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

User avatar
HrcAk47
Colonel
Posts: 2788
Joined: Sat 3 May 2014 18:00
Contact:

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

Postby HrcAk47 » Fri 12 Jan 2018 17:47

Well, Eiya did solid research on what could be given to ROC. Then again, Denmark is a thing in Wargame - ROC looks somewhat better.
The SEAD never bothered me anyway.

SMB Yugoslavia Retexture Mod, now released, v.1.0

User avatar
keldon
Lieutenant Colonel
Posts: 2044
Joined: Tue 16 Sep 2014 16:38
Location: Liebe Grüße aus Stuttgart
Contact:

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

Postby keldon » Fri 12 Jan 2018 18:29

HrcAk47 wrote:Well, Eiya did solid research on what could be given to ROC. Then again, Denmark is a thing in Wargame - ROC looks somewhat better.


And just like the scandinavians it needs like 33% OOTF units to not getting shit on by everybody else including ANZAC. I'm well aware of the kits taiwan had ITF, and using normal wargame abstraction it will be pay to lose. Given how eugen did the 4 east asian countries, i would bet 1 jar of nutella tawian will suck.
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
Fade2Gray
General
Posts: 8659
Joined: Wed 1 May 2013 23:30
Location: IED proof in Iraq
Contact:

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

Postby Fade2Gray » Fri 12 Jan 2018 19:08

Eiya wrote:Call it a meme argument all you want. While some playstyles ala helirush are toxic/cancer/whathaveyou, you cannot deny they are more or less legitimate playstyles or tactics in matches as distasteful they are.

The general idea I meant is that the options should be kept open for players that want to do them, but the risk and cost of such actions should be better scaled appropriately. (Unit card avail, supply use, cost etc)

But if we're talking about fully removing units that aren't in scale, then that's a different issue.

Ignoring my points and repeating yourself do not make your defense of the most cancerous units in game look any better.
Image
Image
Think you have what it takes to enlist into the military? You sure about that?

Gen3ralAustria
Master Sergeant
Posts: 161
Joined: Fri 21 Feb 2014 19:47
Location: Gramastetten, Mühlviertel, Upper Austria (OÖ), Austria
Contact:

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

Postby Gen3ralAustria » Fri 12 Jan 2018 19:37

keldon wrote:And just like the scandinavians it needs like 33% OOTF units to not getting shit on by everybody else including ANZAC. I'm well aware of the kits taiwan had ITF, and using normal wargame abstraction it will be pay to lose. Given how eugen did the 4 east asian countries, i would bet 1 jar of nutella tawian will suck.


Problem ist, that it wound not only be like that with the Republic of China (aka Taiwan).
The case could be quite similar to Austria, Syria, Egypt, Vietnam, India, Pakistan, Switzerland etc.

Standalone decks with these nations would be a catastrophe in itself as we clearly see with ANZAC and Denmark, somehow even with Canada.
Thing is: Eugen could easily include them in Wargame 4, but at which cost?
The communitly will have a hard time using them as standalones, and coalitions have their own crisis (for exampge West Germany).
Austria for Wargame:RD as National Pack!

User avatar
Markenzwieback
Captain
Posts: 1708
Joined: Tue 27 Oct 2015 17:06
Contact:

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

Postby Markenzwieback » Fri 12 Jan 2018 19:49

Gen3ralAustria wrote:Problem ist, that it wound not only be like that with the Republic of China (aka Taiwan).
The case could be quite similar to Austria, Syria, Egypt, Vietnam, India, Pakistan, Switzerland etc.

Standalone decks with these nations would be a catastrophe in itself as we clearly see with ANZAC and Denmark, somehow even with Canada.
Thing is: Eugen could easily include them in Wargame 4, but at which cost?
The communitly will have a hard time using them as standalones, and coalitions have their own crisis (for exampge West Germany).

Flawed argument. Coalitions should be a tool kept to the minimum and only reserved for minor nations. Scandinavia, for example, works great combining rather sub-par nations into an acceptably strong force. Bigger and more capable nations should be left on their own, with the according increase in national unit strength (aka filling all the holes with existing indigenous tech). Under those I would count West Germany, Britain, US or France for BLUE and Czechoslovakia, USSR, China and maybe East Germany for RED.
Image

User avatar
Eiya
Sergeant
Posts: 51
Joined: Fri 10 Mar 2017 15:33
Location: 台灣省, 中華民國 R.O.C.
Contact:

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

Postby Eiya » Sat 13 Jan 2018 02:16

keldon wrote:
And just like the scandinavians it needs like 33% OOTF units to not getting shit on by everybody else including ANZAC. I'm well aware of the kits taiwan had ITF, and using normal wargame abstraction it will be pay to lose. Given how eugen did the 4 east asian countries, i would bet 1 jar of nutella tawian will suck.


XanderTuron wrote:Considering that the RoCs best tank in time frame would be an upgraded M48, yeah, I'm going to go with pay to lose (not that every nation in the game has to be a viable stand alone).


It's no major-power but Cold-War era ROC is not as weak as most might think. (I do agree the possibility of Eugderp though)

Personally I think (with the current unit list I've made at least) in capability it would be similar to a mix of ROK/JP without the high end MBTs, SPAAG systems and with its own unique mix of units. (E.G. Cluster rocket artillery, APC-mount MLRS systems, amphibious units, infantry etc)

And if hypothetical units (historically sales of these systems were negotiated, some even agreed on but never delivered) are in the mix, the ROC could even get the Sgt.York SPAA, M8 AGS, F-16 etc.

The tank-line is not that impressive but not completely 'weak'. And if the criteria for adding a nation is based just on how many high-end tanks they have then that's a really narrow-minded criteria.
Last edited by Eiya on Sat 13 Jan 2018 12:17, edited 18 times in total.

User avatar
Eiya
Sergeant
Posts: 51
Joined: Fri 10 Mar 2017 15:33
Location: 台灣省, 中華民國 R.O.C.
Contact:

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

Postby Eiya » Sat 13 Jan 2018 02:21

Fade2Gray wrote:
Eiya wrote:Call it a meme argument all you want. While some playstyles ala helirush are toxic/cancer/whathaveyou, you cannot deny they are more or less legitimate playstyles or tactics in matches as distasteful they are.

The general idea I meant is that the options should be kept open for players that want to do them, but the risk and cost of such actions should be better scaled appropriately. (Unit card avail, supply use, cost etc)

But if we're talking about fully removing units that aren't in scale, then that's a different issue.

Ignoring my points and repeating yourself do not make your defense of the most cancerous units in game look any better.


Speak for yourself. :D

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

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

Postby Fade2Gray » Sat 13 Jan 2018 05:33

Eiya wrote:
Fade2Gray wrote:Ignoring my points and repeating yourself do not make your defense of the most cancerous units in game look any better.


Speak for yourself. :D

Sorry, but I'm not a fan of whataboutisms either.
Image
Image
Think you have what it takes to enlist into the military? You sure about that?

User avatar
damoj
Command Sergeant Major
Posts: 322
Joined: Mon 26 Sep 2016 10:07
Contact:

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

Postby damoj » Sat 13 Jan 2018 10:01

Gen3ralAustria wrote:Problem ist, that it wound not only be like that with the Republic of China (aka Taiwan).
The case could be quite similar to Austria, Syria, Egypt, Vietnam, India, Pakistan, Switzerland etc.


Each of those nations ranges from North Korea-tier to Denmark-tier to ANZAC-tier to East Germany-tier, not remotely "unviable". ROC without having US or Japan in its coalition would have no chance on its own. Each of the others do.

Link/series related. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gP98AJtTcCw

User avatar
Eiya
Sergeant
Posts: 51
Joined: Fri 10 Mar 2017 15:33
Location: 台灣省, 中華民國 R.O.C.
Contact:

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

Postby Eiya » Sat 13 Jan 2018 11:27

damoj wrote:Each of those nations ranges from North Korea-tier to Denmark-tier to ANZAC-tier to East Germany-tier, not remotely "unviable". ROC without having US or Japan in its coalition would have no chance on its own. Each of the others do.

Link/series related. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gP98AJtTcCw


Just saying, but if you claim that some nations on the list range to even Denmark/ANZAC-tier and still call them 'not remotely unviable' , and yet you claim the ROC would be 'unviable' because it'll 'stand no chance in-game without a coalition', then I fail to see the logic of the argument.

In other words if you claim that the nations in the list, including so called Denmark/ANZAC-level nations would be viable incl being on their own without a coalition, personally I believe, and the unit research I've done does support that the ROC, at the very least hits DEN-level even if against a strict criteria, so what makes it exempt from the above standard?

There's a lack of good SPAAG and high-end MBTs, gunships and support helis, but how is the rest unviable, or rather how does that make the rest of the selection unviable? Some nations in-game also suffer from certain aspects being lacking but that doesn't make them exactly unviable either.

Return to “Wargame : Red Dragon”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Majestic-12 [Bot] and 34 guests