Future DLC’s for Wargame Red Dragon

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

Re: Future DLC’s for Wargame Red Dragon

Postby hansbroger » Thu 8 Mar 2018 20:20

molnibalage wrote:
captaincarnage wrote:I really don't want any more DLC's for wargame, the last batch are still broken and there is zero chance they will ever be balanced properly.

I 100% agree. WG lost me with the last fantasy nation DLCs...


Agreed, Finland made sense as it shared a theatre with Sweden/Denmark/Norway/FRG vs DDR/Poland/USSR while Spain/Italy would conceivably squared off against the existing CSSR+USSR grouping. Nation dlcs should have stayed with existing theatres and.... You know... Asia because that's where the expansion was set?

The dubious lurch of Israel to the top of the que, followed by its modelling as a minor oh whoops actually USA+ meant that something like Yugoslavia as it was eventually modelled had to come along. Absent a comprehensive "Middle Eastern conflagration" DLC I don't know why the IDF was included except to play out a bunch of IMI/Rafael et al marketing materials in virtual form... The superminor cancer was real.

Yugoslavia is problematic as well outside of a Hungary+Bulgaria+Romania+Italy+Spain+Portugal+Turkey DLC and IMO was implemented as a Glorious Design hard counter to the Muh Israeli Innovation Wunderwaffe laden IDF.

Top of my list though, Cuba, SADF/Rhodesia, Italy, Spain+Portugal, Romania, Turkey, Republic of China, Bulgaria, Hungary, and perhaps both revolutionary and neverrevolutionary Iran?

The Arab states are pretty much obligatory now that Eugen went there with Israel, that can of worms was opened and the lid thrown away.
Last edited by hansbroger on Thu 8 Mar 2018 20:25, edited 1 time in total.
Projectnordic in game! will likely see you on pact/red dragons/french!
Image

User avatar
ST21
Sergeant
Posts: 60
Joined: Tue 14 Jun 2016 18:15
Contact:

Re: Future DLC’s for Wargame Red Dragon

Postby ST21 » Thu 8 Mar 2018 20:22

[EUG]MadMat wrote:
Pixel Ninja wrote:TBH, Finland was a poor choice.

Finland was the #1 request for an additional nation since ALB.
People knew exactly by the release of the "Reds" DLC what they were asking for ... :)


Well, hate to say this but perhaps you guys should have ignored it. Seems to me that request was more motivated by nationalistic reasons and a desire to see one's nation represented in the game (i can certainly understand that) rather than because Finland was offering something truly unique. A simple Google search on the Cold War equipment of the Finnish Army would have quickly revealed to anyone some (major) weaknesses and a lack of domestic and unique vehicles/planes/weapons. Even yourself came to that conclusion in that old post. :D Thats why i was lukewarm about the idea of a poll for future nations DLCs. Too many people were going to vote for certain countries because they have a biased or inaccurate view of a particular nation's military or simply because they are unaware (or dont care) of what other, less popular but more logical options had to offer. This resulted in nonsensical choices like Finland...

Frankly, Eugen should have be the one deciding which DLC nations would be next based on your own research and the community Nation proposal research efforts, and after determining their uniqueness and if they fit in the Wargame setting. It would have been a better approach IMO, albeit less democratic i concede. But you are probably more objective than most of us (including me) that requested to see their nation added to the game. ;)
Last edited by ST21 on Thu 8 Mar 2018 23:59, edited 3 times in total.

User avatar
HrcAk47
Colonel
Posts: 2788
Joined: Sat 3 May 2014 18:00
Contact:

Re: Future DLC’s for Wargame Red Dragon

Postby HrcAk47 » Thu 8 Mar 2018 23:35

hansbroger wrote:
molnibalage wrote:
captaincarnage wrote:I really don't want any more DLC's for wargame, the last batch are still broken and there is zero chance they will ever be balanced properly.

I 100% agree. WG lost me with the last fantasy nation DLCs...


Agreed, Finland made sense as it shared a theatre with Sweden/Denmark/Norway/FRG vs DDR/Poland/USSR while Spain/Italy would conceivably squared off against the existing CSSR+USSR grouping. Nation dlcs should have stayed with existing theatres and.... You know... Asia because that's where the expansion was set?

The dubious lurch of Israel to the top of the que, followed by its modelling as a minor oh whoops actually USA+ meant that something like Yugoslavia as it was eventually modelled had to come along. Absent a comprehensive "Middle Eastern conflagration" DLC I don't know why the IDF was included except to play out a bunch of IMI/Rafael et al marketing materials in virtual form... The superminor cancer was real.

Yugoslavia is problematic as well outside of a Hungary+Bulgaria+Romania+Italy+Spain+Portugal+Turkey DLC and IMO was implemented as a Glorious Design hard counter to the Muh Israeli Innovation Wunderwaffe laden IDF.


Ah yes, the famous Yugo-Portugal conflict. A tear shed for those lost.
The SEAD never bothered me anyway.

SMB Yugoslavia Retexture Mod, now released, v.1.0

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

Re: Future DLC’s for Wargame Red Dragon

Postby hansbroger » Fri 9 Mar 2018 00:04

HrcAk47 wrote:
Ah yes, the famous Yugo-Portugal conflict. A tear shed for those lost.


If Wargame has taught me anything the Yugoslavian forces are going to storm to mountain passes near Lisbon through Italy and amphibious landings by the end of week 1 :lol:
Projectnordic in game! will likely see you on pact/red dragons/french!
Image

User avatar
Bougnas
Major-General
Posts: 3699
Joined: Sat 26 Apr 2014 18:24
Contact:

Re: Future DLC’s for Wargame Red Dragon

Postby Bougnas » Fri 9 Mar 2018 00:32

hansbroger wrote:
HrcAk47 wrote:
Ah yes, the famous Yugo-Portugal conflict. A tear shed for those lost.


If Wargame has taught me anything the Yugoslavian forces are going to storm to mountain passes near Lisbon through Italy and amphibious landings by the end of week 1 :lol:


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

Airborne battlegroups shenanigans are insane, I've seen someone end the 2nd Korean War in no time.

I just imagine a real life WW3 where NATO sends SF to Soviet Russia and take over the Kremlin :lol: (then again in EE you had that kind of behind the lines mission where you stole all their supplies, I wish we could capture stuff because Danas would have been quite valuable later :mrgreen:) .
Image

User avatar
Tiera
Lieutenant Colonel
Posts: 2344
Joined: Tue 28 Aug 2012 00:08
Contact:

Re: Future DLC’s for Wargame Red Dragon

Postby Tiera » Fri 9 Mar 2018 11:38

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.

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
Image

User avatar
47andrej
Lieutenant
Posts: 1327
Joined: Sun 12 Feb 2012 19:22
Contact:

Re: Future DLC’s for Wargame Red Dragon

Postby 47andrej » Fri 9 Mar 2018 12:02

Chosen DLC countries are all pretty fine imo. People gone for Israel first because it a lot of unique stuff even while we needed desperately more RedFor countries. Next ones, Yugoslavia and Finland, were most logical choice.

Iraq votes suffered heavily from being BluFor country, but its pointless to discuss at this point :)

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 12:59

Pixel Ninja wrote:Finland only flavor was using mixed NATO and PACT equipment like T-55AM Marksman. All Finland's vehicles were already ingame.


This was like the biggest reason for including finland and spesifically to include it on the redfor side in order to increase unit variety of redfor. Had the dlcs after netherlands been blue as well there would've been over twice as many nations in blue as in red

ddr, pol, czech, ussr, china, nk = 6
norway, denmark, sweden, uk, france, wger, usa, anzac, dutch, sk , jpn, canada, israel, italy = 14

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.

Pixel Ninja wrote:Italy would've been a better choice, tons of local vehicle designs, and bursting with flavor.
viewtopic.php?t=29886

If only the community knew during the poll.


I'm gonna take a gamble here and guess that you're 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.


Every nation in the game is sporting ootf prototypes. the blufor airforce is especially hard since pretty much every non-american amraam slinger is from 2000-2010. The first live-fired amraams in the eurofighter(uk) were done in a test in 2006 and asraams in 2002 https://www.rafmuseum.org.uk/documents/collections/X004-6167-TYPHOON-DA2.pdf http://sfte-ec.org/sfteecold/data/Abstract/A2003-6-2.pdf. A far simpler and likely more gameplay-variety enhancing setup would've been to only restrict r-77/amraam to usa and cccp but here we are.
Image

User avatar
ST21
Sergeant
Posts: 60
Joined: Tue 14 Jun 2016 18:15
Contact:

Re: Future DLC’s for Wargame Red Dragon

Postby ST21 » Fri 9 Mar 2018 17:54

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 cant 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:

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.
Last edited by ST21 on Fri 9 Mar 2018 18:49, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
ST21
Sergeant
Posts: 60
Joined: Tue 14 Jun 2016 18:15
Contact:

Re: Future DLC’s for Wargame Red Dragon

Postby ST21 » Fri 9 Mar 2018 18:17

47andrej wrote:Chosen DLC countries are all pretty fine imo. People gone for Israel first because it a lot of unique stuff even while we needed desperately more RedFor countries. Next ones, Yugoslavia and Finland, were most logical choice.


Come on, thats nonsense. There was nothing logical about voting for Finland. Finland didnt add anything new to the game except a freaking recon ATV (lol) and new forms of cancer. No domestic equipment, few new units and not a good fit for either REDFOR or BLUFOR. Countries like Italy, Romania, Belgium and Bulgaria (in that order) would have been objectively better choices. Many indigenous equipment and cool protos, more viable decks and they are either NATO or WarPac members so they fit much better in the Wargame "lore". Switzerland, despite being a neutral country, was worthy of consideration too. You cant seriously tell me that Finland was a better choice over all those countries. Facts dont support it.

Sleksa wrote:
Pixel Ninja wrote:Italy would've been a better choice, tons of local vehicle designs, and bursting with flavor.
viewtopic.php?t=29886

If only the community knew during the poll.


I'm gonna take a gamble here and guess that you're italian


You dont need to be Italian to realize that Italy was a superior choice.

Sleksa wrote:
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.


Every nation in the game is sporting ootf prototypes. the blufor airforce is especially hard since pretty much every non-american amraam slinger is from 2000-2010. The first live-fired amraams in the eurofighter(uk) were done in a test in 2006 and asraams in 2002 https://www.rafmuseum.org.uk/documents/collections/X004-6167-TYPHOON-DA2.pdf http://sfte-ec.org/sfteecold/data/Abstract/A2003-6-2.pdf. A far simpler and likely more gameplay-variety enhancing setup would've been to only restrict r-77/amraam to usa and cccp but here we are.


Finland takes it to a whole new level its not even funny. And there are just too many inconsistencies. One example: if Finland is now in REDFOR, why do they have access to F/A-18s? They would have never been delivered had Finland gone full commie.
Last edited by ST21 on Fri 9 Mar 2018 18:47, edited 1 time in total.

Return to “Wargame : Red Dragon”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 27 guests