|
Bomb Unit destroys men, tanks and guns Bomb Air Base destroys airplanes (parked on the ground) Bomb City destroys factories (and houses/manpower) Interdiction also destroys men, tanks and guns, but it's a separate mission designed to represent fighter-bombers out on patrol hunting troops marching in columns along roads, as opposed to Bomb Unit being a case where you deliberately attack a specific ground position. Ground Support also destroys men, tanks and guns, but it's a separate mission from Bomb Unit so you can try preparatory attacks on the target first before committing your ground attack. Bomb Air Base and Bomb City are separate actions because Air Bases are, unlike most games, "mobile" units that can move to non-city hexes. I suppose the categories could use some refinement, but this a grognard game. We don't deserve such things.
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2013 19:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 04:08 |
|
|
Then if airbases are units already, why treat attacking them as a separate mission from attacking other units? Wouldn't it be easier to say "Bomb Unit, targeting this particular airbase unit"? Honest question. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2013 19:50
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:AIRPLANES One really important thing I didn't see mentioned that I had to learn the hard way: As the Soviets (and maybe Germans?) if you want more airbases you need to have an average of 6 or more air groups in your existing bases. It doesn't matter if you've got 2,000 air groups sitting in the national reserve waiting for a new base, the game only checks the number of groups actually deployed to bases and if that number is equal to or greater than an average of 6 per base you can get a new air base. This is really annoying because having 6 or more groups in every base can catastrophically overload a lot of your airbases causing them to suck up a shitload of trucks. Davin Valkri posted:Then if airbases are units already, why treat attacking them as a separate mission from attacking other units? Wouldn't it be easier to say "Bomb Unit, targeting this particular airbase unit"? Honest question. Prioritizing destroying planes on the ground over disrupting ground formations.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2013 19:52
|
|
|
Morholt, Jakse and gradenko_2000 posted:gradenko_2000 posted:The experience rules are changed somewhat though, so you don't have 5-star superunits by the Battle of France. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2013 21:55
|
|
|
EightDeer posted:Thanks for that, Slitherine's homepage isn't very good at explaining this. One last thing though: Is it worth it to buy both PC:W and PC:AK, or should I just get PC:AK? I have PC: W and while the base campaign is good, it does suffer from the problem of "capture X bases by Y turn" that makes it a puzzle with an RNG that will happily gently caress you over. You get to invade the US though. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2013 22:05
|
|
|
uPen posted:One really important thing I didn't see mentioned that I had to learn the hard way: Right! This is mentioned in the manual, but I didn't remember to put it in. Good catch: "Whenever the number of Soviet air group units exceeds the number of Soviet air base units by a ratio of more than six to one, up to one new air base unit will be automatically created per turn. The new air base unit will be randomly assigned a IAD, BAD, NBAD, SHAD, or VVS designation and will be placed in an open town near Magnitogorsk (X183 Y54). As with other newly created Soviet units, the air base unit will have no movement points on the turn it appears and will be a nearly empty shell requiring replacements and supply to become a ready unit. Soviet air groups in the national reserve are not counted when determining if new Soviet Air Bases should be created." There's also this other rule for the creation of new Air Groups: "New Soviet air group units (aviation regimental sized) are automatically created by the computer based on the size of the production pool. The computer compares the production pool of a particular aircraft versus the number of air group units using the aircraft type. If it determines that there are more than sufficient aircraft to meet the needs of the current air group units, than additional air group units will be formed. Up to five new air group units may be formed per turn. The new air group units are initially attached to the Soviet National Air Reserve." Neither of these rules apply to the Axis though, and if the Luftwaffe is managed well and isn't being smothered you may even build up a large pool of planes that you can't get out in the field. The bottleneck of Air Bases and Air Groups is supposedly representative of German issues with not having enough pilots to fly all their planes.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2013 00:32
|
|
|
Strategy & Tactics: WW2 is on sale on the Google Play store. Has anyone here tried it? I'm not expecting a masterpiece, but it'd be nice to know whether or not it's hot garbage. Edit: Not really related, but I didn't want to double post. Matrix on their pricing model. What about Unity of Command? Quixzlizx fucked around with this message at 03:57 on Apr 24, 2013 |
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2013 02:46
|
|
|
Quixzlizx posted:Strategy & Tactics: WW2 is on sale on the Google Play store. Has anyone here tried it? I'm not expecting a masterpiece, but it'd be nice to know whether or not it's hot garbage. I just bought the game. I'll try to post a trip report. As far pricing, I don't really mind the high cost of grognard games - it's when it's expensive AND the UI is poo poo AND the games are needlessly complex that I don't like.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2013 05:50
|
|
|
Quixzlizx posted:Strategy & Tactics: WW2 is on sale on the Google Play store. Has anyone here tried it? I'm not expecting a masterpiece, but it'd be nice to know whether or not it's hot garbage. I tried it on iOS and it's garbage. It's basically just Risk with WW2-themed armies, and the UI is terrible.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2013 07:06
|
|
|
Eugh, wargamers. Posting in other forums every now and again really does remind you what a shithole the internet is outside of SA.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2013 17:12
|
|
|
Iain McNeil posted:Finally, an idea regarding sales of back catalogue from Tim Stone a reporter at RPS has a certain resonance, as coincidentally we have been looking at doing something along the lines he suggests. Firstly we have to hear back from our developer partners, as we don’t cut their prices without consultation and they may not be interested. So how about this for an idea, as Tim seems keen to help us. We host a promotion, sale of the week and run it in conjunction with RPS.  Baby steps, baby steps.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2013 17:35
|
|
|
Lichtenstein posted:
The whole '13 years of research and data' argument is complete bullshit given that in the prior thread that lead to that defence Johan from Paradox showed up and pointed out that people played Pride of Nations for an average of 1 hour and Victoria 2 for an average of 12 hours (from Steam stats) and Iain was shocked that this kind of information could exist. What they really have is a 13 year old business model that people are constantly screaming at them to drag into the 21st Century.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2013 17:41
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:Eugh, wargamers. Correct me if I'm wrong, but a good part of that was basically 'gently caress you, we won't sell games for a reasonable price because REAL FANS are the only ones that matter'? I'd have no problem paying $60 for one of their games, but the instant a price on a videogame goes above $70, it becomes a serious decision. Asking almost $100 like they're doing? That's some serious money to me. And thus why I've never bought any of their games I have interest in: I love wargames, but almost $100 for a terrible UI(even if it's attached to a really good game) is just too damned much. Fake edit: Hell, for $100, I could get a good start on tabletop wargaming.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2013 17:45
|
|
|
MohawkSatan posted:Correct me if I'm wrong, but a good part of that was basically 'gently caress you, we won't sell games for a reasonable price because REAL FANS are the only ones that matter'? I'd have no problem paying $60 for one of their games, but the instant a price on a videogame goes above $70, it becomes a serious decision. Asking almost $100 like they're doing? That's some serious money to me. And thus why I've never bought any of their games I have interest in: I love wargames, but almost $100 for a terrible UI(even if it's attached to a really good game) is just too damned much. Yes. Also no demos because gently caress you we know you're all so affected by Stockholm syndrome that you'll drop $80 on our games and play them to get your money's worth anyway (actually we have no idea how long you'll play them, but we'll assert it's hundreds of hours, pay no attention to the man behind the curtain pointing out that most people played PoN once and then uninstalled). The issue has always been accessibility, not 'we make super niche games that only really smart people can play and enjoy'. Paradox understands this, which is why they've grown from a niche developer to a company that can survive pissing away bags of money on disasters like SotS 2 and Magna Mundi. Matrix don't, which is why they're clinging to a 44% increase in digital transactions as if it's a good thing when the rest of the industry has been expanding at orders of magnitude more than that.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2013 17:52
|
|
|
I tell you, if I knew how to program I'd be making GBS threads out dozens of boardgame conversions for the pc for 25$ a pop for the grog crowd. You know they would love and buy it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2013 18:07
|
|
|
I just hope someone - Paradox, Desura, whatever - establishes itself as an alternative go-to publisher for wargames. Right now it's really Matrix or self-publishing, which is what allows this retarded company to exist.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2013 18:13
|
|
|
Me, the only way I'd pay $matrixgames is if someone managed to combine Total War, Hearts of Iron, and Combat Mission. Short of that, their absurd prices mean I'll buy less grognardy games from less insane companies. Or at least ones that can make a UI to go along with their hexes. Edit: hell, fix the UI, and give me control of TO&E and production and it might be worth the price. But as is? It's completely insane. MohawkSatan fucked around with this message at 20:53 on Apr 24, 2013 |
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2013 20:48
|
|
|
You know, if you're a real die hard grognard, you might as well just download the vassal engine and get yourself some hardcore board game that has the rules freely available, like Axis Empires, and do a PBEM with some other crazy dude. Saves you a lot of money right there, AND you can play it on pretty much any system.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2013 20:51
|
|
|
Unless I missed it, their logic about creating a core group of suckers will lead to more revenue than getting people to actually buy the games makes no loving sense. I get that they are worried about people not getting the games but holy poo poo, look at the success of Panzer Corps and Unity of Command. Maybe those and the cheaper games are part of the reason that marketshare is increasing. They are counting on people being suckers or getting really, really drunk and saying "eh 80 bucks whatever burrrrrp."
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2013 21:11
|
|
|
Jakse posted:Unless I missed it, their logic about creating a core group of suckers will lead to more revenue than getting people to actually buy the games makes no loving sense. I get that they are worried about people not getting the games but holy poo poo, look at the success of Panzer Corps and Unity of Command. Maybe those and the cheaper games are part of the reason that marketshare is increasing. Yeah there's a reason I asked where the increase in revenue came from because I'd put big money on it basically all being those two games. Unity of Command having being developed independently and Panzer Corps being a literal remake of a 90's game. It really is a massive sense of entitlement that rather than change how they make games in order to be successful, they'll just change their price point to fleece the die-hard fans as much as possible to keep developers barely-solvent while they leech money off them to survive.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2013 21:19
|
|
|
Riso posted:You know, if you're a real die hard grognard, you might as well just download the vassal engine and get yourself some hardcore board game that has the rules freely available, like Axis Empires, and do a PBEM with some other crazy dude. I know my copy of Axis Empires: Totaler Krieg has gotten more action than most Matrix games I've bought, and that's not even counting online play through VASSAL. I think there's a lot to be learned from board wargames in terms of how to make presentation (in terms of the UI) and the underlying ruleset more accessible. Without a computer to do all the background stuff, board wargames have innovated in a lot of ways that could be transferred to PC games, while still taking advantage of the computer's processing and graphics capabilities. At this point though, the only company in matrix/slitherine's lineup that I'll buy from without extensive recommendation from others is The Lordz studio because they seem to get a lot of what I want in a game.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2013 21:28
|
|
|
Great OP and Great WitE post!
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2013 21:35
|
|
|
I have without a doubt seen more interesting boardgames on youtube watching Calandale, than I have seen actual computer games on Matrix' website.quote:Panzer Corps being a literal remake of a 90's game. Panzer/Fantasy General were not seeing themselves as niche either.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2013 21:45
|
|
|
Riso posted:Panzer/Fantasy General were not seeing themselves as niche either. Yeah, surprise surprise when they copy a wargame that wasn't developed with a 'only hardcore fans buy wargames' mentality then they sell a bunch of copies.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2013 22:32
|
|
|
MohawkSatan posted:Correct me if I'm wrong, but a good part of that was basically 'gently caress you, we won't sell games for a reasonable price because REAL FANS are the only ones that matter'? I'd have no problem paying $60 for one of their games, but the instant a price on a videogame goes above $70, it becomes a serious decision. Asking almost $100 like they're doing? That's some serious money to me. And thus why I've never bought any of their games I have interest in: I love wargames, but almost $100 for a terrible UI(even if it's attached to a really good game) is just too damned much. You wouldn't appreciate it anyway and just bitch, bitch, bitch because you didn't go through the pain of a $100 purchase. That's the pain that only real wargamers can know.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2013 00:24
|
|
|
I do wonder if Slitherine is going to make Pacific Corps eventually. We still don't really have a decent WW2 carrier ops game outside of the decades-old Carriers at War.Riso posted:I tell you, if I knew how to program I'd be making GBS threads out dozens of boardgame conversions for the pc for 25$ a pop for the grog crowd. It's also my dream that someday someone will make a PC conversion of B-17 Queen of the Skies, except with a bunch of graphical bells and whistles so you get to see all the action in its 3D glory, including a flak shot that causes the ball turret to get stuck and the resulting landing.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2013 01:58
|
|
|
Their next Panzer Corps series is going to be Panzer Corps: Allies for iOS I believe.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2013 03:02
|
|
|
a question for the the WITP dudes in here: any of you guys ever try this http://yhst-12000246778232.stores.yahoo.net/nwssuatsea.html at all? Playing a somewhat less OH GOD MY BRAIN WITP-like with greater than 1-day turns/non-Pacific campagins appeals to me, but the $45 price tag and lack of a online buying option puts me off a bit, given how long it takes to get stuff to Canada via US Post.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2013 03:30
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:Yes. Also no demos because gently caress you we know you're all so affected by Stockholm syndrome that you'll drop $80 on our games and play them to get your money's worth anyway (actually we have no idea how long you'll play them, but we'll assert it's hundreds of hours, pay no attention to the man behind the curtain pointing out that most people played PoN once and then uninstalled). Huh. I have to admit, I don't really follow industry news too closely - what IS a common figure of expansion for other companies in the industry? Could help bolster the argument I'm having with those chaps over in the linked thread. I have to say, though, looking at the arguments they've presented, I DO have a certain sympathy for them. I don't think they're at all correct, but it does feel like part of the reason they haven't tried changing things up much is a "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" attitude. They seem scared to try new things and are frightened of the possibility of everything going wrong if they change, and while their success might not match the kind of success other companies are getting, they seem content enough with it that they don't want to rock the boat - leaving aside, of course, social issues like needing to admit they were wrong for years and probably pissing off a great deal of their insane "JAGGED ALLIANCE 2 IS A loving MAINSTREAM GAME NOT FOR *TRUE* STRATEGY GAMERS RAR RAR RAR"* fanbase who they've gotten used to over the years. In an argument with them I really do think it'd work better to encourage their limited, faltering experimentation with new things instead of hammering them for being idiots, since that just seems to make them more determined not to listen. Even if they are idiots. *One guy in the linked thread brought up Talonsoft as a wargaming company that went broke when it tried to do non-wargamey after managing a smash hit with a game that sold for hundreds of thousands, if not millions. He didn't remember what the name of the smash hit was, "some kind of FPS" was all he recalled. Talonsoft was the company that made Jagged Alliance 2.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2013 16:28
|
|
|
I thought that was SIRTech, and their other moneymaker was the Wizardry series?
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2013 16:34
|
|
|
Sirtech developed, Talonsoft published.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2013 16:39
|
|
|
Tomn posted:Huh. I have to admit, I don't really follow industry news too closely - what IS a common figure of expansion for other companies in the industry? Could help bolster the argument I'm having with those chaps over in the linked thread. As I've said, it's half and half. Matrix's strategy makes perfect sense so long as you work on the assumption that the potential customer pool is what it is and that working on making their games more accessible is a pointless exercise. Panzer Corps and Unity of Command are the elephants in the room which prove that just isn't true. The people trying to pretend that Paradox are on a course for catastrophe just aren't living in reality. Valve reported 100% growth year on year for almost a decade, over the last few years the digital distribution market as a whole has been growing at over 200%. In comparison 44% growth is simply what you'd expect from the whole market lifting and doesn't represent the dividends of any good choices by Matrix whatsoever (especially being a year in which they released a couple of decent games which are few and far between). The people in charge at Matrix know that their products are terribly designed but don't care. They are wargamers who sell to wargamers and their first priority is to maintain that status quo rather than actually try to make some money for their partners and tell them to quit using their trashy interfaces that were considered bad in the 90's. The customers are just sycophantic idiots who importantly aren't mainstream gamers and those don't know or see why they should care about developments in the mainstream gaming industry. At the end of the day 13 years experience running their business means nothing because Valve have spent the last five years showing everyone making computer software that their assumptions and models of consumer behaviour are flat out wrong. Alchenar fucked around with this message at 16:48 on Apr 25, 2013 |
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2013 16:45
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:I do wonder if Slitherine is going to make Pacific Corps eventually. We still don't really have a decent WW2 carrier ops game outside of the decades-old Carriers at War. The problem with making a Pacific Corps is that you would have to have a much heavier emphasis on naval combat than Panzer Corps and the naval combat in that game is kinda poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2013 16:45
|
|
|
And loving if nothing else drop the price of the older games. I'd love to play Korsun pocket or the Decisive Battles series but they are all still 40-50 dollars. gently caress that for a game built or based on 2004 engine poo poo. Even 20-30 dollars is still such a difference from 40 and would bring so many more people into the genre. People with money. poo poo tons of money. Then again maybe Alchenar is right. They can sunk cost fallacy us into playing for hours and hours then saying hey look at how much these saps play our poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2013 17:07
|
|
|
The big problem with these wargame designers is they are pretty much all children of the great wargame blowup of '98 or whenever the hell avalon hill and ssi and all the rest died out and they couldn't give away games for box retailers to stock on their shelves. So now they have finally gotten things back up, and I'm sure there is a whole boot straps mentality about it, but the real basis for change was just things goings to digital downloads instead of physical copies. With that they have the opportunity to really grow their business outside their own little world but I think most of these guys are just too old and too scarred to really take any chances with what little they have gained over the last few years.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2013 17:16
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:The people in charge at Matrix know that their products are terribly designed but don't care. They are wargamers who sell to wargamers and their first priority is to maintain that status quo rather than actually try to make some money for their partners and tell them to quit using their trashy interfaces that were considered bad in the 90's.  Check out all the Times New Roman! But nope, obviously the reason why sales are so poor is because it's a niche genre!
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2013 19:28
|
|
|
I'll make the comic sans mod.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2013 21:11
|
|
|
You're supposed to use SANS SERIF FONTS YOU MORONS. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2013 09:20
|
|
|
My god it sounds like the SA wargamer crowd is an awfully entitled bunch.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2013 09:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 04:08 |
|
|
Baloogan posted:My god it sounds like the SA wargamer crowd is an awfully entitled bunch. I don't see any of us making a wargame with readable font!
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2013 10:01
|
|