Biggest problem with gameplay

User avatar
Hitman[Irean]
First Sergeant
Posts: 246
Joined: Thu 10 Oct 2013 03:57

Biggest problem with gameplay

Postby Hitman[Irean] » Tue 13 May 2014 22:11

Hello, from reading forum post and talking to people about the biggest problem with game play... the decks. When I say decks I mean the limits on stuff to 5 cards for everything. In ALB it was tank meta but I used inf a lot instead because I felt more at home with it. But in RD its inf meta and you are mostly forced to get everything. With the open deck in alb every deck had its ups and downs. If you got 9 cards of inf you may not get arty or many tanks. So you would need to find out how to play with that road bump. In RD you are forced to get 5 of each most of the time (don't tell me to play a theme deck because everyone knows they suck). I felt like I had freedom in ALB. That is what I think and I know many of you will not agree but this is coming form someone that plays ranked. Thanks
"Hitler was a punk"
~Stalin

User avatar
Skif[BC]
First Sergeant
Posts: 216
Joined: Thu 13 Feb 2014 11:11
Contact:

Re: Biggest problem with gameplay

Postby Skif[BC] » Tue 13 May 2014 22:23

+1 this. I hope EUG and marshals will read this. We need more freedom. Now the difference from deck to deck is one more inf, or one more sup, or one more helicopter, or drop plane and get another vehicle and sup. All decks are the same. Thats not really interesting.
- You know what happens to Spetsnaz when you give them steroids?
- What?
- They GRU.
BoltSauce and Raptor.

Mot
Second-Lieutenant
Posts: 955
Joined: Mon 21 Jan 2013 17:00
Contact:

Re: Biggest problem with gameplay

Postby Mot » Tue 13 May 2014 23:17

I disagree :) This restriction is a most welcome change.
This limitation of 5 slots grants specialization extra importance, the reason why people don't use specializations much is because some are unbalanced, some are clearly directed at cooperative gameplay, and many players like myself like to rely on themselves to counter any situation, something that usually only Mechanized is able to.
"I suck at Wargame" or "I have to wait 30 minutes to pubstomp people" are not solid arguments to criticize the game... just saying.

DrRansom
Lieutenant Colonel
Posts: 2032
Joined: Sat 14 Jan 2012 18:22
Contact:

Re: Biggest problem with gameplay

Postby DrRansom » Tue 13 May 2014 23:28

Mot wrote:I disagree :) This restriction is a most welcome change.
This limitation of 5 slots grants specialization extra importance, the reason why people don't use specializations much is because some are unbalanced, some are clearly directed at cooperative gameplay, and many players like myself like to rely on themselves to counter any situation, something that usually only Mechanized is able to.



I think the problem is the overly focused specializations with the limited slots. If the limited slots was tied to open specializations, then the unspecialized limitation would not be so bad.

In my experience, I want a deck that can handle 'most things.' That was possible in ALB because the specializations were not so restrictive that going specialized would be crippling. Red Dragon's decks don't feel that way, as I specialize, I see more and more gaps appearing in my deck. Those gaps aren't authentic, so it feels 'gamey.'

If specialization allowed more units and emphasized flexibly authentic, then I think it wouldn't be as much of a problem.

In Short: Authentic limitations on specializations are acceptable, inauthentic limitations produce an outsized dislike of the system.

Suriel
Chief Warrant Officer
Posts: 603
Joined: Fri 18 Oct 2013 11:49
Contact:

Re: Biggest problem with gameplay

Postby Suriel » Tue 13 May 2014 23:38

Mot wrote:I disagree :) This restriction is a most welcome change.
This limitation of 5 slots grants specialization extra importance, the reason why people don't use specializations much is because some are unbalanced, some are clearly directed at cooperative gameplay, and many players like myself like to rely on themselves to counter any situation, something that usually only Mechanized is able to.

+1
I like the current limitations.

idee_fx
Corporal
Posts: 20
Joined: Mon 7 Apr 2014 22:50
Contact:

Re: Biggest problem with gameplay

Postby idee_fx » Tue 13 May 2014 23:43

DrRansom wrote:I think the problem is the overly focused specializations with the limited slots. If the limited slots was tied to open specializations, then the unspecialized limitation would not be so bad.

In my experience, I want a deck that can handle 'most things.' That was possible in ALB because the specializations were not so restrictive that going specialized would be crippling. Red Dragon's decks don't feel that way, as I specialize, I see more and more gaps appearing in my deck. Those gaps aren't authentic, so it feels 'gamey.'

If specialization allowed more units and emphasized flexibly authentic, then I think it wouldn't be as much of a problem.

In Short: Authentic limitations on specializations are acceptable, inauthentic limitations produce an outsized dislike of the system.


Not exactly disagreeing with you as you have a lot more experience of the game than a newcomer like me but what kind of gap are you talking about? In my unspeciliazed decks, i only felt i had gaps when playing minor. When playing major like eurocorps, russia or blue/red dragons, it didn't feel like i was slot limited as despite having few slots, i had a wide enough array of troops to choose from.

Sometimes i had to make choices like what kind of artillery i want or do i go for an extra CV slot or for more supply trucks but i didn't feel like i was crippled by the way the system is made.

User avatar
Hartmann
Lieutenant
Posts: 1163
Joined: Thu 30 May 2013 18:31
Contact:

Re: Biggest problem with gameplay

Postby Hartmann » Tue 13 May 2014 23:44

Mot wrote:I disagree :) This restriction is a most welcome change.
This limitation of 5 slots grants specialization extra importance, the reason why people don't use specializations much is because some are unbalanced, some are clearly directed at cooperative gameplay, and many players like myself like to rely on themselves to counter any situation, something that usually only Mechanized is able to.


Ye.

Knowing that infantry is a finite resource, and you can't take stacks of support weapon teams without compromising your combat troop count is a good thing. There's issues with certain elites but it has little to do with the 5 card limit.

If you want infinite infantry you're going to have to make concessions, and that's mechanized for you.

User avatar
Zhukodim
Command Sergeant Major
Posts: 349
Joined: Thu 16 May 2013 00:32
Location: Russia
Contact:

Re: Biggest problem with gameplay

Postby Zhukodim » Tue 13 May 2014 23:47

Hartmann wrote:Ye.

Knowing that infantry is a finite resource, and you can't take stacks of support weapon teams without compromising your combat troop count is a good thing. There's issues with certain elites but it has little to do with the 5 card limit.

If you want infinite infantry you're going to have to make concessions, and that's mechanized for you.


I think so too.
Steel Division: Normandy 44 My precious! Our precious!

User avatar
[EUG]MadMat
More than 10 000 messages. Soldier you are the leader of all armies!
Posts: 15496
Joined: Thu 30 Jun 2011 13:31
Location: Paris, France.
Contact:

Re: Biggest problem with gameplay

Postby [EUG]MadMat » Tue 13 May 2014 23:51

There are many people complaining about the new deck system because, for the most part, people don't like change and are always more vocal to denounce something they don't like than something they like.
And as one can see, there are nonetheless people whom like the new system.

Now, should we change the system back to something more like ALB tomorrow, ALB-lobers would be happy and then the same number of posts from people who'd rather the new one would pop on the forum.

So, the new deck system is more restrictive in order to lesser the gap between the only viable ones in ALB, that is mostly American & Soviet and some specialized European ones, and the others.
One ca still make any realistic TO&E with the 5 slots limitations of a non-specialized, and thematic decks, although not exactly balance (Denmark still needs a lot of skill to beat an equivalent US or Soviet one), are less imbalanced.

So, some tweaks might be considered, but the system will remain as it is now, especially the slot limitation. The problems, when there are, are not in the number of slots, but in the units number/variety of units available to them, that is why we tend to add more units to specific decks over time ...

DrRansom
Lieutenant Colonel
Posts: 2032
Joined: Sat 14 Jan 2012 18:22
Contact:

Re: Biggest problem with gameplay

Postby DrRansom » Wed 14 May 2014 00:03

I don't particularly mind the slot restrictions (apart from adding support to mechanized and logistics to armored.... Pretty Please?), it is more the unit restrictions.


E.g: In ALB, if I recall correctly a US mechanized formation could get the Paladin artillery. That gave the US mechanized player a good artillery gun. While I can't check now, I don't think that is the case in Red Dragon. As artillery capability is definitely non-linear, this means a mechanized deck won't be able to get good artillery. (Of course, USSR has it worse) Given that mechanized decks will need artillery to blast away defenders, not being able to get good artillery is a bit of a problem.

Then there is the thematically ridiculous examples, such as having BMP-Ts available for armored decks or US armored running around without high end Bradley recon.

Return to “Wargame : Red Dragon”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Dontaskimmad and 48 guests