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

User avatar
Eiya
Corporal
Posts: 49
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 » Wed 17 Jan 2018 15:19

keldon wrote:
Eiya wrote:So yeah, how the censors work is just going to be some not-so ancient Chinese secret that no one can fully understand.


This isn't some well hidden mystery, that requires you to attain enlightment prior.

The basic guidline for getting your games banned is:

- Violating basic principles of the Constitution of the People's Republic of China
- Threatening national unity, sovereignty and territorial integrity
- Divulging state secrets
- Threatening state security
- Damaging national sovereignty
- Disturbing social order
- Infringing upon others' rights


example and reasons given by the ministry of culture on Hearts of Iron and C&C Generals zero hour: http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/do ... 334845.htm

Keep in mind this is 11 years prior to the lifting of console ban.

There are precautions you can make to prevent a ban, but it requires the company not going into this starry-eyed. And I repeat, that this is something eugen needs to deal/inform themselves with if they seriously want to get into the mainland market, which by the way is something no region including taiwan can dream to match in terms of revenue.

As for the "uniqness" of RoC units: You'll have to understand that their abstracted ingame performance is what matters. Take the XT-69 for example, if you can somehow provide info on the FCS being a computerized one, then you can legitimately ask for a 10 sec fast aiming gun, however this will still be your average high-end arty. The true unique one would be the 203mm fast aiming gun. But good luck find this info, as i don't think taiwan had such equipment in 1981.

The same procedure needs to applied to all other kits you want to argue as unique/special/whatever, otherwise you'll have to finally accept that the performance level and unit option Taiwan offers is around CAT B level. The only interesting one is the MLRS mounted IFV, which frankly should be ingame in the NK roster from the beginning.


I know that there are the basic general 'rules' that would trigger PRC censors, but what I meant is that like with the example of HOI IV, it contains the same things that led to previous HOI games being banned, but for some reason HOI IV wasn't banned for almost a full year before it abruptly got the banhammer around the time a China expansion pack was announced which may or may not have a factor in that.

The point is that cases like these exist and that's why it's very hard to say with full certainty what will be banned or not exactly.

And I meant uniqueness in that there are units unique to the ROC with their own characteristics and such, with the same logic you could argue every single artillery unit (or any other unit for that matter) in-game is the same thing in-game practically but claiming XT-69 is extraordinarily unique was not what I was trying to say, just that such units and variants that have a uniqueness to them do exist instead of the misconception of the ROC being entirely made up of US gear.

And finally like I've said I'm not claiming the ROC is extraordinarily strong, I'm well aware of the limitations, but I'm saying it's not as weak or 'not worth it' as you and some posts have claimed it to be, it does have its place in Wargame and can add to the game, thematically and on other aspects. In other words it is a worthy addition more or less.

User avatar
keldon
Major
Posts: 1988
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 » Wed 17 Jan 2018 15:51

Eiya wrote:And I meant uniqueness in that there are domestic engineered units with their own characteristics and such, with the same logic you could argue every single artillery unit (or any other unit for that matter) in-game is the same thing in-game practically but claiming XT-69 is extraordinarily unique was not what I was trying to say, just that domestically engineered units and variants that have a uniqueness to them do exist instead of the misconception of the ROC being entirely made up of US gear.

And finally like I've said I'm not claiming the ROC is extraordinarily strong, I'm well aware of the limitations, but I'm saying it's not as weak or 'not worth it' as you and some posts have claimed it to be, it does have its place in Wargame and can add to the game, thematically and on other aspects. In other words it is a worthy addition more or less.


Just by argueing that the roster can be padded out with enough units to be on the field won't win the argument that you are going up against other DLC candidates like Iran etc. like Markenzwieback told you. As i have told you the best chances for taiwan to be in, is by thematical reasons. Otherwise you'll have to break a leg in research to convince eugen that taiwan is such an interesting addition in terms of unit combination and capability.

And the CAT B US jab needs to be understood as less bit literally, since it's the abstracted unit performance that matters, and with the lineup you are presenting the overall performance can already be simulated pretty closely with it. Unless like i said, you find something similar like the computerized XT-69 example i gave.

Of course all points will be moot, if eugen themselves want to add it, and the best chances of it happening is to bribe the shit out of their boss.
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
Eiya
Corporal
Posts: 49
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 » Thu 18 Jan 2018 11:12

keldon wrote:Just by argueing that the roster can be padded out with enough units to be on the field won't win the argument that you are going up against other DLC candidates like Iran etc. like Markenzwieback told you. As i have told you the best chances for taiwan to be in, is by thematical reasons. Otherwise you'll have to break a leg in research to convince eugen that taiwan is such an interesting addition in terms of unit combination and capability.

And the CAT B US jab needs to be understood as less bit literally, since it's the abstracted unit performance that matters, and with the lineup you are presenting the overall performance can already be simulated pretty closely with it. Unless like i said, you find something similar like the computerized XT-69 example i gave.

Of course all points will be moot, if eugen themselves want to add it, and the best chances of it happening is to bribe the shit out of their boss.


That's a bit funny considering you were insistent on US CAT B being an 'accurate simulation' just a few posts ago, and now you call it a jab.
And if you bring up Iran, I'm no expert on Iran but as far as I know they use a mix of Eastern Bloc and Western equipment, with mostly domestic variants of said equipment. And if I were to use the same argument you had, then what makes them interesting? They're not currently critical to the main setting of RD, and they would just be using the same units as Western nations / Eastern Bloc mainstays.

If abstraction is what truly matters then we can safely chuck most proposed nations out of the table as most units in-game more or less have the same or similar capabilities. Abstraction is 'theoretical' and can only go so far.

For the ROC the thematical reason is the most important factor of course, but that by itself doesn't discount the fact that it can be a viable nation to play. And remember it was on the table during the DLC vote, but obviously with the misconception and general obscurity of the ROC's military during the Cold War in the West + the playerbase being mostly Western, it didn't garner that many votes.
I've said this in my previous posts before.

On research, I don't consider my research on my thread finished at all, so who knows maybe I'll find a Gundam or something.

On Markenzwieback I've already replied to that about it being an issue of subjective 'interest' and you can just read that instead,
but for some clarification on how I see it:
This is my view on what is popular / interesting to the general Western playerbase:
i) A popular or well-known nation that was involved in a war that affected the West and/or involved Western nations in one form or another
ii) Nations and/or conflicts which have a cult following or 'meme' (not exactly the word but you get the concept) status (E.G. Yugoslavia, Israel, Vietnam)
iii) Nations that have extensive connections to Western nations.
iv) Lots and lots of domestically engineered units that look cool.
(but this requires knowledge of the nation's military first, and in the case of nations that meet the two prior conditions above, popularity takes precedence to this)

The ROC is not a popular choice in the vote even though it is essential to the regional focus of RD, because of misconceptions and general ignorance on China's history in the West, and due to the reasons above, as this is a game mainly dominated by Western players.
Our own people (mainland Chinese/Taiwanese) already lack knowledge on this, let alone the Westerners.

It's similar to the same reason why the Korean War isn't such a 'hot' or popular topic in the West compared to the Vietnam war, even though the former was the first hot war of the Cold War and has a much bigger geopolitical impact, along with still being a giant powderkeg.

Spoiler : :
and as a side note, I swear you and Urogard are in some kind of dynamic duo thing considering how he just corroborates certain things you say like somehow they were things I 'missed' , like the issue about a certain authority figure, you have made no mention of it at all prior and he just parrots it as if you had been mentioning it numerous times and somehow that flew over my head. (also you should have mentioned that much earlier as in that context your focus on coalition interplay actually makes sense)

Just pointing that out ww
Last edited by Eiya on Sun 21 Jan 2018 11:18, edited 3 times in total.

User avatar
keldon
Major
Posts: 1988
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 » Thu 18 Jan 2018 13:03

Eiya wrote:and as a side note, I swear you and Urogard are in some kind of dynamic duo thing considering how he just repeats certain things you say like somehow they were things I 'missed' , like the issue about a certain authority figure, you have made no mention of it at all prior and he just repeats it as if you had been mentioning it numerous times and somehow that flew over my head. (also you should have mentioned that much earlier as in that context your focus on coalition interplay actually makes sense)

Just pointing that out ww


The bottleneck being MadMat should become selfevident if you look around the board for a bit. Consider you are new maybe we should have spelled it out for you earlier.

And you know why taiwan was in that poll? Because eugen simply collected everything ever (even half seriously) suggested in there, and shortly after your last predecessor asked raged about taiwan. I'm fairly sure eugen wouldn't bother with it if they didn't want to appear as "listening to the community"

You are generally lacking experience dealing with eugen and their rules, but no biggie, we are telling you that already, whether you take the advices or not is a different question.

And you know what? That CAT B USA thing is not just me, you can try to do hair splitting on the term "accurate simulation" all you want, most oldtimer here look at the roster and can deduct the rough performance level. Given that taiwan is mostly US, you'll really need to provide some sikrit project which also offer a stat/gameplay difference to break the mold, and get those rabid westerners interested outside of thematical reasons. ;)

Let's end this here, take the advices or leave it. Keep work on your roster and good luck.
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
HrcAk47
Colonel
Posts: 2776
Joined: Sat 3 May 2014 18:00
Contact:

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

Postby HrcAk47 » Thu 18 Jan 2018 15:46

) Nations that have a cult following or 'meme' (not exactly the word but you get the concept) status (E.G. Yugoslavia, Israel)


Big words for an insignificant islet that can't even achieve "meme" status.
The SEAD never bothered me anyway.

SMB Yugoslavia Retexture Mod, now released, v.1.0

User avatar
Eiya
Corporal
Posts: 49
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 » Thu 18 Jan 2018 16:44

HrcAk47 wrote:
) Nations that have a cult following or 'meme' (not exactly the word but you get the concept) status (E.G. Yugoslavia, Israel)


Big words for an insignificant islet that can't even achieve "meme" status.


Taiwan number 1
That's a meme, and the list is my own view and opinion. It is just an observation and not supposed to be offensive.

This 'tiny islet' (and the Republic of China and China in itself) has a deep history and significance, just because it's not well-known in the West, does not discredit it's prominence. Just saying.
Last edited by Eiya on Sat 20 Jan 2018 14:19, edited 1 time in total.

Sleksa
Lieutenant Colonel
Posts: 2253
Joined: Tue 14 May 2013 12:26
Contact:

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

Postby Sleksa » Thu 18 Jan 2018 17:32

Eiya wrote:This tiny islet (and the Republic of China and China in itself) has a deep history and significance, just because it's not well-known in the West, does not discredit it's prominence. Just saying.


Cutting a long list of posts short here's a few pointers

1)Thematically having a nation included in the game would be to add some sort of variety in comparison to pre-existing units. This was a factor in f.ex choosing airland battle's setting to be in scandinavia, and in all of the paid dlc nations

* These units should very much be fitting in the metagame somehow, or in other words "be viable"
* Things found only in a spesific nation or what-if prototypes from cold war are very much emphasized (isr-fi large mortars, mbt70)
* Denmark and others used as examples previously are somewhat exempt from some of these rules because they were added a long time ago and have been updated halfway through rd in order to remain remotely competitive, and are still falling short in many departments in a coalition level such as scandinavia's strv121 being several points below average

2) There is a very loose criteria of what a nation/coalition needs in order to be viable. People's opinions vary but generally most would agree that a large portion of the following should be on that list: high end tanks, high end atgm squads & planes, high end at launcher infantry, viable transport options, viable fighters, air defence, sead

* It is possible to make do without some of these things. Examples include scandinavia making do with a sub-par superheavy or asian coalitions having mediocre/below mediocre infantry/atgm options, but this is fairly crippling for the viability of these decks

3) (This one is for Keldon as well). Inclusion of prototypes generally revolves around a few things.

* Ootf-units generally need to fill a critical role that can't otherwise be done (superheavy, high tier fighter)
* In-timeframe national/cool projects that never turned into reality (mbt70, fi-isr 160mm mortars, zhalo) have a very high chance of being added
* For an example of proto selection process I would recommend checking up my earlier writeup for the finnish proto selection: https://forums.eugensystems.com/viewtopic.php?p=952070#p952070


As far as the taiwan list goes I see several problems with it. It lacks several essential unit options (esp. in the important tank tab), and a lot of the equipment is already prevalent in most blufor nations in the game. these aren't a problem in itself as you pointed out that many nations do have same equipment and many nations aren't super viable, however it's not exactly beneficial to have a nation that lacks many essential unit types while consisting nearly completely of units already in widespread use in blufor side.
Image

User avatar
Eiya
Corporal
Posts: 49
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 » Thu 18 Jan 2018 18:05

Sleksa wrote:Cutting a long list of posts short here's a few pointers


The input is appreciated, though what exactly does the lineup lack 'essentially' in your opinion? (Aside from high-end tanks and SPAAGs)
So far looking at my list I see a fairly complete deck on essential capabilities, and also with additional ones like the APC mounted MLRS systems etc. I won't call it 'extraordinary' but neither is it exactly fully missing anything either. (On SEAD, the F-CK-1 Ching-Kuo has an ARM missile which may or may not be OOTF, and then again some nations in-game also lack SEAD capability entirely.)
Just noting but it helps to read the proposal thread in its entirety just in case you've skimmed over the information.

I also don't believe that a full array of high tier units are a must for a nation to be viable in WG.(please do note : full)
So while I agree that the tank tab isn't great, it's not helpless and therefore not a critical problem for the lineup. (Well depending on your point on view on whether high-end MBTs are essential or not)

I see the point on the prevalence of BLUFOR standard-fares but with respect I disagree that the lineup consists of "almost completely" BLUFOR standards as demonstrated by the options shown in my thread.
(Also depends on if you consider units such as the CM-21 and all its variants as "widespread BLUFOR equipment", for example I personally think the variants of the CM-21 are unique enough not to be considered as such.)
It won't offer great amounts of domestic engineering but the amount of domestic units is about the same or even more than usual non-major nations offer currently in-game.

And so I believe it can be beneficial to the game, though not in the 'Israel' kind of way. (but then one could argue whether those new DLC nations were exactly 'beneficial' to the game or not maglan & M-84AN)

Mainly by completing RD's East Asia focus, certain things it can introduce like the MLRS/infantry/APC options, which can also help out BD, and generally the units can still be add to the game, even if they're not high-tier Merkava tier style ones.

Sleksa
Lieutenant Colonel
Posts: 2253
Joined: Tue 14 May 2013 12:26
Contact:

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

Postby Sleksa » Fri 19 Jan 2018 01:44

Eiya wrote:
Sleksa wrote:Cutting a long list of posts short here's a few pointers


The input is appreciated, though what exactly does the lineup lack 'essentially' in your opinion? (Aside from high-end tanks and SPAAGs)
So far looking at my list I see a fairly complete deck on essential capabilities, and also with additional ones like the APC mounted MLRS systems etc. I won't call it 'extraordinary' but neither is it exactly fully missing anything either. (On SEAD, the F-CK-1 Ching-Kuo has an ARM missile which may or may not be OOTF, and then again some nations in-game also lack SEAD capability entirely.)
Just noting but it helps to read the proposal thread in its entirety just in case you've skimmed over the information.

I also don't believe that a full array of high tier units are a must for a nation to be viable in WG.(please do note : full)
So while I agree that the tank tab isn't great, it's not helpless and therefore not a critical problem for the lineup. (Well depending on your point on view on whether high-end MBTs are essential or not)


There's a few ways to look at things. My personal & subjective perspective is more or less from a competitive point of view, where a unit needs some key statistics in order to be viable at its role. F.ex you could have a deck/coalition that only has access to base hawks, zu-23 & blowpipes and say that they have the essential abilities of air defence, however in reality these units have so terrible ingame performance that they might as well not exist.

I've read through the list and additionally some of the more unique things to taiwan are also problematic mostly due to ingame things. The ~120mm mrls systems for example have a incredibly weak ingame performance and the fact that some of them in the taiwanese roster are on an apc chassis doesn't really change their viability one way or the other. At the end of the day when I imagine creating either of the proposed coalition decks (tai-usa-wan or triforce-dragons) nearly all of the unit roles I'd normally use, can already be filled with pre-existing units that generally would have either similiar- or better performance with the pre-existing usa/b-dragons units. There are however singular exceptions like providing potential atgm teams to a usa deck or viable infantry for blue dragons.

The best probability for taiwan's inclusion from my perspective would be to fill some of the gaps that exist in the blue dragons coalition, but considering the support for the game has ended and the blue dragons have been one of the weakest coalitions in the game with very little changes throughout the games history, the chances are fairly slim.
Image

User avatar
Grabbed_by_the_Spets
General
Posts: 6436
Joined: Fri 16 Mar 2012 11:40
Contact:

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

Postby Grabbed_by_the_Spets » Fri 19 Jan 2018 04:48

HrcAk47 wrote:Big words for an insignificant islet that can't even achieve "meme" status.


Well, Taiwan defiantly deserved more of a status in game than both Israel and Yugoslavia.
Image

Return to “Wargame : Red Dragon”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Grimmi and 3 guests