WG4 Vision: What works, what doesn't, what needs improved?

User avatar
James-Bond
Sergeant First-Class
Posts: 140
Joined: Mon 9 Jul 2012 18:08
Contact:

WG4 Vision: What works, what doesn't, what needs improved?

Postby James-Bond » Thu 7 Dec 2017 02:51

So the point of this thread, if WG4 did come out what should it look like?
My 'vision' is that there should be no single/uncounterable meta, as many options are viable.
mechanics are easy to understand, Interface is intuitive, units are balanced, match making to prevent stacking.

feel free to discuss a point or to add additional points.
(may update thread with more points including responses)

EE: 2012
ALB: 2013
RD: 2014
So Red dragon is 3 years old

Spoiler : What remains constant :
> Bad players
- Spamming one unit type: just tanks( Air will crush you), just inf (cant move over the open) etc
- Spamming artillery (4x stacks+, guess people like fireworks)
- Not using recon (who needs information?)
- Rage quitting (when the cheesy tactic doesn't work in 10 min)
- Stacking teams (Win % is the meaning of life apparently)
> Good players (there are good, nice players, easier to rant about the bad)


Spoiler : 1 Brief history / evolution :
1.1 WG:EE
CV sniping, artillery destroying tanks, helicopter outranging AA,
Card lines, no nations or coalition, no town sector system, inaccurate tanks
accurate ATGM, indirect Napalm.

trying not see through my rose tinted glasses.
in WG:EE flanking was more rewarding as their wasn't knee jerk reaction of plane response.
'medium' priced tanks were seen more frequently.
helicopter being static to shoot was painful
deck choice was ok, but there was core deck, blue had more variation than red.
it was extremely difficult to get infantry out of a town.
infantry ruled forest & town.
IMO EE had best maps.

1.2 WG:ALB
Graphics update, 10v10, Planes, 1pt trucks, national bonus, cluster bombs vs inf, cheap spam, tutorials

What I remember most, was spamming of cheap tanks, even if AP value couldn't damage armour, it would shoot to damage morale.
cluster bombs were actually used.
map seems to have major choke points.
1pt trucks used to recon or troll ATGM.

1.3 WG:RD
Navy, amphibious vehicles
I think RD is the best in the series, to me it seems most balanced (still some more work to be done)
I like the addition of the amphibious vehicles it adds another dimension, take focus off bridges.
tanks are lot more accurate, ATGM usage is down compared to EE & ALB

I remember the early on, centurions were all the rage, ATGM planes sniping at one point,
currently it seems to be superheavies, smoke w/ support?


Spoiler : 2 What works :
2.2 Compared to earlier games
2.2.1 Infantry
aren't invincible in cover (good)
2.2.2 Tanks
wider range of Armour & AP values
2.2.3 helicopters
can attack on the move
2.2.4 Key commands
Reverse is a critcial one for armour
2.2.5 Town Sectors
not perfect, but improvement on EE's individual buildings.



Spoiler : 3 What doesn't :
3.1 Match making
unranked match making should be the standard way to join games
also it would allow common rules, which would make balancing easier to do/spot.

3.2 Navy
boils down to ASM train vs Ship blob
or spam transports to recreate D-day.


Spoiler : 4 What needs improved :
4.1 Deck Selection
4.1.1 Graphically
seriously, a drop down list is such a bad option if they expect you to try out different decks.
(national or coalition x themes x ERA: is a lot of choices)
I think a mind map or wheel selection would be best.

4.1.2 Number of cards.
even if you did the simple math of 1/2 unit quantity per card & double the amount of card / slots
to me a lot of units miss out deck selection as the slot is very precious.

4.1.3 Bonuses
I think the theme bonus cant be very restricting,
when I see a theme I think that they can only probably execute a few different strategies.
A possible idea is to the bonus not remove units (controversial?)
example a motorized deck would still have access to a heavy tank,
however the down side to it, may be the tank is down vetted or loses some quantity per card.
since that tanks isn't in type 'motor'
units of type 'motor' specfic may get bonuses?


4.2 Navy choices
Navy tabs should be split up. [Deep sea, coastal, river]
not often you see any 'tactical' moves from the navy tab, like coastal support, assisting a landing.
a) tab isn't large enough to include transports+ coastal, while still having tab options to destroy ships
b) river boats are terrible, ATGM boat is strong, zippo can be good, redfor has nothing similar.

4.3 Players
patch them, only joking. more tutorials to experience the game mechanics.
more transparency on how the mechanics works so it is more user friendly for new players.
in separate games i've seen air superiority planes attacking big ships. (my team attacking...)

4.4 Unit Vison
In Ruse, you could see what terrain etc block the vison of the unit, i thought it was very helpful, unsure why it didnt get added to WG
would especially like this for recon units, maybe even some kind of visual fog of war?

4.5 Key commands
like move at slowest unit speed, formation, draw line to smoke with arty etc

4.6 Pricing
Why does it need to go up in 5pts making balancing more difficult?
the computer does the math not us...?

4.7 Strength
why does every unit have to have 10 strength?
exceptions being boats & 15 man squads.
maybe this could be a factor in tank armour balancing?

User avatar
another505
More than 10 000 messages. Soldier you are the leader of all armies!
Posts: 12999
Joined: Sun 21 Jul 2013 05:18
Location: Hiatus
Contact:

Re: WG4 Vision: What works, what doesn't, what needs improved?

Postby another505 » Thu 7 Dec 2017 06:33

HELICOPTERS

beside helorush, longbow, and rocket transport helos. They are mostly sidelined
THey need a bigger role in the game, better ui micro and control. Should replace atgm planes cause they aren't realistic (make cluster bombers useful at the same time please )
Need ECM pls.


I think recon still needs a circle to tell us how far it can see. The game needs to improve on telling the player info. instead of trial and error, or making a program to read game files...

Focused flavour:
I think it would be better if each coalition has a define focus base on what they have irl, their doctrine and wars they fought.

RD infantry spam, CQC. High AP tank destroyer tanks
Finland Guerrilla force, heavily motorized, good recon. Glass cannon tank
Yugo tank and support
EB Mechanized infantry
USSR tanks and good quantity airforce, helo

USA recon and high quality airforce, helo
BD high DPS tanks and ifv to counter RD spam
Israel atgm and heavily armored units
Cmw Jack of all trade
EC Tanks and Mech
Scandi, artillery and defensive infantry


and so on and so forth. It seems currently some coalitions now are just almost good in everything and some are worthless


Too ambitious in the quantity of units
I think we need to shorten the time span, like 1985-1995, and remove older units, make it easier to balance.

Naval. Either they make one single game focused entirely on navy. Or just make amphibious units/ small riverine boats and call it a day. i think they gameplay is just hard to have all three air/navy/ground. It seems generally one player in a team focus entirely on navy, or maybe no one at all and every one just spam trains of anti ship planes and win, since that is way easier in micro

Planes:
Better ui and control, it is too rng. Barely any skills involve in air to air fights, just hope you are lucky. Either that PD 1 shot crit or not...or those AA miss entirely


Too many unicorn units
mostly my grudge is on patriot atacms and maglan... they just... unfun to play against
Patriot sure... if you are lucky you can counter it if the enemy makes a big mistake. Seeing F-14 and Patriot combo is just shut off the air .... Do we really need it ingame? Can't usa get better ASF instead?

Atacms, either people call it op and dumb or completely useless and dumb. So in the end of the day, why not throw it out and give USA a normal MLRS. Sometimes normal standard units are nice.

Maglan, is just really annoying. Not as annoying as the two above.
I know they got nerf, but seriously just why? Does Eugen just want some nation to have units that piss off other players?

IR NEWA and EOTS hawks.
Just why do we need uncounterable long range AA? Sure they are costly, and some ppl think they are not worth it( i think they are really good) You shouldnt make a rock paper scissor game that Rock can counter Paper. (IR long range AA vs SEAD). Imagine a Helicopter that has +3325m anti ground range ATGM and SEAD missiles with exceptional optic.

Is nice to have unique special units, but please don't make them like extremely annoying and powerful
Like a Sprut SD or Lav-AD is quite special, they make the game fun.
Some units eugen added that i think it worked, special but not stupidly good
Merkeva 3b(the one with AGL tank tab)
The R-73 R-4 AA
igla bus
smoke MLRS
the Lance
Finnish SF recon
Image
Of Salt

User avatar
nuke92
Lieutenant
Posts: 1088
Joined: Tue 14 Jun 2016 21:51
Contact:

Re: WG4 Vision: What works, what doesn't, what needs improved?

Postby nuke92 » Thu 7 Dec 2017 12:05

What people often forget is that Wargame has an extremely sterile feel. The game doesn't interact enough with the player.
By looking at the trailers and single player (lol) you allready know that the players (and/or developers) never got enough in touch with the feel of cold war time period. Maybe it's the time frame overextension idk but look at this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zlaK98w9jJE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5N0LA0TsKa8

just listen to the amazing soundtrack:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=95gV1rKQ8TQ&index=9&list=PL0140689932058A0D

a mission from soviet assault DLC, contains spoilers:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CJcWQZxtNqo

And there is probably more potential in Cold War strategy games than any other timeframe.
A game has to have more to it than gameplay design.
It needs authenticity and a good single player campaign especially for new players which will draw their interest... before they get blasted in 10v10s.

WIC was the most red communist game ever (mainly because of the faction you played in single player which was US/NATO), had a great cold war feel to it and it's sad to get reminded that it was thrown into the trash can by Ubisoft. There I said it.
Image
"Spike MR is more accurate I'll give you that but Konkurs has more range and isn't prototype" - Warchat™ July 2017
"ALB added planes, RD added ships, WG4 will add Ekranoplans" - Warchat™ August 2017

Scheintot887
Corporal
Posts: 30
Joined: Tue 27 Jan 2015 15:54
Contact:

Re: WG4 Vision: What works, what doesn't, what needs improved?

Postby Scheintot887 » Thu 7 Dec 2017 12:53

nuke92 wrote:What people often forget is that Wargame has an extremely sterile feel. The game doesn't interact enough with the player.
By looking at the trailers and single player (lol) you allready know that the players (and/or developers) never got enough in touch with the feel of cold war time period. Maybe it's the time frame overextension idk but look at this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zlaK98w9jJE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5N0LA0TsKa8

just listen to the amazing soundtrack:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=95gV1rKQ8TQ&index=9&list=PL0140689932058A0D

a mission from soviet assault DLC, contains spoilers:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CJcWQZxtNqo

And there is probably more potential in Cold War strategy games than any other timeframe.
A game has to have more to it than gameplay design.
It needs authenticity and a good single player campaign especially for new players which will draw their interest... before they get blasted in 10v10s.

WIC was the most red communist game ever (mainly because of the faction you played in single player which was US/NATO), had a great cold war feel to it and it's sad to get reminded that it was thrown into the trash can by Ubisoft. There I said it.


I don't see it that way. I think Wargame is a multiplayer based online PvP game which made PvP fun. Compared to Wargame WiC looks more arcade and also the trailers are build that way. C'mon, a Hind hunting down a police car in the USA? How he even made it without being detacted by US Forces? Sicrit russian technology? :roll: No offensive against WiC but I think your cold war feeling is realy subjective.
Wargame is almost like Project Reality (Modification for Battlefield 2) from above. A nice modern era combat strategy game which has a lot of realistic content. Even if the community is sometimes skeptic about the balance in the game it is still well done by the fact how many units you have. Just think about other strategy games which have not even 1/6 of the number of units and are not well balanced then you see what I mean.

Also I think all units are "counterable". In case, I think people in the community (even if they like the game) sometimes lose themselves in criticism to fast (don't get me wrong, love nice criticism) instead of finding a good tactic/ strategy to counter specific units. In short, they give up to fast and then criticise it here on the forums.
I just love the moments when me and my friends are opening a private server to see whats the best way to counter specific units and see how the plan works in a real 10v10 tactical mode server.
So I realy see it different and think people should overlook their look on units because we found a lot of ways to counter units like Maglan or what so ever.

I realy love Wargame for what it is. What it realy needs in my opinion is by far more maps and the ability for the community to create their custom maps... then when a player connects to a server with a custom map he should automatically download the map like in a few other games. I think you know what I mean here.
This would make Wargame pretty nice I believe.

Even if I realy love the Wargame franchise, I don't think they'll release another Wargame... even if I don't want to stop to hope for it...

User avatar
nuke92
Lieutenant
Posts: 1088
Joined: Tue 14 Jun 2016 21:51
Contact:

Re: WG4 Vision: What works, what doesn't, what needs improved?

Postby nuke92 » Thu 7 Dec 2017 13:56

The Soviets were hidden in cargo ships and kept radio silence until they approached the Seattle Harbor. This is happening months after the war started in Europe. The Mi-24 was on deck.

Yes the red dawn like theme isn't realistic nor is the gameplay, but this wasn't my point.
Wargame should stay as it is or become even more realistic.
Image
"Spike MR is more accurate I'll give you that but Konkurs has more range and isn't prototype" - Warchat™ July 2017
"ALB added planes, RD added ships, WG4 will add Ekranoplans" - Warchat™ August 2017

Scheintot887
Corporal
Posts: 30
Joined: Tue 27 Jan 2015 15:54
Contact:

Re: WG4 Vision: What works, what doesn't, what needs improved?

Postby Scheintot887 » Thu 7 Dec 2017 14:53

nuke92 wrote:Wargame should stay as it is or become even more realistic.


There we go! ;) I think the same.

User avatar
another505
More than 10 000 messages. Soldier you are the leader of all armies!
Posts: 12999
Joined: Sun 21 Jul 2013 05:18
Location: Hiatus
Contact:

Re: WG4 Vision: What works, what doesn't, what needs improved?

Postby another505 » Thu 7 Dec 2017 15:29

Is not just being realistic or not
is capturing the feeling of ww3, the most destructive warfare the world will ever know

Currently.. it feels lacking in that department. Tanks peeking and shoot instead of maneuver warfare.

WIC captured the destructive feeling, well partially how amazing the explosive effects are. but also how teh game don't punish too hard if you lose units. UNITS ARE MEANT TO BE LOST. Its also a bit too campy and inf grind, where are the tank grind?
Image
Of Salt

User avatar
HrcAk47
Colonel
Posts: 2744
Joined: Sat 3 May 2014 18:00
Contact:

Re: WG4 Vision: What works, what doesn't, what needs improved?

Postby HrcAk47 » Thu 7 Dec 2017 15:40

What doesn't work: Naval.

It should be removed, no discussion. Salvage what few units that can be salvaged (planes mostly), and that's it.
The SEAD never bothered me anyway.

SMB Yugoslavia Retexture Mod, now released, v.1.0

urogard
Colonel
Posts: 2930
Joined: Sun 4 May 2014 13:31
Contact:

Re: WG4 Vision: What works, what doesn't, what needs improved?

Postby urogard » Thu 7 Dec 2017 16:15

Scheintot887 wrote:C'mon, a Hind hunting down a police car in the USA? How he even made it without being detacted by US Forces? Sicrit russian technology?

It's not sicrit tech.
It's STEELTH maneuvers

https://youtu.be/XVc77pOkJgQ?t=1m22s

Scheintot887
Corporal
Posts: 30
Joined: Tue 27 Jan 2015 15:54
Contact:

Re: WG4 Vision: What works, what doesn't, what needs improved?

Postby Scheintot887 » Thu 7 Dec 2017 16:43

another505 wrote:Is not just being realistic or not
is capturing the feeling of ww3, the most destructive warfare the world will ever know

Currently.. it feels lacking in that department. Tanks peeking and shoot instead of maneuver warfare.

WIC captured the destructive feeling, well partially how amazing the explosive effects are. but also how teh game don't punish too hard if you lose units. UNITS ARE MEANT TO BE LOST. Its also a bit too campy and inf grind, where are the tank grind?


Sorry but what are you talking about? Wargame: Red Dragon has the focus on PvP online matches. If the enemy (which is a player) decides to do a tank offensive or rush, he will. If not, he won't. I had enough rounds where enemy just did that with cheap T62s and a few heavies and so on. And I usually play on tactical servers with low start points and low income.

Also how do you know if tankcrews would act like this? Actually driving slowly isn't that far away from reality. You would not waste a tank because "it is meant to be lost" mindset. I've never heard of that kind of tactic/ strategy / mindset. May you cannot avoid casualties in war, thats a fact but what you are talking about is actually not that true.


HrcAk47 wrote:What doesn't work: Naval.

It should be removed, no discussion. Salvage what few units that can be salvaged (planes mostly), and that's it.


I think may it should overlooked sometimes but it wasn't that gamebreaking on tactical servers so far.


urogard wrote:
Scheintot887 wrote:C'mon, a Hind hunting down a police car in the USA? How he even made it without being detacted by US Forces? Sicrit russian technology?

It's not sicrit tech.
It's STEELTH maneuvers

https://youtu.be/XVc77pOkJgQ?t=1m22s


:!:

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Demo and 6 guests