Red Dragon Balance (Probably Again)

n8d0g
Private First-Class
Posts: 5
Joined: Thu 6 Feb 2014 19:01
Contact:

Red Dragon Balance (Probably Again)

Postby n8d0g » Thu 24 Apr 2014 07:56

G' day all!

My first post here, so bear with me.
Id like to open a post/thread about my opinions/views about the current state of Red Dragon, and I'll probably take a lot of flak for most of it but its the internet, so why not.

Firstly RedFor needs a lot of work. Its not underpowered, its needs a review on its points system, mostly for tanks but also some aircraft.
I do enjoy the Red Dragon availability system over the AirLand battle one; its less spammy and encourages better deck management.
That said, the points cost for the units often don't make sense, the vast majority of Soviet typed vehicles are very high cost for very poor performance. Often 100+ points for tanks with bad accuracy and bad armour. I don't mind bad armour+ accuracy, such as the T55s, but when you are paying 180 points for a T80BV with 45% accuracy, something is very off. I know Eugen does this for "flavour" but if you're going to make Soviet/Pact stuff act like the Hollywood film versions of themselves with bad shooting skills and thin armour, at least make them cost-appropriate.
The same goes with aircraft, most of the RedFor aircraft have very limited choice and numbers of aircraft. The worse victim of this is Bloc. Right now I would rather play Poland or Czech than play Bloc. The sum total of Bloc is not greater than the sum of its parts. Where most NATO -type collations gain benefits from other nations, Bloc nations are too similar to gain anything. If anything Bloc is WORSE off due to the lower availability from the merge. Polish aircraft lose 1 from each card, infantry loses 3. Sure there are more options, but I simply get more MIG21s and more AK-wielding infantry and more T55s/62/72. This is not good design.

I could go on about game balance about Commonwealth elite infantry spam and French Puma Spam, but I wont go into that in detail. What I will mention tho is how I feel the roles of NATO and Pact have been reversed. Every game I go into as Pact (which is about 90% because it takes too long to wait as NATO), I have to micro and ration my units meanwhile being overwhelmed by whole companies and regiments of SAS/SASR/NZSAS and skies full of Pumas and never ending disposable NATO air-strikes.
If Pact could maintain air superiority this would be much less of an issue, but given that most of the best AA right now are MANPADs and IR-based AA, you can't SEAD them and firing artillery on them leads to extremely effective counter-battery from extremely accurate NATO artillery. This means it is very difficult to keep NATO air strikes off your forces as you have to keep aircraft quite far back from the front.
A short summary of the previous few paragraphs is that right now NATO nations/coalitions makes a great attributional forces, which surely for a game designed around "flavour" is very wrong.
I dont think Eugen is to blame for this, the vast majority of most problems Ive encountered in Red Dragon so far comes mostly from players trying their hardest to break the game system to make strong (if broken) combinations and teams based on said combos to win games. This is made worse by the team stacking right where Ive entered lobbies against whole teams with 90% + win rate after 200 games (almost exclusive BlueFor players). I can't somehow stop myself from feeling that the compeitive nature of players is ruining unranked play somewhat.

Id also like to ask what the point of the Era-decks are? Its hard to actually go over the 60 points already. Surely Era should increase avaliblity?

Feedback/critism welcome!

Return to “Wargame : Red Dragon”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 29 guests