vyshka posted:

Yes, before reading any Shelby Foote you should watch Ken Burns so you can have that voice inside your head the entire time.

Baloogan posted:

Yeah, 'flavorful' is a good way to describe it. It really feels civil-war-y

dogsarentdangerous posted:

Its really promising. Plays pretty much exactly the same as Gettysburg on the tactical layer, although since it was made easier I've been finding it a bit too easy on medium, but don't want to jack it up to hard as I think all it does is increase the enemies resources. The AI could stand to be more aggressive, at the moment skirmishers in woods can hold off entire brigades for a really long time, but if the Brigade just charged it could brush them aside. It also tends to charge one brigade at a time (and lose) in situations where a mass charge would easily break through.

On the strategic layer I'd like to see exactly what officers do be highlighted (if they do anything except not having a high enough rank cause a lack of efficency), particularly Divisional officers.

In the confederate campaign I'm playing now I'm just about to reach Shiloh, so maybe the game will make me eat my words about being too easy?

Gay Hitler posted:

I can't tell the difference between the land doctrine demo and the full game. There's two extra suspension research and you can make large maps, but nothing past that.

Game really needs a unit list

Baloogan posted:

its 5 bux :/ comon buy it give the guy a bone

5 fricken dollars

Baloogan posted:

gently caress YES

god drat i hate hate hate "the enemy always gets 1.75x your forces" balancing

i don't mind being overrun, i just want there to be a reason behind me getting overrun

Galaga Galaxian posted:

Has there been any Distant Worlds 2 news?

Panzeh posted:

Yeah, I think this captures what was unique about DC:B without being a game about pushing hundreds of counters around an E. front map which is going to put a bunch of people off.

I'm down for this.

StashAugustine posted:

Sid Meier's Gettysburg!

I just reinstalled UG, haven't really played since launch. How does the game work now- I hear they removed the enemy scaling?

gradenko_2000 posted:

Fuel counters can't melt steel CRTs

xthetenth posted:

When I think nitty gritty warts and all portrayals of WWII bombing, I think cutesy graphics and a game about a lone bomber being heroic.

WAR DOGS OF SOCHI posted:

omg that hue of pink wasn't even available during WWII

holy poo poo immersion RUINED!!!!!!!!!!!!

Phi230 posted:

Emergency landing is dope except don't do it near trees

Alchenar posted:

It's what makes DC:B so good - both the Russian and German players have a pool of political capital that they can spend to stop 'bad historical decisions' but they also have to accept that they exist at a certain point in the command chain and can only exert so much influence on how the fighting goes.

You can spend a ton of effort to get the German army ready for winter, but that comes at the same massive cost in credibility that a real German General in that position would have suffered. You can have the STAVKA issue orders for a perfect robust defence, then watch as your army commanders gently caress it all up because they can't move their formations around in time.

HerpicleOmnicron5 posted:

Are you like me, and always wanted to play as a merchant corporation in Distant Worlds or Aurora4X? Then you're in luck, because Interstellar Trading Company is exactly that and I'm loving it. Space trading a la Patrician, with growing technology and the constant spread of humanity across the stars. It's marvellous! UI is still work in progress, but it's a lot better than a lot of what this thread is used to.

Yooper posted:

At first I read it as Offworld Trading Company. This game looks more my niche.

SkySteak posted:

Well I don't mind if it's not impressive but again, I am comparing off of Stellaris which would (at least used to) take an energy rich planet and build farms all over it!

Then again I am not sure what you'd particularly want to automate but then again it seems like a preference thing, all in all. Some people floated the idea of running a purely diplomatic/constructive but if said diplomacy is shite, then I doubt that'd be fun.

wide stance posted:

Any modern-ish games like Close Combat III: The Russian Front?

Basically where you role-play as a captain/major leading a single company thru the entire war with the unrealistic ability to buy/upgrade your own units instead of the game forcing them on you.

Saros posted:

Are there any good US v Russia scenarios over Syria in CMANO because lol

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/984022625440747520

Dandywalken posted:

And the Syrian Civil War, though theirs was a full invasion after several WMD's in Western cities.

Pirate Radar posted:

Are you saying Italians don’t eat spaghetti and meatballs at every meal and talk-a like-a this-a?

V for Vegas posted:

Holy poo poo - Ultimate Admiral (from Ultimate General/Darthmod)

https://twitter.com/reformedgamers/status/1019887132146569217

ZombieLenin posted:

I am with you on this much. I want Fighting Steel 2.0 not something with stylized 3D models that look like they were optimized to run on an iPad. In other words, I want a big gun battleship simulator with AAA graphics.

Not that I won’t, if this turns out to not actually be vaporware, play the poo poo out of that game when it is released.

JcDent posted:

There is mainstream stuff like that, but it's
rare
and
not groggy at all.

That's why whatever Total War release you get will attract mods like polyps.
And why if we get a new Company of Heroes, it will be a MOBA set in Normandy.

Mister Bates posted:

Yeah but I specifically want symmetric conflict between lovely modern forces. I want rusty tanks that barely run and air support provided by Cessnas with rocket pods crudely bolted to them. I want off the shelf hobbyist drones and DSHKs remote operated with Playstation controllers. Give me a campaign where every piece of relatively modern equipment you get your hands on is a priceless treasure.

Yooper posted: