Eugen's decision to omit mortar squads will never make sense to me

User avatar
chykka
Brigadier
Posts: 3387
Joined: Wed 28 Nov 2012 14:55
Location: Canada, Alberta
Contact:

Re: Eugen's decision to omit mortar squads will never make sense to me

Postby chykka » Sat 24 Mar 2018 07:10

Mister Maf wrote:
chykka wrote:I wouldn't say infantry is less important in EE considering several things. Infantry are slower in EE and buildings really only thing that will help protect shelling but still some artillery (even mortars if given some time) could remove infantry in buildings considering they can;t just leap away.

Your evidence here doesn't really support your argument. If anything you have just argued that infantry is, indeed, less relevant in EE — a sentiment would agree with. Infantry in Red Dragon plays a central role in taking and holding territory on every map. This just wasn't the case in EE because it was more vulnerable and less powerful. They weren't without use, but they weren't as important.


Yeah but, infantry is the only thing that can fill a role. Sure RD infantry have more building cover and longer AT weapon Range. I mean Infantry may be less present in all situations in EE, they still are essential any how. For both games for example some maps in RD are a lot of open desert, you won't be holding any of that with infantry. Like the Middle of bloody ridge or something like paddy fields.
Image

User avatar
lastcrusade101
Sergeant First-Class
Posts: 144
Joined: Sat 1 Aug 2015 20:40
Contact:

Re: Eugen's decision to omit mortar squads will never make sense to me

Postby lastcrusade101 » Tue 10 Apr 2018 06:48

Markenzwieback wrote:
ppd401 wrote:and would be more difficult to kill in buildings.

mortars
in buildings

Image


I agree. Please to remove ability to fire Iglas, Stingers, LAWs, Gustavs, MILANs, RRs, M202s etc. from buildings

Seriously though, I'm all for mortar infantry. People deciding not to use something in a video game is no excuse to not have it available to choose, unless you go the War Thunder route and make certain things REALLY bad. And everyone complaining about counter battery fire like you can't counter battery fire back at them. I would have to assume the infantry would be the cheapest mortar option available to use so why not use them as either good fire support or sacrificial lambs to bait aircraft or artillery?
120 Smooth-bore > 120 Rifled

User avatar
[EUG]MadMat
More than 10 000 messages. Soldier you are the leader of all armies!
Posts: 15426
Joined: Thu 30 Jun 2011 13:31
Location: Paris, France.
Contact:

Re: Eugen's decision to omit mortar squads will never make sense to me

Postby [EUG]MadMat » Tue 17 Apr 2018 14:49

ppd401 wrote:I know this has been discussed but Ill never believe that eugen's reason(too OP, mortar infantry shouldnt be in a mechanized game)

I don't know where you've discussed that ... but it was definitively not with us or with anyone speaking on our behalf: never have we claimed that infantry crewed mortars, ATGM, ... weren't included because they would be too OP or wouldn't have their place in a mechanized conflict.

The reason why they had to be all-mechanized was that we couldn't technically model crewed guns movement and deployment in a satisfactory manner.

ppd401 wrote:Before you say anything about balance, atgm and RR squads are almost always picked over vehicles carrying them, but eugen has never been bothered by that fact.

We've been bothered by the fact, and again never claimed it was for balance purpose.
Hell, it would have been a very useful and cool tool to help us balance light decks, such as airborne or naval, if we've had infantry guns then.

We've considered it with every new instalment ... but it required too much of an engine overhaul. We once considered making them "uncapturable FOBs", to be deployed only in the deployment phase.
That's the kind of limitation which led us to start anew with SD44.

User avatar
Vulcan 607
Major-General
Posts: 3911
Joined: Mon 31 Mar 2014 20:40
Location: Malton
Contact:

Re: Eugen's decision to omit mortar squads will never make sense to me

Postby Vulcan 607 » Tue 17 Apr 2018 15:33

[EUG]MadMat wrote:
ppd401 wrote:I know this has been discussed but Ill never believe that eugen's reason(too OP, mortar infantry shouldnt be in a mechanized game)

I don't know where you've discussed that ... but it was definitively not with us or with anyone speaking on our behalf: never have we claimed that infantry crewed mortars, ATGM, ... weren't included because they would be too OP or wouldn't have their place in a mechanized conflict.

The reason why they had to be all-mechanized was that we couldn't technically model crewed guns movement and deployment in a satisfactory manner.

ppd401 wrote:Before you say anything about balance, atgm and RR squads are almost always picked over vehicles carrying them, but eugen has never been bothered by that fact.

We've been bothered by the fact, and again never claimed it was for balance purpose.
Hell, it would have been a very useful and cool tool to help us balance light decks, such as airborne or naval, if we've had infantry guns then.

We've considered it with every new instalment ... but it required too much of an engine overhaul. We once considered making them "uncapturable FOBs", to be deployed only in the deployment phase.
That's the kind of limitation which led us to start anew with SD44.


So will the SD44 engine be used in the next wargame! Also wargame 4 confirmed!

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

Re: Eugen's decision to omit mortar squads will never make sense to me

Postby urogard » Tue 17 Apr 2018 19:03

Vulcan 607 wrote:So will the SD44 engine be used in the next wargame! Also wargame 4 confirmed!

dude what?

User avatar
Vulcan 607
Major-General
Posts: 3911
Joined: Mon 31 Mar 2014 20:40
Location: Malton
Contact:

Re: Eugen's decision to omit mortar squads will never make sense to me

Postby Vulcan 607 » Tue 17 Apr 2018 23:32

urogard wrote:
Vulcan 607 wrote:So will the SD44 engine be used in the next wargame! Also wargame 4 confirmed!

dude what?


Seriously haven’t you seen wild speculation on this forum before? It’s second only to French bias!

User avatar
FrangibleCover
Lieutenant
Posts: 1465
Joined: Mon 14 Nov 2016 21:34
Contact:

Re: Eugen's decision to omit mortar squads will never make sense to me

Postby FrangibleCover » Wed 18 Apr 2018 12:03

[EUG]MadMat wrote:
ppd401 wrote:I know this has been discussed but Ill never believe that eugen's reason(too OP, mortar infantry shouldnt be in a mechanized game)

I don't know where you've discussed that ... but it was definitively not with us or with anyone speaking on our behalf: never have we claimed that infantry crewed mortars, ATGM, ... weren't included because they would be too OP or wouldn't have their place in a mechanized conflict.

The reason why they had to be all-mechanized was that we couldn't technically model crewed guns movement and deployment in a satisfactory manner.


Which isn't unfair but then Red Dragon is also unable to satisfactorily model:
  • Articulated vehicles (Terra variants, Nevas)
  • Dedicated jammer aircraft (Raven, F-5A PUFF)
  • Tripod/carriage mounted recoilless rifles (Norrlandsjagare, SPG-9D, Bibanchungpo, Gongbobyong, Tanke Shashou, Tanke Shashou '85, Rassa... Rasskass... Musti team)
  • MCLOS high-explosive weapons (F 35 Draken, Sk 60B)
  • Differences between Western European attack helicopter use (low, slow, sneaky) and Warsaw Pact helicopter use (high, fast, angry)

I'm not really unhappy with any of these abstractions (gib Bv 206) but it does make the technical argument seem a little odd. On the other hand in Wargame's battlefield with hyperreactive self propelled artillery I'd imagine the life span of towed guns and mortars to be very short and adding AT guns doesn't really provide any gameplay interest not already provided by the aforementioned recoilless rifle teams, by ATGM teams or by a tank in a hedge.
Last edited by FrangibleCover on Wed 18 Apr 2018 13:43, edited 1 time in total.
What if Wargame stuck to timeframe?
Image

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

Re: Eugen's decision to omit mortar squads will never make sense to me

Postby urogard » Wed 18 Apr 2018 15:51

FrangibleCover wrote:
[EUG]MadMat wrote:The reason why they had to be all-mechanized was that we couldn't technically model crewed guns movement and deployment in a satisfactory manner.


Which isn't unfair but then Red Dragon is also unable to satisfactorily model:

Satisfactory modelling is a highly subjective term.

What you consider satisfactory and EUG calls satisfactory has one significant difference.
EUG opinion matters, yours doesn't.

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

Re: Eugen's decision to omit mortar squads will never make sense to me

Postby Fodder » Wed 18 Apr 2018 18:24

FrangibleCover wrote:Which isn't unfair but then Red Dragon is also unable to satisfactorily model:
  • Articulated vehicles (Terra variants, Nevas)
  • Dedicated jammer aircraft (Raven, F-5A PUFF)
  • Tripod/carriage mounted recoilless rifles (Norrlandsjagare, SPG-9D, Bibanchungpo, Gongbobyong, Tanke Shashou, Tanke Shashou '85, Rassa... Rasskass... Musti team)
  • MCLOS high-explosive weapons (F 35 Draken, Sk 60B)
  • Differences between Western European attack helicopter use (low, slow, sneaky) and Warsaw Pact helicopter use (high, fast, angry)

I'm not really unhappy with any of these abstractions (gib Bv 206) but it does make the technical argument seem a little odd. On the other hand in Wargame's battlefield with hyperreactive self propelled artillery I'd imagine the life span of towed guns and mortars to be very short and adding AT guns doesn't really provide any gameplay interest not already provided by the aforementioned recoilless rifle teams, by ATGM teams or by a tank in a hedge.


Bv 206 is articulated... engine limitations, I'm guessing SD44 uses a new and improve engine.
Also I posted the reason why no mortar infantry is because engine limitations on the very first page, use search function next time.

Return to “Wargame : Red Dragon”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 48 guests