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

Fodder
Sergeant Major
Posts: 297
Joined: Fri 7 Oct 2016 20:15
Contact:

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

Postby Fodder » Sun 10 Dec 2017 17:00

q
Last edited by Fodder on Wed 10 Jan 2018 18:15, edited 1 time 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 » Mon 11 Dec 2017 08:11

Fodder wrote:
Eiya wrote:...

What I meant is if you want the game to be more of a simulator then some of units have to go because they don't belong on this scale and are you ok with that?


I meant that the overall combat gameplay and unit stats should be leaning on simulator.

As for some units needing to go in the case of absolute realism, personally I think I would be fine with it, but having it as an optional game mode would be the best way to satisfy everyone in that case.

User avatar
Mike
More than 10 000 messages. Soldier you are the leader of all armies!
Posts: 12409
Joined: Thu 20 Feb 2014 01:09
Location: Virginia, United States of America
Contact:

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

Postby Mike » Mon 11 Dec 2017 18:23

The two biggest problems with helicopters in my opinion is that they
A.) Do that little dance when they stop
B.) Everyone has AA that vastly outranges all heliborne ATGMs.

It's kinda hard to use an Mi-24VP's Kokons when they are outranged by 525m.
Image
Courtesy of KattiValk

urogard
Brigadier
Posts: 3062
Joined: Sun 4 May 2014 13:31
Contact:

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

Postby urogard » Mon 11 Dec 2017 18:49

Mike wrote:The two biggest problems with helicopters in my opinion is that they
A.) Do that little dance when they stop
B.) Everyone has AA that vastly outranges all heliborne ATGMs.

It's kinda hard to use an Mi-24VP's Kokons when they are outranged by 525m.

And yet you still get people who open with 2 Akulas and Ka-52 ....

With helos there's another problem, they suck at what they should be useful at (lobbing ATGMs at tanks) and are too good and what they shouldn't be useful at (helo rushing)

Helo rushing would be hampered if the engine was capable of managing supression in such a way that SPAAGs would supress all helos in a 300-400m radius around their main target and 9HE missiles would instantly panick everything in a 500-600m radius of the main blast.
It's easy to mass-panick a blob of ground units, it's impossible to do the same with helos.

Also no helo should be able to survive a BUK/Hawk missile to the face.

User avatar
Mike
More than 10 000 messages. Soldier you are the leader of all armies!
Posts: 12409
Joined: Thu 20 Feb 2014 01:09
Location: Virginia, United States of America
Contact:

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

Postby Mike » Mon 11 Dec 2017 22:28

urogard wrote:With helos there's another problem, they suck at what they should be useful at (lobbing ATGMs at tanks) and are too good and what they shouldn't be useful at (helo rushing)

Helo rushing would be hampered if the engine was capable of managing supression in such a way that SPAAGs would supress all helos in a 300-400m radius around their main target and 9HE missiles would instantly panick everything in a 500-600m radius of the main blast.
It's easy to mass-panick a blob of ground units, it's impossible to do the same with helos.

Also no helo should be able to survive a BUK/Hawk missile to the face.

In ALB, you could actually pick off units if they didn't move their AA up with their tanks and that's how I liked it. But I do agree with your first paragraph. But there would need to be some kind of modifier so the suppression area on affected air units.

Also, no aircraft in game should survive a BUK/HAWK to the face. :P The only choppers than can tank direct hits from the big boys is Mi-24 and CH-53 variants... And the Mi-26, but that's a supply chopper.
Image
Courtesy of KattiValk

urogard
Brigadier
Posts: 3062
Joined: Sun 4 May 2014 13:31
Contact:

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

Postby urogard » Mon 11 Dec 2017 22:54

Mike wrote:Also, no aircraft in game should survive a BUK/HAWK to the face. :P The only choppers than can tank direct hits from the big boys is Mi-24 and CH-53 variants... And the Mi-26, but that's a supply chopper.

Yeah, but plane trains are nowhere near as much a problem as helo blobs are.

User avatar
James-Bond
Master Sergeant
Posts: 198
Joined: Mon 9 Jul 2012 18:08
Contact:

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

Postby James-Bond » Tue 12 Dec 2017 04:14

just on the bit about Naval:
even if it was just transports & river Boats it could be much more enjoyable imo.
(mainly for maneuvering reasons, make the game less predicable & static)
RED & Blue both have amphibious vehicles:
- Infantry Transports
- Mortar / howitzer
- ATGM /AT Cannon
- Anti-Air Missile /SPAAG
All Land Units can get spawned into a Naval Transport just add transport cost before deployed.

-------------------

most maps it's rare you'll see troops get transported to island or land by boat (unless marine spec)
unfortunately your NAVAL has to be ASM heavy, or you'll have to rely on team mates to take out ships.
you get 5 slot (non-marine)

you'll need an ASM Plane (+1), if you have a ship (+1), you'll need supplies (+1)
ships will get rekt by themselves so you need another ship (+1),
1 card of planes ASM missiles will get shot down so you need more ASM planes (+1)
now you've reached your total of 5, you can take open sea, but you can't take island or do any landings.


my typical BLUFOR
3x Planes, [F/a18E, CF-18, TORNADO Gr.8]
1x Le fay
1x Supply Ship

my logic:
NATO usually has Air superiority through trolly Tomcats,
NATO ships aren't great vs Ship
I use Le fay to troll the sea then sail away, if red get angry & build a navy, when enemy navy gets close the planes will ruin them.
I only buy loads of ASM planes, if enemy builds a big Navy.

REDFOR
2x Planes [Su-27K, JH-7]
2x Ship [Udaloy, SOV]
1x Supply Ship

my Logic
can't do same NATO tactic as RED doesn't have a good 3rd ASM plane, MiG-29K is overpriced & ASM range too short.
If SOV and Udaloy are mirco'd so they launch ASM missiles same time, Blue navy can't cope.
Supplies are critical for it work.
I only really buy the ships late game, as it is a heavy investment,
will need constant attention once they are spawn'd especially from ASM plane waves & ATCAMS strikes.

annoyingly this limits what other units I would like to use.
ASM arty is good, BAL/Sea-buster is amazing when it doesn't blow itself up.
but it's supply intensive, can get arty'd easily, difficult to use offensively.
Same issue with ASM heli, can be used more aggressively, but needs escort and can get ambushed.

Landings/Transports:
There has been times where I've changed my deck & have had successful team-plays where I've managed to land units.
but landing units can be high risk, pretty easy to defend against, and unless you got some heavier units loaded in the transport, after the initial landing isn't that effective and difficult to push.

however my personal favourite using Eastern-Bloc is:
OSA &/or LStR.
just sending out a single or pair of LStR to an island or unguarded coast can be a real thorn in someones side.
using OSA AA, to clear the sea of helicopters or Planes.

as much as it can be fun, it's not always helpful in the big picture, which means I have to revert back to my usual Deck selection.
-------------------

I like doing little skirmishes with amphibious vehicles.
Some fun combos <200pt (may include infantry)
EC: VBL Mistral + AMX-10 RC
CMW: Stormer HVM, recon LAV, vickers MK11
EB: BPzV SNEZKA, MTLB strela-10 /OSA

also big fan of BMP-2: Armoured, Amphibious, Auto-cannon & ATGM.

VCG-001 USS Spain
Specialist
Posts: 16
Joined: Sat 25 Nov 2017 12:08
Contact:

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

Postby VCG-001 USS Spain » Sun 7 Jan 2018 18:34

In the matchmaker, we ought to be able to register as teams with friends, and fight against other teams outside organized tournaments.

I'm tired of facing noobs that don't know how to fast move alongside veterans who, seeing how hopeless their team is, decide to either leave or helorush.

Also.... more large maps like Strait To The Point, NO maps of any size like Smoke in the Water.

+1 on splitting up Navy. There should be a 5 card limited Naval Aviation tab, a 4 card limited Deep Sea tab, and an 8 card limited Tactical Naval tab. Stuff like gunboats and units in LCMs in tactical, F-14s and ASM planes in Naval Aviation, Kongos and Sovs in Deep Sea.

Navy CAN work and CAN be good in Wargame, but I've only seen it work well on Strait To The Point. Navies need sanctuaries from ASM attack, but they don't work well with too many islands in between the fleets. It's best to have large, open seas with one large island for each team's navy to hide behind. Also, I think that some units should be available regardless of deck.

Like LCMs, with nothing in them on naval maps. Smoke In The Water is a horrible map because you almost immediately lose or win at sea and can no longer fight on the island. The island is also just a horrible piece of terrain... How do you fight on that? I've never known, and despite loving Naval while everybody else hates it, cannot stand the map at all.

Honestly, we should add helicopter carriers too, similar to the Dokdo, Izumo, or Wasp classes. No fixed wing aviation but, let helicopters land on them and let them carry infantry. Add Landing Ship Tanks too, that can drop ramps for tanks. Amphibious operations in wargame are simple but awesome... if you can get everything into the bloody LCMs and your team speaks english.

Artillery is currently in a very good state, but all nations should have stuff like ATACMS, Lance. It should be able to be shot down by land CIWS... Tor and Tunguska and Patriot, as well as actual naval CIWS... Phalanx and SM-2 and so on.

I like the way logi works right now, but I've been thinking that maybe FOBs should receive an upgrade, where in the deck, you could choose 5 things it would have specifically, and in surplus. Like 5.45x39mm or 5.56x45mm or 7.62x51mm or 125mm or 152mm HE, or ATACMS M39 missiles, or SM-2s, or something like that. Men for infantry squads should also be an option, with either a standard veterancy or a choosable veterancy (at the expense of number in the FOB.) Say, 500 men at shock, or 200 at elite. Half a FOB worth of each (except men). We could make deck building a lot more specialized while providing more base, universal capabilities.


I've thought about this for a while, but maybe we could have a Realistic mode for custom lobbies, simulating the way weapons work where the normal game doesn't. For instance, planes WITH Link16 could fire on targets they couldn't see themselves, while planes without them can't unless they see the target themselves. This would be awesome for long matches on large maps, team vs team. I doubt devs would be willing to make and balance something that niche and complicated, though.

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 » Mon 8 Jan 2018 03:33

VCG-001 USS Spain wrote:Artillery is currently in a very good state, but all nations should have stuff like ATACMS, Lance.

How about less cancer instead of more? Axe the Lance and rerole the ATACMS into a MARS clone.
Image
Image
Think you have what it takes to enlist into the military? You sure about that?

User avatar
fatfluffycat
Major
Posts: 1763
Joined: Wed 1 Jan 2014 02:40
Location: Texas
Contact:

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

Postby fatfluffycat » Mon 8 Jan 2018 04:56

I'll be happy to have more map terrain types in a single game. I miss how colorful ALB was compared to RD.
How is possible? / Thread of the Year 2015
Image

Return to “Wargame : Red Dragon”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 41 guests