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

Steamfunk
Lieutenant
Posts: 1470
Joined: Sun 14 Dec 2014 06:19

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

Postby Steamfunk » Mon 5 Feb 2018 19:52

20% ECM isn't bad for 60 points, 2x 6AP clusters is bad for 30 points. You could double the loadout for 60 points (Jag will carry up to six BL.775s) and I still wouldn't take it in Commonwealth. That's how useless cluster bombers are.


In my opinion they have their uses, but that's not the whole story. Compare the F-111C to the Il-102 - the latter still has 10% ECM and is much slower (albeit with a very good turn rate). I don't know how good the Gsh-23 is but I think it would be better if it counted as a flare or chaff gun. The trade off between payload and survivability is a difficult one, but I think there are some planes that are too likely to take a hit. I would like to see the Tornado get a larger payload but it could also do with more speed, it's faster than most planes at low level. I have other ideas but I can't say much about pricing because I just don't know.

The ratio for ground units excludes max range, optics and armour. There have been times when range was increased or decreased with no change in price. It's possible that some are discretionary, depending on the standard(s). Optics mostly coincides with range although there are some exceptions, armour seems to scale fairly evenly and speed/fuel values are similar. You can see where they've used modifiers to balance things like range and damage, for example the T-80 had poor optics and the size was set as large rather than medium, as per Abrams etc.

TL/DR: There's a logic to pricing but it's not that precise.

User avatar
Fade2Gray
General
Posts: 8645
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 » Tue 6 Feb 2018 02:27

I'm just going to walk away now...
Image
Image
Think you have what it takes to enlist into the military? You sure about that?

User avatar
hansbroger
Lieutenant General
Posts: 4428
Joined: Sun 28 Jul 2013 03:45
Contact:

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

Postby hansbroger » Tue 6 Feb 2018 03:11

This is more in the category of splitting hairs but I'd be all for an AP optimization that would better interact with things like the A-10's BRRRRRRTTT! as well as HEAT warheads on munitions like unguided air to ground rockets. The current system works well but I'd like to see a system that better supports some of those lower tech, analogue systems that didn't make it into the series.
Projectnordic in game! will likely see you on pact/red dragons/french!
Image

urogard
Brigadier
Posts: 3055
Joined: Sun 4 May 2014 13:31
Contact:

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

Postby urogard » Tue 6 Feb 2018 12:03

Steamfunk wrote:Compare the F-111C to the Il-102 - the latter still has 10% ECM and is much slower (albeit with a very good turn rate). I don't know how good the Gsh-23 is but I think it would be better if it counted as a flare or chaff gun.

Don't forget that Il-102 has 2 Front/Rear armor.

On paper, 60% damage reduction and better turn rate looks quite comparable to 20% higher ECM and 1000 km/h
2 hawk/patriot missile hits (even if one of them is a critical) or 4 hits with rapier/roland/chapparal and the IL-102 remains alive.
Quite a big difference to one single lucky crit shot required from a tor/osa.

urogard
Brigadier
Posts: 3055
Joined: Sun 4 May 2014 13:31
Contact:

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

Postby urogard » Tue 6 Feb 2018 13:43

high_melanin wrote:
urogard wrote:Any situation where you pay less or more for a unit than other equivalent units cost is an imbalance by definition.

Open up literally any dictionary definition of game balance.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balance_(game_design)

balance is the concept and the practice of tuning a game's rules, usually with the goal of preventing any of its component systems from being ineffective or otherwise undesirable when compared to their peers


Are you now going to provide proof for your own claim? Or will you try to move the goalposts again.

high_melanin
Sergeant
Posts: 54
Joined: Thu 25 Jan 2018 12:02
Contact:

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

Postby high_melanin » Tue 6 Feb 2018 14:06

preventing any of its component systems from being ineffective or otherwise undesirable when compared to their peers


AKA you don't want some factions to be undesirable compared to others. It is a much broader statement compared to this:

urogard wrote:Any situation where you pay less or more for a unit than other equivalent units cost is an imbalance by definition.

urogard
Brigadier
Posts: 3055
Joined: Sun 4 May 2014 13:31
Contact:

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

Postby urogard » Tue 6 Feb 2018 15:56

high_melanin wrote:
preventing any of its component systems from being ineffective or otherwise undesirable when compared to their peers

AKA you don't want some factions to be undesirable compared to others. It is a much broader statement compared to this:
urogard wrote:Any situation where you pay less or more for a unit than other equivalent units cost is an imbalance by definition.

I'm not sure if you're aware of the logical fallacy you've been engaging in for the last 5-6 posts (you're maybe doing it intentionally):
You're proposing the more complex balancing system, yet you provide no proof.
By the same logic I can say balance is not between decks but between NATO vs PACT as a whole, but this would carry no weight because I'm proposing a far more complex balancing system than you, so I'd need to prove the truth of its complexity before you'd need to provide proof of its simplicity.

You can't refute someone's claim by making a counterclaim that the system is far more complex without a shred of evidence.

Superheavies and high-end ASFs are balanced by price equally, independent of nation (due to their limited numbers, those belong to the few unit classes which are well balanced by now). Therefore units are balanced by price, without taking into account their affiliation.

Overall tabs are balanced in price, yet there are lots of inconsistencies, but the pattern of inconsistencies is effectively random [LINK], neither advantaging nor disadvantaging any nation in particular.
According to your logic, if one nation is overpaying in some units, it has to have an advantage elsewhere, we should be clearly be able to see this pattern in inconsistencies.

I'll be waiting from now for you to show us this pattern in inconsistencies, since I've generously provided proof that units are balanced by price, not by affiliation.

high_melanin
Sergeant
Posts: 54
Joined: Thu 25 Jan 2018 12:02
Contact:

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

Postby high_melanin » Tue 6 Feb 2018 16:08

urogard wrote:because I'm proposing a far more complex balancing system.


No, you are proposing autism.

urogard wrote:Therefore units are balanced by price, without taking into account their affiliation.


Nope, some are balanced by affiliation. Check the armory.


urogard wrote:but the pattern of inconsistencies is effectively random


No, some inconsistencies have a clear gameplay purpose.

urogard wrote:According to your logic, if one nation is overpaying in some units, it has to have an advantage elsewhere, we should be clearly be able to see this pattern in inconsistencies.


There is a pattern, you just don't want to see it.


urogard wrote:I'll be waiting from now for you to show us this pattern in inconsistencies, since I've generously provided proof that units are balanced by price, not by affiliation.


Check challenger 2 availability, or legion 90 vs highlanders '90. Among many others.

Steamfunk
Lieutenant
Posts: 1470
Joined: Sun 14 Dec 2014 06:19

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

Postby Steamfunk » Tue 6 Feb 2018 20:20

On paper, 60% damage reduction and better turn rate looks quite comparable to 20% higher ECM and 1000 km/h


I don't think turn rate makes much difference, I've only taken the Il-102 a few times but it seems to take damage very quickly. All I'm saying is that units are (to paraphrase your quote) more than the sum of their parts. The reason many units are undervalued or ignored is because their purpose isn't well defined - the DLC nations benefit from a more analytic approach.

urogard
Brigadier
Posts: 3055
Joined: Sun 4 May 2014 13:31
Contact:

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

Postby urogard » Wed 7 Feb 2018 00:13

high_melanin wrote:
urogard wrote:because I'm proposing a far more complex balancing system.
No, you are proposing autism.

I was showing you that proposing a more complex system as a counterclaim as opposed to disproving the simpler system is indeed autism.

high_melanin wrote:
urogard wrote:Therefore units are balanced by price, without taking into account their affiliation.

Nope, some are balanced by affiliation. Check the armory.

Unless you actually name the units and how their affiliation affects the price, you've effectively said nothing.

Q: Can you provide sources for your data?
A: Go look them up online.
Yeah, solid logic m8.

high_melanin wrote:
urogard wrote:but the pattern of inconsistencies is effectively random

No, some inconsistencies have a clear gameplay purpose.

The inconsistency thread begs to differ.

high_melanin wrote:
urogard wrote:According to your logic, if one nation is overpaying in some units, it has to have an advantage elsewhere, we should be clearly be able to see this pattern in inconsistencies.

There is a pattern, you just don't want to see it.

The fact that you're unwilling to describe the actual pattern as opposed to simply claiming it exists is indicative of what kind of pattern that is.

high_melanin wrote:
urogard wrote:I'll be waiting from now for you to show us this pattern in inconsistencies, since I've generously provided proof that units are balanced by price, not by affiliation.


Check challenger 2 availability

We're discussing price, not availability.
You're claiming Malka/Pion price is 30 pts higher than M110/A2 because of their national affiliation.

high_melanin wrote:, or legion 90 vs highlanders '90.

One is shock infantry, the other one is regular.
Of course they won't have same availability, that's what training level does.
Or do you now want me to prove to you that training level affects availability?

high_melanin wrote:Among many others.

Name even one that actually supports your argument, as opposed to contradict it.

Return to “Wargame : Red Dragon”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 43 guests