|
I'm typing up the OP now.
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2017 13:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 24, 2024 04:59 |
|
|
Xerxes17 posted:I'm typing up the OP now.  I've got this game. I am p bad at it, but slowly getting better after a single night of test drives vs the AI. I agree, its a great iteration on the Wargame model, and starting over without a billion units in the game Just Because feels really nice. I've still got to wrap my head around the morale system, but this is super promising nonetheless.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2017 14:56
|
|
|
Panzeh posted:Eugen said none of the divisions included had M18s, so they're not there. Nooooo
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2017 15:01
|
|
|
Deptfordx posted:I think the Russians deliberately did the same thing with some of their cold war equipment so that ammunition wouldn't get mixed up. See also, in small arms, .38 vs .357, and .380 vs 9mm
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2017 15:03
|
|
|
https://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3816495 It's here.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2017 15:08
|
|
|
Plan Z posted:A bunch. They didn't really consider it until it had become a problem. One of the reasons why Americans got their tanks named after Civil War generals was because the Mx names were confusing the British, Churchill in particular. The Brits did the naming conventions first, to fit with how they named their tanks after generals (Cromwell, Churchill) and did the same with the Medium Tank, M3 (General Grant/Lee) and Medium Tank, M4 (General Sherman) then also the Light Tank, M3 and M5 (General Stuart and 'Honey' Stuart) The 3 Inch Gun Motor Carriage, M10 was the Achilles, but apparently the Americans never gave it a name until after the war. Also AFAIK, the 75mm and 76mm are slightly different bores and can't use each others ammo. The 76mm and 3 inch (ie. M1 used on Shermans and M7 used on the M10) on the other hand are the exact same barrel diameter, but they use a different breach and different shells which also aren't interchangeable. So they marked one as metric and one as imperial to prevent confusion.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2017 15:47
|
|
|
Paingod556 posted:The Brits did the naming conventions first, to fit with how they named their tanks after generals (Cromwell, Churchill) and did the same with the Medium Tank, M3 (General Grant/Lee) and Medium Tank, M4 (General Sherman) then also the Light Tank, M3 and M5 (General Stuart and 'Honey' Stuart) The 3 Inch Gun Motor Carriage, M10 was the Achilles, but apparently the Americans never gave it a name until after the war. Fair point and you're right on the names, but man I'm almost positive the 75s and 76s have the same bore width, though I may be remembering wrong. I only remember it being mentioned in Armored Thunderbolt and Zaloga's 76mm Sherman book.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2017 18:27
|
|
|
Man, this game sounds real good. I'll pick it up as soon as it goes on sale. I used to buy every Wargame as soon as they were released mostly due to fear of them dying out before I could enjoy the MP. I doubt that'll be the case with this one.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2017 20:07
|
|
|
Azran posted:Man, this game sounds real good. I'll pick it up as soon as it goes on sale. I used to buy every Wargame as soon as they were released mostly due to fear of them dying out before I could enjoy the MP. I doubt that'll be the case with this one. Yeah, I think that's one of the advantages of being a WW2 game (as overpopulated as I feel the genre is)
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2017 21:29
|
|
|
I'm gonna miss the Cold War setting but not the unit bloat.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2017 10:18
|
|
|
The unit bloat could have been dealt with if they went with the unit-based system that Steel Division went with.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2017 10:26
|
|
|
Eugen shouldn't have tried to make it a competitive game. All Wargames have so many sandbox elements in them they should've gone the whole nine yards and made the Arma of realtime tactical games. At least Steel Division works well for what they wanted to do so better late than never.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2017 20:52
|
|
|
I still maintain that I liked the ridiculous amount of units. There's not much else in RTSes like that. Some day I should write down and post the ideas I had for a theoretical Wargame 4 since I doubt we'll ever see one.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2017 21:10
|
|
|
Triple A posted:The unit bloat could have been dealt with if they went with the unit-based system that Steel Division went with. I'm not sure how a Kampfgruppe was organized or what the Brits did, but this mix of equipment and quantity is pretty much what you would have seen in a an American Task Force of this period. Though the 1v1 maps seem a bit large for the kind of assignments a Task Force typically received (push down road X until contact, take and hold small town Y, etc...). You often seen them described as 15-30 tanks, 30 or so half tracks (or trucks) with infantry, and some support equipment with air and Arty usually a radio call away. So, it has a ring of authenticity to it which soothes my mil-hist nerd soul.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2017 21:13
|
|
|
power crystals posted:I still maintain that I liked the ridiculous amount of units. There's not much else in RTSes like that. I think they'll eventually do that, if Steel Division sells well.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2017 08:42
|
|
|
power crystals posted:I still maintain that I liked the ridiculous amount of units. There's not much else in RTSes like that. They just needed a mechanism to make people use them Also having large differences in effectiveness for small arms at this scale was pretty silly and rarely realistic
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2017 14:47
|
|
|
Kemper Boyd posted:I think they'll eventually do that, if Steel Division sells well. I have two problems with this thought. First, since Eugen switched publishers to Paradox for Steel Division, I imagine getting the rights transferred is a legal pain. Second, if a new franchise does well, why would you go back and make another entry in a less popular franchise instead of extending the popular one? I imagine we'll see a bunch of Steel Division expansions first if we ever see a new Wargame, and if we do I'd expect it to be a "reboot" some years from now. OXBALLS DOT COM posted:They just needed a mechanism to make people use them Look I already made the best mechanism to solve this problem, what more do you want??  Ok so, power crystals' insane ideas for a Wargame sequel. Note that this written with the assumptions that (1) this is a straight sequel, not a reboot (2) this is Eugen so models, mechanics, etc. never get removed and (3) I'm not addressing most balance issues because frankly I'm terrible at this games and I'm not really qualified to do that, and besides you don't need a new game to do that. Ignoring the balance issues (including the aforementioned small arms problems), the major architectural issues that Red Dragon had were, in no particular order: an immense amount of garbage/"trap" units; eras basically didn't work; boats, everything about them; and a general feeling that it didn't know if it wanted to be some hardcore milsim or a casual RTS. First, I want observers for multiplayer. Given that Eugen's newer games have this I don't think that's too much of a stretch. While we're on engine things, fix the AI's utterly broken pathfinding for disconnected land command zones and try to work on the occasional desyncs (and the very rare times the game has just entirely stopped, which is fun because apparently even menu commands are processed 'on next tick' so you can't quit the thing despite the menu still rendering fine). I mentioned it in passing but I want to make eras a real Thing and not just a "today we're going to spam M48s" setting in the lobby. As a part of this, units get three dates: year of introduction as prototype, year of introduction to general service, and year of retirement. On top of that I want to do the same thing to nations - East/West Germany disappear and gets replaced by just Germany when it reunifies. This also lets you model things like the Sino-Soviet split, or Iran's revolution making it become very hostile to the US. The ultimate point of this is that instead of setting your lobby for "<= 1985", you then say "we want to do a fight set in Able Archer" and the nations/hardware available at that point in time are what you get. The game itself would define valid setting years so that we don't get people arguing over how the US in 1979 is totally OP compared to 1978 US. By default then, lobbies would be set to only allow decks from matching eras, but you could optionally allow mismatches because everybody loves The Final Countdown. Decks too old/new get bonuses/penalties to availability/income. I'm really sure which or how much, that you'd have to test. It might even be worth having the setting be "how far from now can you be", so your Able Archer scenario can have a Vietnam division but not 1952 Norks. Then just do the milsim DLC model of "sell weird combinations of nation/year for $10" and earn a stupid pile of money from the people who really want to re-enact the Iran-Iraq war. Just make sure to include Nazi Germany and charge 4x as much so that Weheraboos can scream about how their Panther totally should have killed that M1A2. Hell you could theoretically make the base game free to play under that model if it only includes 1980s US/USSR and everything else is DLC. That leave us with boats. I'm going to go ahead and take the controversial stance that "Red Dragon's boats are bad". Really, in my opinion everything but riverboats shouldn't even be in this scale. But now we're stuck with them. The other problem is the naval tab in general, because it covers like 8 different kinds of unit and you have no idea what you're going to need, it's dead weight on a pure land map, and the combination of those two things leaves us with the ridiculous 0 point slot system that it has. So my plan is this: the naval tab is a second class of deck entirely, and on maps with water you pick two decks. The naval deck's categories would thus roughly be: Riverboats, Escort Ships, Command Ships, Support (supply boats + those AShM missile truck things that I'm pretty sure literally nobody has used, ever), AShM Aircraft, and Landing Craft. As an added bonus, you could now have a map with rivers but no deep water and your naval deck could purchase its riverboats and maybe support but nothing else. And it means you can have a naval deck for each kind of water situation instead of having to tie to the land deck. Also get rid of Marine specialization, it's no longer necessary. While I'm at it, I am one of the weird people that enjoyed Red Dragon's campaigns for the weird hybrid of RTS/tower defense/puzzle game that they were. I'd like to see it be more easily possible to make your own, even if you have to re-use the existing maps since I know of no modern RTS with a map editor since they've turned into full-fledged 3D models instead of the tilesets of old. I have way too much time on my hands, don't I?
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2017 16:30
|
|
|
It's not like you can copyright the cold war, they could just rename it and release Steel Division: Bavaria 55
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2017 16:58
|
|
|
Able Archer would be cool
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2017 18:42
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:It's not like you can copyright the cold war, they could just rename it and release Steel Division: Bavaria 55 Yeah but they might need to re-create all the models/textures/etc which would get expensive real fast if you wanted to have a game with every single unit in Red Dragon and presumably some new ones too.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2017 18:49
|
|
|
Are there any particular good typed decks for the Poles and the DDR? Or am I better at just national decks?
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2017 08:30
|
|
|
With DDR I find that mechanized and the normal national deck are quite good. Poles I don't play that much, but have tried and enjoyed their armored.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2017 10:13
|
|
|
I quite like DDR motorized, because somehow it seems that the Leichte Schützen are far better than their Gornostrelki counterparts who just seem to be really good at missing with their Metis and then dying fast. Also, the special forces with the nasty LAWs and MANPADS are pretty great for operating behind enemy lines. FASTA trucks for shooting down enemy air are cheap and good.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2017 20:22
|
|
|
Thanks dudes, was debating on whether to play them individually or just multiple eastern block deck. I haven't played in a long time so I'm out of clue with how strong things are. I like national decks but they feel a bit gimped with the coalition decks existing, why play Czechoslovakia when I can play EB for example. How are the new coalitions with Yugoslavia etc? I dont own any of the dlcs but with steel division so close it might be a questionable buy.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2017 10:50
|
|
|
IMO the Netherlands is basically just Eurocorps again, Israel is kinda neat and has some weird and nifty transports, Finland is amazing if you like infantry, and Yugo is basically a comedy option elemental with the rocket IFV and it having some bullshit ultra-Malyutkas on everything among others. If you buy one of them get the double reds one because they're both fun as hell (to me anyway).
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2017 13:01
|
|
|
The Yugo deck is loving nuts, it's like playing with cheat codes
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2017 13:55
|
|
|
power crystals posted:I mentioned it in passing but I want to make eras a real Thing and not just a "today we're going to spam M48s" setting in the lobby. As a part of this, units get three dates: year of introduction as prototype, year of introduction to general service, and year of retirement. On top of that I want to do the same thing to nations - East/West Germany disappear and gets replaced by just Germany when it reunifies. This also lets you model things like the Sino-Soviet split, or Iran's revolution making it become very hostile to the US. The ultimate point of this is that instead of setting your lobby for "<= 1985", you then say "we want to do a fight set in Able Archer" and the nations/hardware available at that point in time are what you get. The game itself would define valid setting years so that we don't get people arguing over how the US in 1979 is totally OP compared to 1978 US. I'm a big proponent of the "ambiguous timeline". I never liked the idea of scenarios set around a specific date because then you get endless debates and nationalistic dickwaving about how unit X totally had a functioning prototype in 1992 and belongs in the game, while unit Y didn't but is needed for balance. This gets even worse when Eugen bends these rules whenever they feel like it. The rules for including units in eras should be "if it fits the theme, it goes in". Each scenario like you described should be tailored to evoke the "spirit" of that time period while keeping the game balanced. Yeah, the Su-27M flew in 1988, but it was in no way ready for combat then nor does it fit the late-1980s scenario. On the other hand, an improved SABOT round for NATO's 120mm tank guns can fit if it allows them to fight Pact's new tanks effectively and thus make for a more entertaining game. In fact, doing "scenarios" like these might have other benefits. The Able Archer scenario for instance might take place only in Europe so the East Asian countries would be excluded. Meanwhile, a scenario set in the Pacific around the same time might exclude the Europeans and alter the superpowers' unit rosters to reflect their doctrine more closely. So, for instance, US forces in Europe in 1983 might be a lot heavier but less mobile than those in the Pacific. Soviet forces in the Far East might not field the same numbers of T-80s and T-64s as they would in Europe. Maybe I'm a hopeless romantic, but I think that evoking the "atmosphere" of a particular scenario is even more important than having perfect historical OOBs and unit capabilities. One of the things I really disliked about Red Dragon was that it all seemed like a meaningless thunderdome for armies from all over the world rather than a coherent period experience like ALB and EE had been. What the gently caress are Norwegian CV90s doing in North Korea?
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2017 08:25
|
|
|
I mostly agree with all of that, with the caveat that I like the weird matchups as an option too. Sometimes I just wanna stage a Yugoslavian invasion of Israel, and I feel like that belongs just as much as the actual historical events. I am more concerned with trying to limit decks to a given "setting" than the actual battles. Hell, this would let you discard the mostly useless all-nation decks and replace them with like, a given side for a given conflict, i.e. Finland does not get invited to the Six Day War, but if you want to bring them the game should allow it. Definitely agree with bending the timeline where it makes sense for the reasons described.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 18:12
|
|
|
I really want Wargame to be an engine for custom scenarios.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 18:15
|
|
|
xthetenth posted:I really want Wargame to be an engine for custom scenarios.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 20:03
|
|
|
Finally I can play Ethiopia
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 20:07
|
|
|
A real time, less janky Steel Panthers MBT would be pretty cool.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 20:30
|
|
|
Mr Luxury Yacht posted:A real time, less janky Steel Panthers MBT would be pretty cool. Check out the steel division thread friend.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 00:26
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:Check out the steel division thread friend. But it's not cold war/modern though  I will probably get it eventually, once I clear my backlog a bit more.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 00:30
|
|
|
A full mod editor and support with map editor, and coop campaign with head-to-head option would make this game last for a million years.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2017 22:30
|
|
|
Does anyone have a version of Uralmod that works with this latest (last?) patch?
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2017 00:41
|
|
|
No, because it doesn't exist.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2017 07:26
|
|
|
The medium tank buff goes some way to making it irrelevant.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2017 15:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 24, 2024 04:59 |
|
|
Yeah, an awful lot of what it did got implemented into the base game, often in quite similar ways. Personally I feel like the much cheaper command vehicles is the biggest game changer between the two.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2017 17:49
|
|