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

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 8 Jan 2018 17:49

fatfluffycat wrote:I'll be happy to have more map terrain types in a single game. I miss how colorful ALB was compared to RD.


I miss popping T-80Us with M1IPs by waiting at the bottom of hills because the T-80U can't aim down that far. :lol:
Image
Courtesy of KattiValk

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 22:20

Mike wrote:
fatfluffycat wrote:I'll be happy to have more map terrain types in a single game. I miss how colorful ALB was compared to RD.


I miss popping T-80Us with M1IPs by waiting at the bottom of hills because the T-80U can't aim down that far. :lol:


I miss the one point trucks, they where such a great counter to ATGMs.
How is possible? / Thread of the Year 2015
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 » Tue 9 Jan 2018 11:41

Fade2Gray wrote:
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.

Personally I think the game shouldn't limit the tactical choices or possibilities the player can have (of course it should have its own natural counterbalancing factor like availability / supply), though as for all nations having that it should depend on if the nation actually had said systems.

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 » Tue 9 Jan 2018 17:08

Eiya wrote:
Fade2Gray wrote:
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.

Personally I think the game shouldn't limit the tactical choices or possibilities the player can have (of course it should have its own natural counterbalancing factor like availability / supply), though as for all nations having that it should depend on if the nation actually had said systems.

Cancer is cancer is cancer is...

cancer. Did I mention cancer? Because that's how you get cancer.

The USA would just get a different (and vastly less cancerous) "tactical choice" and the Dutch could simply get something else in exchange. As such, I'm going to dismiss this old meme argument as you trying to simply defend cancerous toys that are just purely toxic game play.
Image
Image
Think you have what it takes to enlist into the military? You sure about that?

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 » Tue 9 Jan 2018 17:34

Fade2Gray wrote:
Eiya wrote:
Fade2Gray wrote:How about less cancer instead of more? Axe the Lance and rerole the ATACMS into a MARS clone.

Personally I think the game shouldn't limit the tactical choices or possibilities the player can have (of course it should have its own natural counterbalancing factor like availability / supply), though as for all nations having that it should depend on if the nation actually had said systems.

Cancer is cancer is cancer is...

cancer. Did I mention cancer? Because that's how you get cancer.

The USA would just get a different (and vastly less cancerous) "tactical choice" and the Dutch could simply get something else in exchange. As such, I'm going to dismiss this old meme argument as you trying to simply defend cancerous toys that are just purely toxic game play.

Maybe according to his logic "tactical choices" also include LRAAM cancer and shutting down the entire airspace with 2 Tomcats.
But considering PACT has no "tactical choices" to deal with Tomcats other than "pray your opponent doesn't know how to control airplanes", then I'm not really sure what choices he actually means when there are none.

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 » Tue 9 Jan 2018 23:36

urogard wrote:Maybe according to his logic "tactical choices" also include LRAAM cancer and shutting down the entire airspace with 2 Tomcats.
But considering PACT has no "tactical choices" to deal with Tomcats other than "pray your opponent doesn't know how to control airplanes", then I'm not really sure what choices he actually means when there are none.

3 or 4 seems to be the critical mass to me, but yeah 2 of them are pretty scary to deal with as is.

Wouldn't mind seeing the Tomcat and MIG-31s disappear from the game, and the USA get the F-22 instead.
Image
Image
Think you have what it takes to enlist into the military? You sure about that?

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 » Wed 10 Jan 2018 00:50

fatfluffycat wrote:
Mike wrote:
fatfluffycat wrote:I'll be happy to have more map terrain types in a single game. I miss how colorful ALB was compared to RD.


I miss popping T-80Us with M1IPs by waiting at the bottom of hills because the T-80U can't aim down that far. :lol:


I miss the one point trucks, they where such a great counter to ATGMs.


I think Steel Division did trucks right.

Fade2Gray wrote:Wouldn't mind seeing the Tomcat and MIG-31s disappear from the game, and the USA get the F-22 instead.


Check yourself.
Image
Courtesy of KattiValk

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 » Wed 10 Jan 2018 03:13

Fade2Gray wrote:
Eiya wrote:
Fade2Gray wrote:Cancer is cancer is cancer is...

cancer. Did I mention cancer? Because that's how you get cancer.

The USA would just get a different (and vastly less cancerous) "tactical choice" and the Dutch could simply get something else in exchange. As such, I'm going to dismiss this old meme argument as you trying to simply defend cancerous toys that are just purely toxic game play.


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.

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 » Wed 10 Jan 2018 12:32

Fade2Gray wrote:
urogard wrote:Maybe according to his logic "tactical choices" also include LRAAM cancer and shutting down the entire airspace with 2 Tomcats.
But considering PACT has no "tactical choices" to deal with Tomcats other than "pray your opponent doesn't know how to control airplanes", then I'm not really sure what choices he actually means when there are none.

3 or 4 seems to be the critical mass to me, but yeah 2 of them are pretty scary to deal with as is.

Wouldn't mind seeing the Tomcat and MIG-31s disappear from the game, and the USA get the F-22 instead.

2 Tomcats already mean your typical Pact bomber/ATGM with 20% ECM has somewhere around 40% chance of getting shot down by 1 salvo.
So that's 40% chance of losing your plane on every sortie, assuming the enemy has no ground AA whatsoever.

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 » Thu 11 Jan 2018 13:31

GIB BULGARIA, ROMANIA, GREECE AND TURKEY, REEEEEEE

GIB SYRIA, IRAQ, IRAN AND ARAB STATES REEEEEEE

GIB SOUTH AFRICA, RHODESIA, ANGOLA AND CUBA REEEEEE

GIB WG4 REEEEEEEE

Return to “Wargame : Red Dragon”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 24 guests