Wargame: Red Dragon

[Mr. Bigglesworth]

One thing I was discussing with young Gusington was the pros and cons of building combined arms decks, as opposed to decks that specialize in one particular area of combat. My suspicion is that the more successful co-op players use specialist decks that work together.

For instance, one player may specialize in rotary and fixed wing aviation.  Another may specialize in infantry, both mech and airborne. Another may serve as the armored punch while another may provide the bulk of supply.  I think three or four players who have built specialized decks together and come up with a plan of mutual support would be far more likely to succeed against a group of random players who are all fielding mixed battlegroups with no plan for support.

Thoughts?

Any type of coordinated response will win. You could also have different people responsible for different areas. Kind of like the various beaches of the Normandy landing. Will small scale battles be better supported by a guy who uses all forces for a particular idea or by the depth of knowledge of the use of a unit? Clearly in the real world there is years of built up knowledge regarding a particular type of combat, air, land, sea. In terms of creating a combined arms plan, I think it has to be done by one expert. It's too easy for the support to fall apart by a mis-comunication of the plan's intent. To some degree you need regional control. Then functional experts underneath.

Returning to the game, the depth of knowledge is not beyond one person. You could actually matrix it where each person has overall control of taking a sector with combined arms, then secondary expertise in a function if the other person needs help.

[Gusington]

^Interesting...you should write marketing material for the devs!

[Mr. Bigglesworth]

I played again this morning, thrashing the AI. I dont know if the steam update was required for the fix or if my selecting nato blue deck vs default soviet deck, which I noticed is limited to 1980 had something to do with it. Whatever, it did not break.

What do people think of the abstraction of sector value? Getting command points for killing units greatly skews the game to the opening. It will tend to snowball as the guy taking out recon or command vehicles gets more units to push into the fight. That is not reflected in the real world, it is a totally bogus dynamic. In other RTSs with resource gathering, the economic rate followed by the factory speed followed by the unit speed determine what you can bring to the fight. I think that is a better system.

I like the combined arms focus of the game. The strength of infantry in towns was completely new to me.

[undercovergeek]

well my first forray into the the pearl of the orient campaign lasted 45 seconds and a total defeat - lol

maybe a skirmish first

[undercovergeek]

so my first skirmish i chose 'conquest' - i picked about 50% of my deck for the opening moves but then no matter how many points i earned i couldnt get the reinforcement screen up - is a conquest a one-shot/one-pick game type?

[Apocalypse 31]

One thing I was discussing with young Gusington was the pros and cons of building combined arms decks, as opposed to decks that specialize in one particular area of combat. My suspicion is that the more successful co-op players use specialist decks that work together.

For instance, one player may specialize in rotary and fixed wing aviation.  Another may specialize in infantry, both mech and airborne. Another may serve as the armored punch while another may provide the bulk of supply.  I think three or four players who have built specialized decks together and come up with a plan of mutual support would be far more likely to succeed against a group of random players who are all fielding mixed battlegroups with no plan for support.

Thoughts?

Any type of coordinated response will win. You could also have different people responsible for different areas. Kind of like the various beaches of the Normandy landing. Will small scale battles be better supported by a guy who uses all forces for a particular idea or by the depth of knowledge of the use of a unit? Clearly in the real world there is years of built up knowledge regarding a particular type of combat, air, land, sea. In terms of creating a combined arms plan, I think it has to be done by one expert. It's too easy for the support to fall apart by a mis-comunication of the plan's intent. To some degree you need regional control. Then functional experts underneath.

Returning to the game, the depth of knowledge is not beyond one person. You could actually matrix it where each person has overall control of taking a sector with combined arms, then secondary expertise in a function if the other person needs help.

A group that I play with will often use this strategy. Before the match, each player will announce which specialty he is choosing. This normally breaks down into the following areas: Recon, Artillery, Logistics, Air, and maneuver forces. It takes a lot of coordination but can be really fun.

Another way that we've done it is by military war fighting functions

Mission Command, Intelligence, Maneuver, Logistics, Fires, and Protection

[GDS_Starfury]

Recon, Artillery, Logistics, Air, and maneuver forces. It takes a lot of coordination but can be really fun.

this is pretty much how we did it in Homeworld with great success.  the real key lies in how well you know the people youre playing with.

[vyshka]

33% off this weekend. Is it worth upgrading from ALB?

[jomni]

Just bought. Haven't tried yet.
It's a different theater anyway so it doesn't really make ALB outdated.

[sandman2575]

Yeah, I caved too...

Damn Steam, with its low, low prices that offer real value for the discerning consumer! 

[Nefaro]

Any type of coordinated response will win. You could also have different people responsible for different areas. Kind of like the various beaches of the Normandy landing.

This was usually the way teamwork was when I played AirLand Battle.  While there was occasional mention of premeditated games with someone solely running a specific facet (such as aircraft), the large majority consisted of each player taking a specific 'sector' with his mixed force "deck". 

During multiplayer setup in a random pick-up game, each player would use the map hotspot highlights to show which area they would be taking and then everyone would move forward from there at game start. 

If they were passable players, they would request or send reinforcements to other players areas to help support a desperate defense or add some extra punch at a discovered weak spot.  Often the easiest way to help another player was to send your Air and Helo support over for a quick fix while sending a few slower ground forces (if needed) to shore up or drive from a different direction.

It's possible that having the players specialize as heavily as Jarhead suggested could end up with certain players having a lot more workload than others.  I think having mixed forces dividing up the battlefield responsibilities would keep it fairly even in this respect.  Since it's a real-time strategy game, a heavy workload on one player and not enough on the others could be a big problem because the multiplayer maps can be pretty huge.  It's much easier to micro-manage when you only have to worry about commanding forces in a smaller area.

[Jarhead0331]

It's possible that having the players specialize as heavily as Jarhead suggested could end up with certain players having a lot more workload than others.  I think having mixed forces dividing up the battlefield responsibilities would keep it fairly even in this respect.  Since it's a real-time strategy game, a heavy workload on one player and not enough on the others could be a big problem because the multiplayer maps can be pretty huge.  It's much easier to micro-manage when you only have to worry about commanding forces in a smaller area.

Interesting suggestion, but I see this approach as being worse for creating more workload potential for one player. If the enemy is only attacking on one flank, then the player assigned to that flank is going to be pressed harder than the others. Having players focus on specialized roles may require a bit more planning and coordination than assigning players sectors, but I think if done properly, it will be more effective. It will maximize point strength in each specialized role. The team that specializes will have more tanks, more infantry, more aviation and artillery, etc. than the team that doesn't.

[Nefaro]

Interesting suggestion, but I see this approach as being worse for creating more workload potential for one player. If the enemy is only attacking on one flank, then the player assigned to that flank is going to be pressed harder than the others. Having players focus on specialized roles may require a bit more planning and coordination than assigning players sectors, but I think if done properly, it will be more effective. It will maximize point strength in each specialized role. The team that specializes will have more tanks, more infantry, more aviation and artillery, etc. than the team that doesn't.

That's why I mentioned lending support to other players' axes of advance, when needed.  It's easy enough to do. 

Another concern with specializing by type is the deck limits.  IIRC, most of the unit categories have hard limits on how many slots you can have, if not all of them.  Wouldn't you still have to mix units in most cases, if you didn't have enough slots? 

I'm not saying it's a bad idea.  I would just prefer having less map area to focus on during bigger multiplayer games.  The less I need to move my camera back & forth to see check the situation and give orders, the more I can focus on the task at hand.  It might be okay having a mixture of the two, especially if one player uses a Support oriented deck while the others command approximate sectors.

[Jarhead0331]

Interesting suggestion, but I see this approach as being worse for creating more workload potential for one player. If the enemy is only attacking on one flank, then the player assigned to that flank is going to be pressed harder than the others. Having players focus on specialized roles may require a bit more planning and coordination than assigning players sectors, but I think if done properly, it will be more effective. It will maximize point strength in each specialized role. The team that specializes will have more tanks, more infantry, more aviation and artillery, etc. than the team that doesn't.

That's why I mentioned lending support to other players' axes of advance, when needed.  It's easy enough to do. 

Another concern with specializing by type is the deck limits.  IIRC, most of the unit categories have hard limits on how many slots you can have, if not all of them.  Wouldn't you still have to mix units in most cases, if you didn't have enough slots? 

I'm not saying it's a bad idea.  I would just prefer having less map area to focus on during bigger multiplayer games.  The less I need to move my camera back & forth to see check the situation and give orders, the more I can focus on the task at hand.  It might be okay having a mixture of the two, especially if one player uses a Support oriented deck while the others command approximate sectors.

yes. I indicated that each specialized force would still have a small mix of other units to help balance the force and account for unexpected circumstances.  It may be a good idea to pit two teams against each other... one team who divides the map and one team who divides the roles and see who wins and by what margin.  Care to place a little wager?

[Nefaro]

yes. I indicated that each specialized force would still have a small mix of other units to help balance the force and account for unexpected circumstances.  It may be a good idea to pit two teams against each other... one team who divides the map and one team who divides the roles and see who wins and by what margin.  Care to place a little wager?

I'm not a gambling man at all.  It would come down to who has the best teamwork anyway.