelda is no longer a no-brainer. Bardelas is easily countered by any infantry squad in the game, for the added bonus of more armor + DPS, you pay more. Looks balanced to me.


What is your logic? Bardeleus and Zelda have exactly the same 3 MGs with same DPS and Suppression, and you get 9 cards of Bardelas. This APC has at least 50% DPS over all useful 5 or 10 point APCs.

It is particularly difficult to deal with these APCs with infantry because they are so numerous, cheap and their high Suppression will stunlock infantry and vehicles.

In fact with Bardelas at 5 point and Zelda at 10 point, it is makes much more sense to get the Bardelas and the extra 1FAV doesnt matter, since its only useful against MGs and low AP autocannon.

Bardelas should only be at 5 point when at least 1 of its 3 MGs are removed.
Image

User avatar
Markenzwieback
Captain
Posts: 1572
Joined: Tue 27 Oct 2015 17:06
Contact:

Re: The Time has come for a Community Patch

Postby Markenzwieback » Thu 30 Nov 2017 14:49

Yakhont wrote:What is your logic? Bardeleus and Zelda have exactly the same 3 MGs with same DPS and Suppression, and you get 9 cards of Bardelas. This APC has at least 50% DPS over all useful 5 or 10 point APCs.

It is particularly difficult to deal with these APCs with infantry because they are so numerous, cheap and their high Suppression will stunlock infantry and vehicles.

In fact with Bardelas at 5 point and Zelda at 10 point, it is makes much more sense to get the Bardelas and the extra 1FAV doesnt matter, since its only useful against MGs and low AP autocannon.

Bardelas should only be at 5 point when at least 1 of its 3 MGs are removed.

Where is my logic? My logic is that those two M113s, together with the Merkava IIA, are the only transports in the Israeli deck worth a damn in fire support. Okay, you get the Merkava III AGL, but beyond that its a lot of nothing, no autocannons or anything. So much for the deck itself.

Now to the unit: The one armor Bardelas can be killed by any cheap autocannon, HEAT gun or infantry RPG (with one shot, even the crap ones with 14AP). Its much less of a thread than its up-armored version, which is able to tank cheap RPG shots of most regular and not upgraded REDFOR units. Survivability is the reason why they should be price differently.

Keeping in mind the dependence of the Israeli deck, we could just as well prototype them and keep the price difference (5pts for Bardelas and 10pts for 3/3/1/1 Zelda) and call it flavor.
Image

User avatar
Yakhont
Colonel
Posts: 2870
Joined: Sat 31 Mar 2012 04:33
Contact:

Re: The Time has come for a Community Patch

Postby Yakhont » Thu 30 Nov 2017 15:12

Markenzwieback wrote:Where is my logic? My logic is that those two M113s, together with the Merkava IIA, are the only transports in the Israeli deck worth a damn in fire support. Okay, you get the Merkava III AGL, but beyond that its a lot of nothing, no autocannons or anything. So much for the deck itself.

Now to the unit: The one armor Bardelas can be killed by any cheap autocannon, HEAT gun or infantry RPG (with one shot, even the crap ones with 14AP). Its much less of a thread than its up-armored version, which is able to tank cheap RPG shots of most regular and not upgraded REDFOR units. Survivability is the reason why they should be price differently.

Keeping in mind the dependence of the Israeli deck, we could just as well prototype them and keep the price difference (5pts for Bardelas and 10pts for 3/3/1/1 Zelda) and call it flavor.


I get what your saying, but putting cost effectiveness on such an early, important and widespread unit is too problematic. The ability to buy 5 point Bardelass too much since you can use it for so many useful infantry units, even if its Prototyped and stuck in National.

The price change at 5 point increment is very high, at +100% cost increse or -50% decrese.

The way to go would be some small price discount on the more expensive and fewer units that tend to appear later.

Basically such cost effectiveness is way too advantageous in all parts of the game.
Image

Zark
Private
Posts: 1
Joined: Fri 1 Dec 2017 02:27
Contact:

Re: The Time has come for a Community Patch

Postby Zark » Fri 1 Dec 2017 03:16

Hello fellow wargamers, wargameRDeners, or however you wish to be identified/addressed.

I've played wargame for some time now, (>1500hours), and I've even done some personal modding using the community tools. I have also read the forums for quite some time. I was disappointed, like many others, to learn that Eugen is no longer working on this game. However, I agree with the opening premise of this thread. This community has made modding tools where there were none, server administration tools, replay repositories, and even tools to keep mods working after updates. There is no reason why the community cannot further balance and extend the lifespan of this game. In addition, given that there should be no more patches, it should be easier than ever to create a final mod to further balance/flavor the game.

However, it would seem to me that the first question we should be asking is how to collaborate on the development and distribution of said mod to the community? Given that wargame does not have the steam workshop feature, I feel that we need to agree upon a different, centralized location for sharing mods.

User avatar
keldon
Major
Posts: 1906
Joined: Tue 16 Sep 2014 16:38
Location: Liebe Grüße aus Stuttgart
Contact:

Re: The Time has come for a Community Patch

Postby keldon » Sun 3 Dec 2017 14:31

urogard wrote:
keldon wrote:The 90s version is decent, the RPG is arguably a 10 pts upgrade.

Except it's not.

UK gets LAW 80 (700m 60% Acc 22 AP) + Minimi and it's only a 5 pts upgrade (Fusiliers, Paratroopers, Royal Marines)
FRA gets APILAS (700m 50% Acc 23 AP) + Minimi and it's only a 5 pts upgrade (Rima)

In both cases base Lu Zhandui is worse than base Rima/Paratroopers and 90' version is again worse than their nato counterparts despite having the same price.

Sure, I agree 100% that giving them a 5 pts discount would have them overperform in that price bracket. But this is exactly why RD is such utter shit right now. They have literally no unit that performs better than their price would suggest. They have well-performing or underperforming units, but not a single overperforming unit in their entire roster.
Even the unique gimmicks they used to have when RD was released (stealth tank, 2975m ATGM vehicle), they have lost every single one.

Also their high end 140 pts tank is still only 1 card while other 140+ pts tanks (Leo 2A4 NL, Challenger 1MK3, M1A1(HA) Abrams) are 2 cards. The fact that SK K1A1 suffers from the same 1 card problem only cements how this is an issue for both Dragon Coalitions.


Well, i did say arguably. :P

I just didn't want to rant more than i already did. The original idea was to convince eugen to buff the type-81 mg to justify the 20 and 25 pts pricetag.

However the 90s version is already decent in it's current form, not exactly the top performer in it's price bracket, but it is comparable to stuff like Livgarden '85.

RD as a coalition just got shafted and power creeped so hard, nothing else to say. Eugen had 3 years to give the coalition a closer look, and after many sideline attention along the years, it finally looked like they are going to do a more focused patch on the coalition... We all know what happened then, right? Oh, and did i already mention how FUBAR the roster for both nations are?

Markenzwieback wrote:
another505 wrote:The problem is that is another EB spamming Motshutzen with 5pt transport or 20pt Bmp2..
Would be better if RD spams good line infantry but with no good ifv. Is more fitting of what they would be like irl.
Type 81 for Zhanshi 85!

luzhandui 75 can be rerolled to something like light infantry

That would be an option. Zhanshi 85 with CQC MG and 20 points Lu Zhandui back to 15 strength or with a Type 69-I as a counterpart to other BLUEFOR 20 points infantry.


The RPG will put base Lu zhandui into CAT B with introdate 1983, which eugen doesn't like. 15 men or 15 pts are the easiest ways to buff them. Other options will touch upon coalition theme and it is not recommended for efforts like a community patch.
Image
Sources for tuning Red Dragons,Sources for tuning Blue Dragons
亲们!大国梦哦!
小钱钱,真心甜,鼓钱包,放腰间,大国梦,早日圆 。啷个哩个啷♪

User avatar
Xeno426
Carbon 13
Posts: 11927
Joined: Tue 13 Mar 2012 21:27
Location: Acheron, Hadley's Hope
Contact:

Re: The Time has come for a Community Patch

Postby Xeno426 » Wed 6 Dec 2017 01:39

another505 wrote:The kurnass has decent ECM and some MRAAM with opvulcan that is actually some threat to other asf
But i dont mind downgrading the bomb sizes to keep it 2 per card... but with 500kg ones, still better than a lot of 2 per card LGB bombers though.

HOBOS came in only two flavors: the GBU-8 and the GBU-9.

The GBU-8 used either the Mk-84 or BLU-109 as its base. Either way, 2000lb.

The GBU-9 used the M118 bomb as its base, a 3000lb bomb.

Markenzwieback wrote:In all my time playing Israel now, I can count on one hand the times when that Sparrow on Kurnass actually hit. Its 35% on the attack plane and 40% on the SEAD. They could easily be replaced with SRAAMs for all that I care...

Except they can't. The AIM-9 could only be carried on the inboard pylons, the same pylons that are the only ones able to use guided munitions like the GBU-8.

The Israelis did develop a special pylon mount to put AIM-9s in one of the forward Sparrow wells, but they never carried two of them.

Markenzwieback wrote:[*]Kurnass two GBU-8/B replaced by two Mk-83 Griffin (2x15HE)
[*]Kurnass four AIM-7E replaced by two Python 3

Pythons can't be carried with Griffin LGBs. I also believe the Griffin is a later weapon. As in early 90's.

urogard wrote:Therefore it doesn't matter if 9 HE missiles exist when discussing manpad/SRAAM balance.

I don't think Wargame is the game for you. Have you tried Starcraft?
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
Markenzwieback
Captain
Posts: 1572
Joined: Tue 27 Oct 2015 17:06
Contact:

Re: The Time has come for a Community Patch

Postby Markenzwieback » Wed 6 Dec 2017 01:44

Xeno426 wrote:
Markenzwieback wrote:In all my time playing Israel now, I can count on one hand the times when that Sparrow on Kurnass actually hit. Its 35% on the attack plane and 40% on the SEAD. They could easily be replaced with SRAAMs for all that I care...

Except they can't. The AIM-9 could only be carried on the inboard pylons, the same pylons that are the only ones able to use guided munitions like the GBU-8.

The Israelis did develop a special pylon mount to put AIM-9s in one of the forward Sparrow wells, but they never carried two of them.

Markenzwieback wrote:[*]Kurnass two GBU-8/B replaced by two Mk-83 Griffin (2x15HE)
[*]Kurnass four AIM-7E replaced by two Python 3

Pythons can't be carried with Griffin LGBs. I also believe the Griffin is a later weapon. As in early 90's.

The Griffin LGB kits were first used in the late 1980s (1988 iirc?). So you could argue for an introduction date of 1985, with the regular earlier use in war time and covert development argument in mind. Hence Cat B available.

And if its accurate that it could only carry one Python, so that should be the way. Could even help to keep its price down.
Image

User avatar
Xeno426
Carbon 13
Posts: 11927
Joined: Tue 13 Mar 2012 21:27
Location: Acheron, Hadley's Hope
Contact:

Re: The Time has come for a Community Patch

Postby Xeno426 » Wed 6 Dec 2017 02:32

Markenzwieback wrote:And if its accurate that it could only carry one Python, so that should be the way. Could even help to keep its price down.

It only used that pylon in specific configurations, and still carried a pair with the other AIM-9 being on the inboard shoulder of a TER. It wouldn't be carried alone.

And one SRAAM is pointless. It would be better to go with none.
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: No registered users and 13 guests