Recent reviews by deniedoperative

As opposed to normal categories such as visuals, gameplay etc, I shall address this game as its individual parts and mechanics (specific mechanics and additions), primarily how the game is different from past entries. This review is for people who are familiar with wargame to an extent and may contain jargon, my apologies.

For those who are not familiar with the wargame series, it is a military simulation (to a degree) of Communist aligned nations fighting NATO and capitalist aligned nations. Each side, and the subdivisions (coalitions and nations) have their own strengths and weaknesses, and most importantly their own varieties of units. According to the game's files, there are around 1500 unique deployable units in wargame, and this is part of the series' appeal. Battles are fought in real time, with emphasis on tactics and positioning, as opposed to base building and unit micro and the pace is slower than many RTS games out there. Think ARMA, appropriated as an RTS with the vehicle damage modelling of Company of Heroes with the map scale of Supreme Commander and the UI and setting of World in Conflict mishmashed with some of the atmosphere of EndWar. Or something. Its probably better to watch a video of the game to see what is is like.

Wargame: Red Dragon is in many ways a series of steps forward as opposed to a leap and a bound from AirLand Battle. The foremost change is the addition of naval and new units that accomodate this new mechanic. Unfortunately - to put it bluntly -the naval gameplay is quite broken. However, it is not the black pit of despair that trawling the forums and boards would lead you to believe. While inherently flawed in its execution, there are redeeming features.

NAVAL:
Well, like I said, its quite broken, but not for the reasons many people seem to think. The biggest issue that impacts immersion and gameplay is the scale. It is simply out of scale entirely to have Soveremeny destroyers and Arleigh Burke (oops I mean "Kongo") destroyers duking it out 5 kilometres from shore and 2 kilometres from each other. Ships in real life almost never meet to exchange cannon fire. This means for balance, the ships in wargame are nerfed to hell, and even then, they are very powerful. The scale should have been increased or naval should not have been included. Naval pathfinding is an issue, with collisions and whats become "balls of death", ugly bunched masses so that CIWS reaches critical mass. Redfor definitely has an advantage with not one, but TWO 500 point heavy ship options. But, the general strat in naval is clustered ships potshotting with missiles until inevitably, Blu air inflicts unsustainible losses or Red destroyers close with the Blu fleet. River boats, on the other hand, work fine, if a teensy bit overpowered vs land. Then again, I've seen a T34/85 Obr 55 kill a Kongo, so go figure.

GAMEPLAY GENERAL:
For the most part, it works fine, there is a measured sense of balance in asymmetry. There seems to always be overbuffing of the recipient nations following a DLC release, but that is a minor issue. The gameplay remains largely the same since AirLand Battle, with the inclusion of naval not matching the revolutionary change that the inclusion of jets was. Air has been nerfed slightly with better AA options across the board and tanks are less viable as well, with seemingly every single unit being geared to kill tanks - a hyperbole, but an apt one. Artillery has been buffed significantly since The battles are fast and hectic, with 10v10s a sight to behold. The most popular modes in public multiplayer are Destruction-kill more of the enemy, and Conquest-capture points and gain victory points to win. Both modes have their pros and cons, with Destruction boiling down into static trench warfare, artillery slugging being the decider and Conquest seemingly being an excuse for most people to "suicide their entire bloody deck in the first five minutes". However, with competent teams on both sides, Wargame multiplayer is an enjoyable affair, but inevitably, with unpleasant people in public games. This cannot be helped.

SINGLEPLAYER:
SP exists in the form of offlien skirmish with the AI and dynamic "Theatre of War" style campaigns. Both are marred horrendously by the laughably bad AI. The extent of the AI is grouping a bunch of ground offensive units and fast moving them down the nearest road straight into your defenses. As a stopgap solution to the bad AI, Eugen upped the availiblity, income rate and starting income of the AI's forces, meaning, most skirmish matches are zombie wave modes. Custom decks make skirmishes bearable, but still needs work. The "dynamic" campaign unfolds on a Total War style grand campaign map, with turn based gameplay. While better in quality than ALB's campaign in terms of AI and presentation, it loses some of the freedom and scale of ALB, in exchange for a more scripted affair. The actual battles are disappointing to say the least. The campaign map basically serves as a connector for a series of skirmishes against a zerg rush AI. We'll see if the "Second Korean War" DLC improves things.

DECKS AND UNITS:
The deck builder remains largely unchanged. In Wargame, starting forces are chosen from a pool of units in a deck you have constructed. Everthing comes in cards, with limited availiblity, both of the cards and the units themselves, which fill up slots in a grid, categorised into various unit roles. This is where the meat of the game is IMO and makes the 1500~ units a legitimate feature that makes sense as opposed to filler. Deckbuidling is one of the most fun and involved processes in wargame, with a single slot, card or activation point (How many slots you can fill with cards) making a world of difference on the battlefield. The armory is wonderfully presented with every unit rendered in high detail and with stats, however one must be aware that the armory LIES. Also, Category B and Category C (time period restricted) decks are functionally useless now, with the availiblity bonus gone and more activation points which you likely don't need. Eugen has always been fast and loose with regards to their period accuracy and scale (A Rafale with early 2000s' aams? Really?), and while the game ostensibly has units up until the mid 1990s, this is skirted around a bit. There also appears to be a somewhat prevalent French bias to the game, but its not really an issue for me.

PRESENTATION:
Wargame is slick in its menus and user interface, albeit a bit cluttered at times in game. The game looks and sounds much better than ALB and textures have had a noticeable improvement. Voice work is a bit iffy, with accents ranging from well done to comic. The game scales well too, with graphics that will burn out your GPU down to European Escalation era textures and rendering.

In short, Wargame: Red Dragon is a fine offering from Eugen Systems and a good step forward in the series. However, naval has some severe flaws and the single player experience leaves a lot to be desired.

"Admiral, the fleet is ready."
"Ensign?"
"I concur."
"Prepare engage warspeed on my mark."
"T-minus 3
...2
...1
MARK."

SHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM

*fleet gets blown apart by static defense stations upon arrival*

So..... 4X in SPAAAAAAAAACCCCCEEEEE
Titans! Exploration! Power struggles! Wars of annihilation! Diplomacy made redundant due to the former!
If you love space, wanted to roleplay all you favourite speculative fiction fleet battles and love lasers and explosions this game is for you!
"Prepare for warp"
Thats all you need to know.

The game is essentially Empire without the crippling bugs and more tasty unit variety. Where in Empire, most of the mainstay European faction units were painfully generic, thankfully there's much more unit types and looks now.
The main campaign is a close knit and somewhat scripted affair, it doesn't detract from the experience, as you are retracing Napoleon's footsteps. If that doesn;t strike your fancy, there's also Campaignsof the Coalition in which it is more open ended but still on a smaller map than empire, plotting Napoleon's downfall.
It's not entirely historically accurate, an inevitability in such a game like this. However, it tries its best to stick to period authentic tactics and effects.
The battle effects are very lovely to look at although the Warscape engine is starting to show cracks what with wonky animation sync and sound clipping as well as some atrocious balance in some engagements. However, it works and is a decent engine for representing Napoleonic combat.
I am a bit biased as I'm a monumental Napoleonic and 18th century history enthusiast and if you have a love of history or total war or any other strategy 4x title, I recommend this game highly.
Tl;DR thank god it isn't Rome II.