Future DLC’s for Wargame Red Dragon

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

Re: Future DLC’s for Wargame Red Dragon

Postby Steamfunk » Fri 9 Mar 2018 18:41

Did you know that you could finish the Busan Pocket campaign in 3 tiens, as in the moment the Muhreens arrive?


I didn't, until I read an online walkthrough - there's a campaign in ALB where you can occupy all Copenhagen, Oslo and Stockholm within two turns IIRC.

There are no rules.


Yeah, I don't mind them making exceptions but they end up becoming the rule on more than a few occasions, China has the HJ-9 because it lacks a superheavy, so why does Israel need the Nimrod? We didn't have any long-range AGMs in the game up to that point, otherwise we would have seen the Kh-59, AGM-130 or SLAM. I don't even mind them stretching the timeline if these units were actually necessary, but that really isn't the case.

Sleksa
Lieutenant Colonel
Posts: 2265
Joined: Tue 14 May 2013 12:26
Contact:

Re: Future DLC’s for Wargame Red Dragon

Postby Sleksa » Fri 9 Mar 2018 19:10

ST21 wrote:
Tiera wrote:
ST21 wrote:Haha, wow. That MadMat post didnt age well. :lol:

Can't really blame Eugen on ALB, the relevant sources are as a rule in Finnish only.

And yes, Italy would have been nice addition.
The voters disagreed.


Because they didnt know any better... harsh but true.

It was a bad idea to let the community decides which nations to add. You can expect this community where chauvinistic feelings are rampant to vote rationally for the most logical and "best" options. And i think too many voters werent well informed enough about all the possible options to make such decisions. Heck, even Eugen i am sure didnt expect those poll results. I recall MadMat saying that he had expected people to vote massively for Italy because it was clearly one of the best options... that didnt happen. Because voters "reasons". :roll:


Again, adding more blue nations when they already outnumber red nations 2:1 is hardly the "logical" or "best" option.

ST21 wrote:
Tiera wrote:
ST21 wrote:Eugen ignores the rules

There are no rules.

I'm sorry to hear that your suspension of disbelief could deal with a WGerman-Norwegian-Danish-Canadian combined arms force fighting a meeting engagement against a EGerman-Polish-Chinese-Soviet force on Korean soil, but the addition of Finland finally shattered it.

May this picture of Kekkonen ease your pain.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C6OquVKWQAA9YsE.jpg


NATO countries have a history of expeditionary deployments. Several Western European countries and Canada took part in the Korean War and not just in a non-combat role so its not particularly implausible to imagine them taking part in a major war in Asia. Finland, however, is completely out of place in RD.


For numbers at the end summer '51 there were 302 000 americans, 14 000 brits, 6 000 canadians, 5500 turks (!) as well as several medical units (154 from sweden, 105 from norway, 72 from italy and 70 from india) in korea. It's a bit dishonest to say that a complete norwegian mechanized division in active combat in korea with several flights worth of combat aircraft in '82 is realistic because of their history of "expeditionary deployment" in korea in the 50's which relied completely on american logistics, air defence, artillery, air support, food, ammo and intelligence.

Even countries like france, germany and italy despite their fairly sizable army in the late 80's to the end of cold war are extremely implausible at best fighting a cold war gone hot in the busan pocket with their armor divisions unless you want to apply some extremely creative thinking

There are no rules.


Yeah, I don't mind them making exceptions but they end up becoming the rule on more than a few occasions, China has the HJ-9 because it lacks a superheavy, so why does Israel need the Nimrod? We didn't have any long-range AGMs in the game up to that point, otherwise we would have seen the Kh-59, AGM-130 or SLAM. I don't even mind them stretching the timeline if these units were actually necessary, but that really isn't the case.


1) The game is balanced around coalitions
2) China doesn't have a hj9 because it lacks a superheavy, it has the hj9 because it's a cool unit and roughly in the timeframe
3) israel has a nimrod because of #2
4) there are several long range agms in the game already but on top of that there's multiple systems that have a very large range that is not portrayed in the game. a mig-25 recon bomber for example with the peleng bombing system, high altitude and mach 2+ would be able to drop its bombs 40km away from the target
Image

Pixel Ninja
Private First-Class
Posts: 5
Joined: Wed 7 Mar 2018 19:15
Contact:

Re: Future DLC’s for Wargame Red Dragon

Postby Pixel Ninja » Fri 9 Mar 2018 19:57

.
Last edited by Pixel Ninja on Tue 13 Mar 2018 17:45, edited 1 time in total.

Pixel Ninja
Private First-Class
Posts: 5
Joined: Wed 7 Mar 2018 19:15
Contact:

Re: Future DLC’s for Wargame Red Dragon

Postby Pixel Ninja » Fri 9 Mar 2018 19:58

i
Last edited by Pixel Ninja on Tue 13 Mar 2018 17:45, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
keldon
Lieutenant Colonel
Posts: 2044
Joined: Tue 16 Sep 2014 16:38
Location: Liebe Grüße aus Stuttgart
Contact:

Re: Future DLC’s for Wargame Red Dragon

Postby keldon » Fri 9 Mar 2018 20:59

Sleksa wrote:and it's not like the variety between the wpac nations was that diverse to begin with, so we're really talking about an extremely limited pool of unit variety on red side, of which a large amount of added 'flavour' was/is non-viable to boot (dragons). The addition of yugo+fi basically doubled the red side unit diversity, which speaks volumes of how bad the situation was to begin with.


I'd like to point out that China was the red/blue mixed equipment nation since the realase of wargame 3, and held it for close to 3 years before YugoFin got added. Most visible kit is obviously the Crotale/HQ-7, but also many hidden ones like PL-11/Aspide etc.

The problem was eugen ignoring/skipping/refusing interesting kits or ITF working horse stuff. CHN/NK is offering a very sizable chunk of flavour, useful wonkiness and variety to RedFor, unfortunately we all know how it turned out.
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♪

Sleksa
Lieutenant Colonel
Posts: 2265
Joined: Tue 14 May 2013 12:26
Contact:

Re: Future DLC’s for Wargame Red Dragon

Postby Sleksa » Fri 9 Mar 2018 22:31

keldon wrote:
Sleksa wrote:and it's not like the variety between the wpac nations was that diverse to begin with, so we're really talking about an extremely limited pool of unit variety on red side, of which a large amount of added 'flavour' was/is non-viable to boot (dragons). The addition of yugo+fi basically doubled the red side unit diversity, which speaks volumes of how bad the situation was to begin with.


I'd like to point out that China was the red/blue mixed equipment nation since the realase of wargame 3, and held it for close to 3 years before YugoFin got added. Most visible kit is obviously the Crotale/HQ-7, but also many hidden ones like PL-11/Aspide etc.

The problem was eugen ignoring/skipping/refusing interesting kits or ITF working horse stuff. CHN/NK is offering a very sizable chunk of flavour, useful wonkiness and variety to RedFor, unfortunately we all know how it turned out.


red dragons do have some amounts of mixed equipment like the nk md-500 but atleast in my eyes the focus on them was very much in the domestic design. And while they do have a lot of funky things in them, the problem is that they miss the basic building blocks of a viable deck that pretty much everyone else gets. And no matter how much flavour is added, if those parts aren't there, the deck is not going to work. This was especially obvious in the middle parts of the game's life cycle where scandi dlc was initially planned without heavy tanks or how there was a big opposition for including a chinese atgm plane with people arguing that a cluster bomber does the exact same job.

This arms race to viable units is really a large reason on why so many nations are very much reliant on proto materials. F.ex 2625 range aa units are generally considered not that great even if they have otherwise decent values but as soon as that range hits a 2800+ threshold it suddenly has a whole load of leeway in regards to its performance (wpact strela 10 vs yugo strela 10). Likewise with superheavies if you have a 18-19 armor 23 ap heavy tank (china/sweden) that otherwise has super stats in acc/stabs/autonomy and such, it'll still get utterly thrased if it goes up against a proper 22 armor 23 ap superheavy.

So what we really end up with is a selection process between going for the authenticity circlejerk and choosing to believe that some memetic flavour in one department will replace crucial missing parts somewhere else in the deck, or choosing to believe that no matter what a viable/competitive deck is going to need certain building blocks inside it and taking some steps to ensure that this happens.

Every single dlc since scandi/nswp has followed one of these choices, while red dragons (and to smaller extent the blue dragons) initially followed the other and then got more or less abandoned to their own fate.
Image

User avatar
keldon
Lieutenant Colonel
Posts: 2044
Joined: Tue 16 Sep 2014 16:38
Location: Liebe Grüße aus Stuttgart
Contact:

Re: Future DLC’s for Wargame Red Dragon

Postby keldon » Fri 9 Mar 2018 23:26

Sleksa wrote:Every single dlc since scandi/nswp has followed one of these choices, while red dragons (and to smaller extent the blue dragons) initially followed the other and then got more or less abandoned to their own fate.


I'm fully aware of the points you raised, however i disagree with the dichotomy you represented in regard to RD/BD. I'm more under the impression that the endresult was a combination of directionless planning and terrible research (which in case of RD was provided at least in the unit selection by the marshals).

It also doesn't have to be pure "gimmick flavor" (sometimes even shit tasting) or "authentic representation". Using RD as example: China brings a super heavy tank with 1995 proto intro to the table with 22 FAV and 23 AP (varies depending on introdate) in addition capable to mount the integrated manpad to emphasize the coalition gimmick of AA weapon on weired platforms. There are also various other exmples for different meta important tabs and unit classes, which i have posted extensively in the RD mega thread.

I'm glad RedFor got new additions and i'm also aware that finnish players have longed for the inclusion of their nation since EE, so i'm genuinely happy for you and your compatriots that Suomi is now a playable faction. But, to come back to the flavor/variety thing, eugen have left the huge potential of NK/CHN, in terms of viable and unique kits without the flavor being shit, untapped. RedFor stands much to gain by fleshing RD out.
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♪

Pixel Ninja
Private First-Class
Posts: 5
Joined: Wed 7 Mar 2018 19:15
Contact:

Re: Future DLC’s for Wargame Red Dragon

Postby Pixel Ninja » Sat 10 Mar 2018 00:27

Sleksa wrote: Sleksa

I understand that, and I understand that was what the community wanted. Also I'm not Italian

ST21 wrote:"Given all this, why would people want this nation added?" the more rational side of me thought. Well, the rest is history and here were are now with a completely unrealistic portrayal of Finnish Defence Forces circa 1991 with a heavy reliance on OOTF prototypes, fantasy units (R-77-armed MiG-29, fictional mortar carriers, Telak 84, Mi-8 gunship, MD500 TOW...) and meme units in order to make it a viable nation. While all armies in the game arent perfect representations of their real world equivalents, Finland is by far the less accurately represented nation. I am more or less OK with the addition of Israel & Yugoslavia (with some reservations) but Finland is a big thumb down for me. It damaged the "realistic" setting of the game and the immersion and suspension of disbelief suffered as a result. Poor decision.

More things that break immersion/realism
- ITO 96, When USSR fell, they gave Buks to Finland and T-80 to ROK to pay for their debt. But ROK doesn't get T-80 ingame and Finland gets Buk
- Finnish aim-120 (1998)
- Finland Spike is named wrong is should be PstOhj 2000
Last edited by Pixel Ninja on Tue 13 Mar 2018 18:00, edited 4 times in total.

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

Re: Future DLC’s for Wargame Red Dragon

Postby Steamfunk » Sat 10 Mar 2018 00:29

China doesn't have a hj9 because it lacks a superheavy, it has the hj9 because it's a cool unit and roughly in the timeframe


Fairly sure that was the reason they gave early on - the same applies to the 62G, you can understand why they included it in Chinese/RD decks but why did we need the Verkenning, Pionpsv, M-84AN?

User avatar
keldon
Lieutenant Colonel
Posts: 2044
Joined: Tue 16 Sep 2014 16:38
Location: Liebe Grüße aus Stuttgart
Contact:

Re: Future DLC’s for Wargame Red Dragon

Postby keldon » Sat 10 Mar 2018 00:38

Steamfunk wrote:Fairly sure that was the reason they gave early on - the same applies to the 62G, you can understand why they included it in Chinese/RD decks but why did we need the Verkenning, Pionpsv, M-84AN?


ZTQ-62G was a research mistake, but the model was already done. So, it was included.

The Wz550 was originally using the HJ-8A and was upgraded to HJ-9 for that extra punch and the "lolwut 3km range" giggle.
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♪

Return to “Wargame : Red Dragon”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 34 guests