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

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 18:03

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.


let's call it "Amphibious Warfare" instead, cut everything but gunboats, landing boats and small vessels, because there were at least some good concepts to it :)
Last edited by nuke92 on Sat 9 Dec 2017 19:52, edited 1 time in total.
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

urogard
Colonel
Posts: 2933
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 20:13

Scheintot887 wrote:
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.

If they had "fixed" naval by removing all "deep sea" vessels (keeping only river and coast ships) and removing naval only maps then it would have been quite usable and would have still fit quite well into the overall gameplay.

Deep sea vessels are just way out of scale, same way LRAAMs and Patriot should have been removed in RD.

User avatar
Eiya
Specialist
Posts: 19
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 » Fri 8 Dec 2017 12:57

I don't think NAV should be removed entirely, it's an interesting and good concept inherently, I believe it can be spectacular if done right.

It definitely needs more thought and commitment put into it than what we got in RD though.
「革命尚未成功,同志仍需努力」
Image
BLUE CHINA - The Republic of China for Wargame: Red Dragon

urogard
Colonel
Posts: 2933
Joined: Sun 4 May 2014 13:31
Contact:

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

Postby urogard » Fri 8 Dec 2017 13:43

Eiya wrote:I don't think NAV should be removed entirely, it's an interesting and good concept inherently, I believe it can be spectacular if done right

Yeah if "done right" means not adding strategic level assets to a tactical level game.

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 » Fri 8 Dec 2017 18:49

Eiya wrote:I don't think NAV should be removed entirely, it's an interesting and good concept inherently, I believe it can be spectacular if done right.

It definitely needs more thought and commitment put into it than what we got in RD though.


True. I've got the same opinion and like I've mentioned before I believe that naval units just need an overlook to be fun and balanced at the same time. Might be not that easy (especially where people always have different criticism and different opinions).

User avatar
Eiya
Specialist
Posts: 19
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 9 Dec 2017 14:55

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

I have the same opinion too, though I definitely think WG should be more realistic instead of staying as it is (though no harm done either way).

This is a big generalization but I personally think if all the units were truly based on 'real' capabilities (card cost/numbers exempt), the rest would balance itself.

It's when artificial balancing is added then things get whack as things in reality simply balance themselves out, while artificially adjusting stats does not offer the same 'natural' constraints and so it's easy to end up with imbalances, and also hard to fix them.
Also aware that maybe not all units are able / could be best done in this way though.

I think if the game can be more of a simulator, while still maintaining accessibility near to how it is currently (as in UI control, fundamental gameplay mechanics), it would be great.

*also they should remove the stop-blinking thing when your units get spotted, I think it's a bit cheap and also very unrealistic to just know immediately when your units are spotted or not, and if I remember right EE didn't have that

*Map design also needs work, RD's representation of Asia was....inaccurate to put it nicely, it would be nice to see maps based on actual locations using real geography and layouts too.

*Something to bring era restricted games into the spotlight? Arguably, era-restricted games are more interesting than your usual standard game where everyone and their latest modern units more or less have similar or near-identical capabilities to each other.
「革命尚未成功,同志仍需努力」
Image
BLUE CHINA - The Republic of China for Wargame: Red Dragon

Fodder
First Sergeant
Posts: 202
Joined: Fri 7 Oct 2016 20:15
Contact:

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

Postby Fodder » Sat 9 Dec 2017 16:12

Eiya wrote:I have the same opinion too, though I definitely think WG should be more realistic instead of staying as it is (though no harm done either way).

This is a big generalization but I personally think if all the units were truly based on 'real' capabilities (card cost/numbers exempt), the rest would balance itself.

It's when artificial balancing is added then things get whack as things in reality simply balance themselves out, while artificially adjusting stats does not offer the same 'natural' constraints and so it's easy to end up with imbalances, and also hard to fix them.
Also aware that maybe not all units are able / could be best done in this way though.

I think if the game can be more of a simulator, while still maintaining accessibility near to how it is currently (as in UI control, fundamental gameplay mechanics), it would be great.

*also they should remove the stop-blinking thing when your units get spotted, I think it's a bit cheap and also very unrealistic to just know immediately when your units are spotted or not, and if I remember right EE didn't have that

*Map design also needs work, RD's representation of Asia was....inaccurate to put it nicely, it would be nice to see maps based on actual locations using real geography and layouts too.

*Something to bring era restricted games into the spotlight? Arguably, era-restricted games are more interesting than your usual standard game where everyone and their latest modern units more or less have similar or near-identical capabilities to each other.

More realistic? That means no smerch, interceptors, SAS, and all AA units with more range than OSA.

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 » Sat 9 Dec 2017 19:58

realism as in flares for helicopters, updated helo motion model etc.
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

User avatar
FrangibleCover
Lieutenant
Posts: 1387
Joined: Mon 14 Nov 2016 21:34
Contact:

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

Postby FrangibleCover » Sun 10 Dec 2017 13:47

How to do a realistic and fun Naval mode in Wargame: Clone C:MA/NO in Iriszoom and then use that for naval battle resolution in the Campaign. Give up on the Multiplayer aspect and the interaction with land units aspect, they can't be made to work.
[Non-included Nation] Belgium - Spreadsheet
[Non-included Nation] Hungary - Spreadsheet
[Non-included Nation] Pakistan

User avatar
Eiya
Specialist
Posts: 19
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 » Sun 10 Dec 2017 14:01

Fodder wrote:More realistic? That means no smerch, interceptors, SAS, and all AA units with more range than OSA.


Maybe as a game mode option?

FrangibleCover wrote:How to do a realistic and fun Naval mode in Wargame: Clone C:MA/NO in Iriszoom and then use that for naval battle resolution in the Campaign. Give up on the Multiplayer aspect and the interaction with land units aspect, they can't be made to work.

I like the idea but imo there's probably a way to make multiplayer and land-interaction work (I'm no expert on actual naval combat though)

Personally I think NAV would have worked somewhat well if the promised NAV tab expansion was fully delivered on, and if more focus was put onto it.
「革命尚未成功,同志仍需努力」
Image
BLUE CHINA - The Republic of China for Wargame: Red Dragon

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: NATO General and 29 guests