Wargame: Airland Dragon

User avatar
Sireyn
Sergeant First-Class
Posts: 143
Joined: Sat 5 Jan 2013 06:57
Contact:

Re: Wargame: Airland Dragon

Postby Sireyn » Fri 6 Apr 2018 16:13

Thanks everyone for the encouragement!

molnibalage wrote:Do you plan any changes for helos? I made some observations and recommendations long time ago.
viewtopic.php?p=955084#p955084


There are several very good suggestions in there. I've already set the Mi-24 hitpoints to 8 and had been thinking about adding Helo ECM/Flares while increasing the range of many helicopter ATGM's. I too agree that helicopters are overly represented should take an availability nerf, but I have not decided on the best values yet (mostly due to lack of research).

For Soviet doctrine units on Wargame's scale, a maximum of 12 attack helicopters should be standard. I also want to remove Mi-24's as a transport option from everything except specialized units.

For Helo ATGM's, I want a range value that is more than a ground unit equivalent, but still less than an aircraft.

molnibalage wrote:Do you plan changes for med range SAMs regarding ACC and range? I think here about Osa, Neva and Kub.

First of all, Neva never was army air defense system, should not be in the game at all.

Neva should not be more accurate than Osa or Kub. The kinematics of the missiles of Neva always was weaker (~10-12 G, I have diagram about it) comparing 15G or Kub or ~20-25G of Osa. This is just the kinematics.

The CW + SARH or Kub was much more jam resistant that Newa in fact made it immune against many type of jamming what strongly degradated the Neva.

The Kub-M has larger eng. range than Neva.


My range values are directly proportional to Eugen's range values, with the accuracies largely unchanged. I would want a technological basis to justify new values, but I am not opposed to the idea of of an accuracy or range buff for the low-end heavy SAMs and a possible nerf to V-600P equipped systems. Thank you for bringing this up.

If you can find technical documentation comparing these systems to their contemporaries, I would be appreciative.


Antiflagellum wrote:Firstly, the Navy seals seem like they should be restricted to Marines decks since their purpose is conducting operations from and to a body of water. This would also help clean up recon infantry a bit.


A fair point that I am strongly considering, alongside a regular or shock Marine-specific recon infantry.

Antiflagellum wrote:Second, with limiting the harrier and hornet to Marines deck, the other U.S. decks no longer have a fast multirole fighter with atgms. Maybe consider rerolling or adding a falcon or eagle variant with atgms.


I am investigating the F-16 as a potential candidate. It appears that the Block 52 in Wargame is the F-16ES Block 60 in real life. I may modify its stats to reflect a 1994/95 aircraft and create a new F-16C Block 52 that carries 2x AGM-65G and Sidewinders.

Here is the relevant source :
http://www.airvectors.net/avf16_2.html

Antiflagellum wrote:Lastly, the mh6 for Delta force has no pros over the other helo options. Maybe make the mh6 the only helo option for deltas, or up it's stealth to give it an advantage over the others, or even make it a recon unit and up the price. Also it would be nice if you had the option to bring both cards in with mh6 instead of just one.


Thank you for pointing this out. I am inclined to set the MH-6 as a recon, but a change in availability or price is not unjustified, especially as it is the same price as the Twin Huey, but without weapons.

Its present condition is based on the maximum number of selectable heliborne infantry in a US Armored deck.


Antiflagellum wrote:also is there any way you could remove"evac winchester" from the a-10 after it fires all of its atgms? Eugen added that in one of their last patches and half the reason i use the a-10 is for the cannon so having it evac automatically sort of defeats the purpose.

The change is as simple as checking a box, but the behavior conforms to the standard of all other aircraft. Although I personally consider the GAU-8 a secondary weapon that should primarily be used against infantry, the argument is down to whether you are micromanaging the missiles or the flight pattern (manual evac after firing missiles).

Within the gameplay options there is a toggle for Winchester evacs, in case you were unaware.


WIP Update
F-16C Block 52
Fills the need for a US Army ATGM aircraft and corrects an error at the same time
Spoiler : :
Image
Image

F-16ES Block 60
This is the F-16 with conformal fuel tanks. It has been balanced for 1995/96 and to not overshadow the F-15C
Spoiler : :
Image

Force Recon
I was at a cross between Force Recon and Scout Snipers, but then decided to combine the roles. The alternative loadout would have contained the Colt LMG or an M60.
Spoiler : :
Image


(All) A-10 and Su-25 hitpoints increased to 15 and armor reduced by 1 on each side
(US) Navy Seals restricted to Marine decks
(USSR) Mi-4A removed as it is redundant, obsolete, and potentially cancerous
(USSR) T-64BV1 AP increased to 20, price increased by 5
(USSR) T-80BV added to Marine decks
(USSR) Smerch given access to HE ammunition in addition to cluster munitions (it will default to cluster when firing)
(USSR) Gornostrelki no longer have access to Mi-24D transports
(China) Lu Zhandui '90 speed reduced by 5km/h due to Type 89 HMG
(Netherlands) AH-64D Escort rerolled into a very good optics recon; price/availability adjusted

...and working on more stuff

Antiflagellum
Private First-Class
Posts: 5
Joined: Wed 4 Apr 2018 16:16
Contact:

Re: Wargame: Airland Dragon

Postby Antiflagellum » Fri 6 Apr 2018 17:59

The change is as simple as checking a box, but the behavior conforms to the standard of all other aircraft. Although I personally consider the GAU-8 a secondary weapon that should primarily be used against infantry, the argument is down to whether you are micromanaging the missiles or the flight pattern (manual evac after firing missiles).

Within the gameplay options there is a toggle for Winchester evacs, in case you were unaware.


Yeah I do have evac winchester turned off right now but it adds extra micro to basically every other aircraft and if I turn it back on I am basically shorted one atgm until I'm ready to have the a-10 rtb. I use the gau-8 mostly on transports and light armor so my other atgm units don't waste their missiles on them. It was one of those things that wasn't an issue and they seemed to arbitrarily change it just for the sake of change. I can deal with it as is if you don't want to change it but I figured it couldn't hurt to ask. Thanks!

12Cal
Private First-Class
Posts: 6
Joined: Sun 8 Apr 2018 08:29
Contact:

Re: Wargame: Airland Dragon

Postby 12Cal » Sun 8 Apr 2018 08:43

FOB supply capacity to 40k and hitpoints set to 50


Is there any reason for this change? As far as I know, it's only this one change that I disagree with, though you are not alone in making this change.

Most mods out there tend to remove or reduce the significance of logistical units (in this case, more autonomy and more supplies). I think it made vehicles/tanks/planes considerably more powerful over their infantry counterpart, unless the map in question is exceptionally vast and the game time is unlimited.

User avatar
Sireyn
Sergeant First-Class
Posts: 143
Joined: Sat 5 Jan 2013 06:57
Contact:

Re: Wargame: Airland Dragon

Postby Sireyn » Sun 8 Apr 2018 14:43

12Cal wrote:
FOB supply capacity to 40k and hitpoints set to 50


Is there any reason for this change? As far as I know, it's only this one change that I disagree with, though you are not alone in making this change.

Most mods out there tend to remove or reduce the significance of logistical units (in this case, more autonomy and more supplies). I think it made vehicles/tanks/planes considerably more powerful over their infantry counterpart, unless the map in question is exceptionally vast and the game time is unlimited.


In my opinion, it benefits gameplay. I tend to play longer games (up to 2 hours) and the FOB capacity was very limiting. I also consider it as a link to a strategic supply chain rather than a hasty consolidation point. Were it possible, I would have the FOB's regenerate supplies very slowly instead of giving them a lot of supply capacity.

The hitpoints are to prevent the AI from effortlessly destroying FOBs, especially because they seem to prioritize them as much as command units. I have also been experimenting with FOB's as command units, which would entail a larger price and setting them as uncapturable.

12Cal
Private First-Class
Posts: 6
Joined: Sun 8 Apr 2018 08:29
Contact:

Re: Wargame: Airland Dragon

Postby 12Cal » Sun 8 Apr 2018 15:07

- Reduce general effectiveness of MANPADS against aircraft without limiting anti-helo capabilities 3. MANPADS effectiveness rebalanced according to real characteristics (MI-24 hitpoints reduced to 8)


So, I just had a couple of games, and this one stood out a lot. 50 points for some of the 2-man AA infantry?! Is this still early on in the points rebalance phase? Because there are a couple of support units with better AA capabilities for the same price.

The Japanese PSAM is 50 points while the Stinger is 30 points. For comparison, the Japanese Closed Arrow is 55 points, carries more missiles than the PSAM (8 vs 6), has more Strength, has a 70% (!!!) stabiliser and goes faster.

User avatar
Sireyn
Sergeant First-Class
Posts: 143
Joined: Sat 5 Jan 2013 06:57
Contact:

Re: Wargame: Airland Dragon

Postby Sireyn » Sun 8 Apr 2018 21:12

12Cal wrote:
- Reduce general effectiveness of MANPADS against aircraft without limiting anti-helo capabilities 3. MANPADS effectiveness rebalanced according to real characteristics (MI-24 hitpoints reduced to 8)


So, I just had a couple of games, and this one stood out a lot. 50 points for some of the 2-man AA infantry?! Is this still early on in the points rebalance phase? Because there are a couple of support units with better AA capabilities for the same price.

The Japanese PSAM is 50 points while the Stinger is 30 points. For comparison, the Japanese Closed Arrow is 55 points, carries more missiles than the PSAM (8 vs 6), has more Strength, has a 70% (!!!) stabiliser and goes faster.


Perhaps I extended the prices out too far, but compared to the other MANPADS the price is correct. There are many hidden values that are not shown, such as noise, crit chance, and aim time that are factored in. The price also reflects the rarity of the missiles, with earlier ones being more cost effective. (The Stinger A is 30 points and the C is 45 points, with dramatic differences between them).

I have yet to fully consider the light AA vehicle's prices, and in this case a change is certainly warranted (Keeping in mind that Infantry are stealthier, immune to cluster weapons, can garrison buildings, and be placed on mountains; meanwhile 2-man teams have 35% "ECM"). The stabilizer reflects that the missile is fire and forget, using an onboard IR seeker instead of semi-active guidance.

As I am open to the idea of compressing the prices down (or up in the case of the vehicles), what do you think is a fair price range? Consider that MANPADS currently have high crit chances, with the potential of doing double damage.

12Cal
Private First-Class
Posts: 6
Joined: Sun 8 Apr 2018 08:29
Contact:

Re: Wargame: Airland Dragon

Postby 12Cal » Mon 9 Apr 2018 06:02

Sireyn wrote: what do you think is a fair price range? Consider that MANPADS currently have high crit chances, with the potential of doing double damage.


Yeah, the price jump, lack of resupply cost and lack of critical info threw me off guard. As of right now, I'm not too sure what exactly is a fair price range. I do think however that infantry should be the most cost efficient unit to killing whatever it's meant to kill (considering its general squishiness and and slow movement speed) and that the relatively high cost of later AA squads a bit incredulous, all things you've mentioned considered.

Does the high critical chance extend to AA vehicles too? If so, they should have the same price hike right?

Keeping in mind that Infantry are stealthier, immune to cluster weapons, can garrison buildings, and be placed on mountains; meanwhile 2-man teams have 35% "ECM"


Even so, if all these factors (stealth, cluster immunity, building garrison, mobility*) are considered to the price of the AA squad, then shouldn't the rifle team, fire support, commandos and ATGM squads receive a price hike too?

User avatar
molnibalage
General
Posts: 6619
Joined: Thu 1 Aug 2013 22:54
Location: Hungary
Contact:

Re: Wargame: Airland Dragon

Postby molnibalage » Mon 9 Apr 2018 11:03

Sireyn wrote:For Soviet doctrine units on Wargame's scale, a maximum of 12 attack helicopters should be standard.


With how many cards? If with using 5 cards of helos it would be a good change.

I also want to remove Mi-24's as a transport option from everything except specialized units.

Amen.

My range values are directly proportional to Eugen's range values, with the accuracies largely unchanged. I would want a technological basis to justify new values, but I am not opposed to the idea of of an accuracy or range buff for the low-end heavy SAMs and a possible nerf to V-600P equipped systems. Thank you for bringing this up.

If you can find technical documentation comparing these systems to their contemporaries, I would be appreciative.


viewtopic.php?f=104&t=61141
Range values of SAMs are not proportional to RL and Neva should not be in the game at all. 2K122 Kub-M3 was the best army air defense system of WPACT minors during the Cold War considering guidance and missile kinematics. Even only USSR had two brigades of Buk-M1 in 1989/90, one of them was in Hungary. 2K12 Krug had larger raneg but in many areas was weaker, especially in missile kinematics but had some very special EW feature.

Antiflagellum
Private First-Class
Posts: 5
Joined: Wed 4 Apr 2018 16:16
Contact:

Re: Wargame: Airland Dragon

Postby Antiflagellum » Mon 9 Apr 2018 16:35

Another question I had, since you seem to be a stickler for realism like me, are you going to change the ef111 Raven at all? Ingame it's a generic SEAD plane with 2 anti radar missiles but irl the Raven didn't carry any armaments and was an electronic warfare aircraft equipped with an AN/ALQ-99E jammer https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Dynamics%E2%80%93Grumman_EF-111A_Raven. I'm not sure how well radar jamming could be replicated within wargame and it very well may be outside the scope of a wargame match itself. It could be best to just remove it and add a different SEAD plane altogether.

12Cal
Private First-Class
Posts: 6
Joined: Sun 8 Apr 2018 08:29
Contact:

Re: Wargame: Airland Dragon

Postby 12Cal » Mon 9 Apr 2018 16:52

Antiflagellum wrote:Another question I had, since you seem to be a stickler for realism like me, are you going to change the ef111 Raven at all? Ingame it's a generic SEAD plane with 2 anti radar missiles but irl the Raven didn't carry any armaments and was an electronic warfare aircraft equipped with an AN/ALQ-99E jammer https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Dynamics%E2%80%93Grumman_EF-111A_Raven. I'm not sure how well radar jamming could be replicated within wargame and it very well may be outside the scope of a wargame match itself. It could be best to just remove it and add a different SEAD plane altogether.


It can be done, the Ash & Shadows mod did a wonderful job on this, by creating a 'jammer' weapon that on deals suppression damage at really, REALLY long ranges.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests