|
Don't forget, you can play the single player missions and get command stars for MP games.
|
| # ? Feb 23, 2012 02:50 |
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2013 12:14 |
|
|
Xerxes17 posted:It almost seems like the Russian just have straight up better AA equipment. The T-62 was a direct result of the Soviets making GBS threads themselves over the M48 Patton and other western tanks of the period which it turned out the T-55 was woefully outmatched by. The IS-3 and the other heavy tanks were dropped because they were simply not worth it. The pendulum swung back and forth several times as each side would outdo the other resulting in a scramble by the other side to develop something new to bridge the sudden gap. Not once during the myriad of proxy wars did western tanks get outmatched by their Russian counterparts, it's been quite the opposite story in the rare cases tanks from similar generations have met. Russian tanks tended to have very poor crew compartment setups, a tendency to explode when penetrated due to ammunition stowage oversights, and inferior electronics and aiming systems which led to shorter effective ranges. This is one of the reasons the Soviets also spent a shitload of time and money developing ATGMs. Warbadger fucked around with this message at Feb 23, 2012 around 03:01 |
| # ? Feb 23, 2012 02:52 |
|
|
Chapps seemed to be the perfect base defense. All your FOBs are located there ensuring a steady stream of ammo, yet they have the range to hit stuff before it has a chance into the actual zone. Perfect for Hell's Highway in that you can push them up to just behind Fedor or Gregory and rotate them out when they get short on ammo.
|
| # ? Feb 23, 2012 02:59 |
|
|
sgnl05 posted:But is it good? RUSE's was too easy so I'm not sure the added difficulty will bother me. I just want it to be engaging. It's fun and plays out more like a History Channel documentary than a really contrived spy plot with crappy characters, at least from what I've seen. And while it's not exactly hard if you know what you're doing, it definitely keeps poo poo happening.
|
| # ? Feb 23, 2012 03:09 |
|
|
LP97S posted:Don't forget, you can play the single player missions and get command stars for MP games.
|
| # ? Feb 23, 2012 03:18 |
|
|
Warbadger posted:The T-62 was a direct result of the Soviets making GBS threads themselves over the M48 Patton and other western tanks of the period which it turned out the T-55 was woefully outmatched by. The IS-3 and the other heavy tanks were dropped because they were simply not worth it. The pendulum swung back and forth several times as each side would outdo the other resulting in a scramble by the other side to develop something new to bridge the sudden gap. Not once during the myriad of proxy wars did western tanks get outmatched by their Russian counterparts, it's been quite the opposite story in the rare cases tanks from similar generations have met. Russian tanks tended to have very poor crew compartment setups, a tendency to explode when penetrated due to ammunition stowage oversights, and inferior electronics and aiming systems which led to shorter effective ranges. This is true, but I was speaking from a psychological standpoint rather than "x vs y is better". My point was that the various officers and officials that made up their respective establishments had differing experiences in their formative years and as a result, this would alter the kind of things they prioritized for weapon development.
|
| # ? Feb 23, 2012 03:33 |
|
|
Dukka posted:And best of all it doesn't have any real indicator when you hit up multiplayer, so you can hustle people as a level 1 with maxed out T80s. It's only worth it when you're going against people above your level. Just played a 4v4 level 1 slugfest where I got 2000 points mostly thanks to my AMX-30B2 but lost some bits with poor management with AA and a arty guy who drained my FOB because he needed 18 PZb 109s! Another advice I'll give, people love to spam choppers right now for some reason. My guess is that level 1 tanks don't have MG's so they think they're taking advantage of it.
|
| # ? Feb 23, 2012 03:37 |
|
|
sgnl05 posted:ATGMs are good, but you have to use them right. Firstly you should always buy them with a couple levels of vet. Secondly, you should try and position them in cover outside the tank's range, rather than trying to push them up. It's all about trying to do as much damage with the first salvo as possible, because if the tanks get in range and start firing back your accuracy will go to poo poo and you'll quite possibly lose. They are similar to the old AT guns in the awesome Battlefront games. You need to hide them well and put them in a position in which they get the first shots off at the armored vehicles since they do poorly against return fire. Also helps to use cheaper units to created nice traps to do things such as hit them in the side or rear armor for greater damage.
|
| # ? Feb 23, 2012 03:47 |
|
|
Really the optimal ATGM is the one that's fired from the unit that's not being shot at. Cannons are nice and simple and don't care that much if the unit shooting it is under fire - ATGMs need line of sight the whole way in, need to stay in range the whole way in and need to stay non-panicked and undamaged the whole way in. But for all that you get a lot of damage and a lot of range for the price.
|
| # ? Feb 23, 2012 03:50 |
|
|
So yeah, all the talk in this thread about realistic tank patterns, and how many salvos certain vehicles can fire off and whatnot makes this game sound really really grognardy/difficult/spreadsheety. I know the title says this isn't World in Conflict 2, but well, if I went into this game just wanting a fun little romp through Cold War Europe with an interesting enough WORLDS GOING TO END COMMANDER story, would I be disappointed? Just judging from the thread so far, this looks far more "hardcore" then my normal RTS games.
|
| # ? Feb 23, 2012 04:31 |
|
|
Rookersh posted:So yeah, all the talk in this thread about realistic tank patterns, and how many salvos certain vehicles can fire off and whatnot makes this game sound really really grognardy/difficult/spreadsheety. Yes it's a more more complex version of the basic World In Conflict design especially the massive numbers of unique units. It just means that there's a bit more of a painful learning curve and lots of wargame-lite concepts that don't make it exactly a pickup-play RTS.
|
| # ? Feb 23, 2012 04:34 |
|
|
In the absence of a demo I'm a bit leery of paying 40 euros for a game I don't know, but from everything I've heard it sounds like I'd like it. But I have one more concern. Is my computer going to run it well at all? I have an ancient Core 2 Duo e6600 and a Radeon 4890. I expect the GPU to be good enough, it's the CPU I'm worried about.
|
| # ? Feb 23, 2012 04:43 |
|
|
etalian posted:Yes it's a more more complex version of the basic World In Conflict design especially the massive numbers of unique units. It would be much simplier if the NATO starting deck wasn't quite so rubbish, and you could toggle units to show their 'category' and not their 'name' because lots of people are not going to know what a TOS-1 Buritino is. But really you can ignore the fine differences between a Challenger 1 and an M1A1 and a T80 and accept that they are all 'heavy tanks' and come with a big gun and big armor. The 4000 different infantry types really boil down to 'AA' 'AT' 'Special Forces' and 'Vanilla' Cthulhu Dreams fucked around with this message at Feb 23, 2012 around 04:52 |
| # ? Feb 23, 2012 04:49 |
|
|
Elukka posted:In the absence of a demo I'm a bit leery of paying 40 euros for a game I don't know, but from everything I've heard it sounds like I'd like it. But I have one more concern. Is my computer going to run it well at all? I have an ancient Core 2 Duo e6600 and a Radeon 4890. I expect the GPU to be good enough, it's the CPU I'm worried about. You could track down the RUSE demo and see how your computer runs that. The system requirements are about the same. My guess would be that you could run it at pretty low settings. If you're unsure about the gameplay I'd watch some gameplay footage on youtube. Rookersh posted:So yeah, all the talk in this thread about realistic tank patterns, and how many salvos certain vehicles can fire off and whatnot makes this game sound really really grognardy/difficult/spreadsheety. It's kind of grognard-lite. You won't be able to pick it up and grasp it instantly, but it isn't exactly mind-blowing in its complexity either. By the sound of it the campaign will ease you into things a bit anyway. And there's always youtube tutorials to help you out.
|
| # ? Feb 23, 2012 04:56 |
|
|
I've done two AI skirmishes, just trying to get the hang of the game, and both times I've found myself suddenly unable to spawn more tanks despite having enough points to do so, does anyone know what that's all about? I can still bring in anything else, just not tanks. I click the button to bring up the deployment menu and the tank category is just gone.
|
| # ? Feb 23, 2012 05:05 |
|
|
Rookersh posted:So yeah, all the talk in this thread about realistic tank patterns, and how many salvos certain vehicles can fire off and whatnot makes this game sound really really grognardy/difficult/spreadsheety. Like I said before, the solo campaign is more of a History Channel documentary deal with four "what if" scenarios. The campaign doesn't require you to do spreadsheets at all really, all the stuff does what you'd think it does and you can get by just making whatever tank looks the prettiest. If you want to go into multiplayer, though, it would behoove you to at least glance at some of the units and their stats, but the unit's function is clearly identified in a couple of words. Frog Assassin posted:I've done two AI skirmishes, just trying to get the hang of the game, and both times I've found myself suddenly unable to spawn more tanks despite having enough points to do so, does anyone know what that's all about? I can still bring in anything else, just not tanks. I click the button to bring up the deployment menu and the tank category is just gone. There's a limit to how many of any one unit you can build, shown in that box you click to create units. You don't get points back in the pool if the units are destroyed.
|
| # ? Feb 23, 2012 05:05 |
|
|
How much of a skirmish mode is there?
|
| # ? Feb 23, 2012 05:17 |
|
|
Frog Assassin posted:I've done two AI skirmishes, just trying to get the hang of the game, and both times I've found myself suddenly unable to spawn more tanks despite having enough points to do so, does anyone know what that's all about? I can still bring in anything else, just not tanks. I click the button to bring up the deployment menu and the tank category is just gone. You've either moved your command truck(s) and don't control any zones on the edge of the map that let you reinforce or you've run out of whatever unit you're trying to call in. More expensive units tend to have much smaller caps on the amount you can call in per game.
|
| # ? Feb 23, 2012 05:28 |
|
|
Chief Savage Man posted:How much of a skirmish mode is there? 1v1 against an AI. Pretty limited.
|
| # ? Feb 23, 2012 05:31 |
|
|
Yeah it's definitely me running out of a specific type of tank, I've only got Leopards right now and they like to die. Thank you both.Chief Savage Man posted:How much of a skirmish mode is there? You can do 1vs1 again an easy, medium, or hard AI, that's it. Don't seem to be able to save replays against the AI. This game definitely seems to want you to play it multiplayer, so here's hoping it doesn't bomb and fade into obscurity.
|
| # ? Feb 23, 2012 05:31 |
|
|
On the plus side it sounds like the AI is pretty decent: http://www.wargame-ee.com/forum/vie...php?f=11&t=1962 Oh god download faster...
|
| # ? Feb 23, 2012 06:06 |
|
|
They really need to make each member of an infantry squad worth points.
|
| # ? Feb 23, 2012 06:35 |
|
|
Oh man the last mission on Bruder Gegen Bruder. It's a defense mission, and I didn't know exactly what to expect the first time around, so I got my rear end whooped hard. But I noticed that the Soviets had reinforcement points all across the map, so the next try, I send a couple of Heavy Hogs around just absolutely murdering every command vehicle I can find, since the only AAA the Soviets had were Shilkas which have a shorter range than rockets. Poor AI didn't know what the gently caress, I think it thought my raiding choppers were actual forces so it would stop and wait around and try and defend against them, and most of the forces that appear in the end game just flat out didn't spawn. I feel like I cheated somehow.
|
| # ? Feb 23, 2012 07:49 |
|
|
Rookersh posted:So yeah, all the talk in this thread about realistic tank patterns, and how many salvos certain vehicles can fire off and whatnot makes this game sound really really grognardy/difficult/spreadsheety. It isn't. Almost at all, really. The spreadsheet aspect comes mostly from having 300 units, but infantry with bazookas is infantry with bazookas no matter what you call it. It's abstracted in all the right places (some would say "simplified" but that's unfair). Low APM is quite enough. Since tanks hit very poorly and missiles not at all when you move, too much clicky is detrimental. Take it easy and when in doubt, shoot first and ask later. If you played Close Combat back in the day you should have a pretty good idea what this game feels like. I can't say about the campaign, not far enough, but thus far everything has worked out pretty much exactly how I expected it to, down to my own stupid mistakes. It should be said that this is remarkably like the original Steel Panthers 2. Not as many factions or units, more limited scope but the feel is uncanny. Besides, W:EE does one thing better than Steel Panthers ever did: there's way more pressure to decide when you're under fire. You can't sit back and think it through, good plan now is better than perfect plan too late.
|
| # ? Feb 23, 2012 08:50 |
|
|
Yeah, W:EE looks grognardy as hell, but it also runs on the same engine as RUSE, which was as accessible as can be, being designed initially for multiplatform usability. I'm intensely lovely at strategy games in general. Starcraft 2 makes me weep. I still won significantly more matches of Wargame than I lost, simply because it's pretty clear what's going on due to the presentation, and slow enough for me to take a few moments to come up with a plan.
|
| # ? Feb 23, 2012 09:56 |
|
|
Control Volume posted:It's a defense mission, and I didn't know exactly what to expect the first time around, I knew exactly what to expect, and it still kicked my rear end. I did win it with no secondaries, but just barely. Three good shots and the rest of my army would have been wiped. I'm really pleasantly surprised that they dared to make a game that doesn't hold your hand and gives you objectives that are hard to complete.
|
| # ? Feb 23, 2012 12:16 |
|
|
Can I get an invite to the Steam Group please? Losing with pubbies sucks, I want to lose with goons! http://steamcommunity.com/id/cptnproton
|
| # ? Feb 23, 2012 12:31 |
|
|
Warbadger posted:The T-62 was a direct result of the Soviets making GBS threads themselves over the M48 Patton and other western tanks of the period which it turned out the T-55 was woefully outmatched by. The IS-3 and the other heavy tanks were dropped because they were simply not worth it. The pendulum swung back and forth several times as each side would outdo the other resulting in a scramble by the other side to develop something new to bridge the sudden gap. Not once during the myriad of proxy wars did western tanks get outmatched by their Russian counterparts, it's been quite the opposite story in the rare cases tanks from similar generations have met. Russian tanks tended to have very poor crew compartment setups, a tendency to explode when penetrated due to ammunition stowage oversights, and inferior electronics and aiming systems which led to shorter effective ranges. It's worth noting for the longest time that the tanks Westerners came up against were "monkey models" - massively crappier versions of the real thing sold for export and to gently caress with the heads of NATO commanders.
|
| # ? Feb 23, 2012 13:11 |
|
|
Forums Terrorist posted:It's worth noting for the longest time that the tanks Westerners came up against were "monkey models" - massively crappier versions of the real thing sold for export and to gently caress with the heads of NATO commanders.
|
| # ? Feb 23, 2012 13:16 |
|
|
Comparing the tanks in a vacuum is not really useful. You have to account for doctrine, terrain, morale, training, experience and supply to have some sort of an idea how it would go. Western armies have won and lost wars since WW2. A lot depends on when WW3 starts. Right after US forces leave Vietnam and suffer from low morale, poor support at home and massive drug problem? Or right after Afghanistan, which brought the same problems for the Soviets? Would NATO armies get supplies when all the roads west were flooded with refugees? Would WP, when all the roads were wrecked by engineers, mines, artillery and air strikes? While export models of Soviet tanks performed generally speaking terribly, T-34 threw UN forces out of North Korea. T-55 has featured in roughly every other bush war in Africa, with mixed results. Soviet Union suppressed uprisings behind the Iron Curtain pretty handily, with minimum of bloodshed. It's really, really hard to say what would have happened.
|
| # ? Feb 23, 2012 13:48 |
|
|
Hob_Gadling posted:Comparing the tanks in a vacuum is not really useful. You have to account for doctrine, terrain, morale, training, experience and supply to have some sort of an idea how it would go. Western armies have won and lost wars since WW2. A lot depends on when WW3 starts. Right after US forces leave Vietnam and suffer from low morale, poor support at home and massive drug problem? Or right after Afghanistan, which brought the same problems for the Soviets? Would NATO armies get supplies when all the roads west were flooded with refugees? Would WP, when all the roads were wrecked by engineers, mines, artillery and air strikes? There's two pretty good articles(and I'm sure others) offering an analysis of NATO and Warsaw Pact tanks in the late 80s. "Is there a tank gap?" and "Tank gap data flap"
|
| # ? Feb 23, 2012 14:01 |
|
|
I'd been holding out on preordering because for some reason I thought the launch was further away then... today. But hey, I got brought it and I'm downloading now. Hows the single player early on?
|
| # ? Feb 23, 2012 14:36 |
|
|
tehsid posted:Hows the single player early on? First mission is easy. By the third you'll have to start working if you want to achieve all objectives and the first Soviet mission was pretty awesome. Computer seems to consistently push me backwards if I didn't have time to set up a defense. Massing one type of unit seems to end in tears even in single player. Still, you can mass a lot of those units if you so choose.
|
| # ? Feb 23, 2012 14:56 |
|
|
Yeah, unlike most RTS campaigns, it seems that they get all the tutorial stuff out of the way by the end of mission 2 of 22. It's constant escalation from there. The AI doesn't seem too terrible, either - certainly better than some players I've seen online! I was wrong about Operations being like in RUSE and standalone scenarios - the four chapters of the campaign are referred to as Operations. So you get a 22 mission campaign and botmatches.
|
| # ? Feb 23, 2012 15:11 |
|
|
Fantastic to hear! Shame I won't get to play until tomorrow after work. Still, I look forward to it. I'll be idling in the group chat if somebody could invite me. Does the game cater to a lot of different play styles? And can I turtle if I feel like building up a nice big force for a nice big battle:
|
| # ? Feb 23, 2012 15:21 |
|
|
sgnl05 posted:You could track down the RUSE demo and see how your computer runs that. The system requirements are about the same. My guess would be that you could run it at pretty low settings.
|
| # ? Feb 23, 2012 15:42 |
|
|
tehsid posted:Fantastic to hear! Shame I won't get to play until tomorrow after work. Still, I look forward to it. I'll be idling in the group chat if somebody could invite me. It's sort of tough to turtle due to the lack of tough fixed fortification buildings and also how annoying, lethal artillery is in the game.
|
| # ? Feb 23, 2012 16:02 |
|
|
Four or so games of having my poo poo kicked in by Xerxes has apparently made me some kind of pubbie-stomping monster. That and most of the people who play this game are really retarded. I play WP exclusively (GLORIOUS SOCIALISM  ), and aggressively. Mech infantry everywhere backed by artillery and tanks, with a quick reaction force of Hinds in reserve. Looking at having ground-based QRF with BMP-685s as well, those things are retardedly fast.I think I'm going to unlock the Halo next. I just don't have the time or resources to piss about with Urals while I am busy fending off hordes of poorly-commanded Leo 1A1s, but landing an Mi-26 behind my troops would have unfucked quite a few sticky moments I found myself in so far. Being rushed by 3 players at once while I'm still waiting on my slower units to hit the front is not fun.
|
| # ? Feb 23, 2012 17:08 |
|
|
Veins McGee posted:There's two pretty good articles(and I'm sure others) offering an analysis of NATO and Warsaw Pact tanks in the late 80s. "Is there a tank gap?" and "Tank gap data flap" Very interesting. For people who don't have access to jstor, I'll share the articles through my spideroak account- atleast for awhile. https://spideroak.com/browse/share/Dilkington/suckas e: apparently i shouldn't post direct links to personal accounts. replace "suckas" in the url with "soyuz" Dilkington fucked around with this message at Feb 23, 2012 around 17:31 |
| # ? Feb 23, 2012 17:28 |
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2013 12:14 |
|
|
Xerxes17 posted:On the Western side, they almost always had air superiority vs the Germans once in France and as such jokes like this were common among the Germans: Interestingly, this didn't apply to the West Germans. The Gepard was a perfectly decent AAA platform.
|
| # ? Feb 23, 2012 17:30 |
|
