|
Speaking of naval games, i'm going through a video of someone who actually did the whole campaign of PTO I as the allies as a 7 hour speedrun, and as the Japanese as a 17 hour one.
|
#
¿
May 7, 2019 03:17
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 09:10 |
|
|
Zaodai posted:Is it good? Do you have a link? There's some interesting stuff to learn about the game in it, but it's a 7 hour video: https://www.twitch.tv/videos/268080275 Japan's also in the same channel but it's split into four parts. It's all delegated battles though because using 1st fleet takes a lot of time.
|
|
#
¿
May 7, 2019 11:08
|
|
|
Pharnakes posted:It mostly moved to the discord. Speaking of, the link in the OP is invalid.
|
|
#
¿
May 7, 2019 17:43
|
|
|
Do you know how many devastators flailed into Kido Butai and did nothing?
|
|
#
¿
May 16, 2019 14:29
|
|
|
I think 1920s era naval aviation is way too good- we're getting Kido Butai+ results with 1925 biplanes and mostly-untrained squadrons who are able to do things like re-vector based on scouting reports from other planes while in the air. Also the game should probably just ban Bs from being converted to CVLs.
|
|
#
¿
May 19, 2019 19:06
|
|
|
sum posted:On the other hand the attacked battleships also didn't have the heavier AA and anti-air fire directors that 1940s battleships had when they got creamed by aircraft. But yeah for gameplay purposes at least I think maybe AA should be more disrupting for attacking aircraft, or AA disruption should be inversely proportional to the speed of the aircraft or something. This is true, but I tend to think it would probably be better for the game if naval aviation had a more gradual effect on obsoleting battleships rather than a snap of the fingers and Langley/Hosho are sinking anything that floats with the first strike. Also, IMO, early dive bombers should be much more effective than early torpedo planes, especially without high training. Keep in mind this is based on me playing, rather than reading reports or anything- the only reason to build battleships past 1920 is so that the generator will give you flagships.
|
|
#
¿
May 19, 2019 19:49
|
|
|
James Garfield posted:In my one game through to the 1950s, I didn't really get the feeling that aircraft got much more dangerous from ~1930 on. Land based air got the range to bomb pretty much anything instead of just ships near the base (and for every battle to feature airbases on the opposite side of the Mediterranean being destroyed by level bombers) but a 1928 CV with torpedo planes still completely destroys everything. To some extent the AA technology even makes ships better at surviving air attack in the 1940s. It'd be interesting if there were points where engine technology improved allowing for quantum leaps in aircraft performance. Historically this was ~1936 and ~1941 for the two big ones.
|
|
#
¿
May 19, 2019 22:50
|
|
|
The Vildebeest was, however, not carrier capable. Carriers, especially 1920s carriers imposed huge limitations on the kind of aircraft that could operate off of them.
|
|
#
¿
May 20, 2019 13:37
|
|
|
Phi230 posted:There needs to be plane production or something because infinite planes is not cool imo Plane numbers weren't a big deal for most powers, and there is a significant maintenance cost to aircraft.
|
|
#
¿
May 20, 2019 17:56
|
|
|
ZombieLenin posted:Sometimes I feel like I am alone in liking ageod games. I thought the earlier ageod games were fie- when you were just dealing with normal stacks and not divisions/corps/etc it worked fine, it's just they didn't update it as the games got more convoluted.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 25, 2019 14:39
|
|
|
HerpicleOmnicron5 posted:Why fix it, when you can remove it entirely? When I think WITP, I think playing the Navy. Sure, ferrying troops places matters, but I just want to focus on my botes. The war botes. Some other schmuck can handle convoys. Yeah but the main problem is people tend to have expectations with levels of detail in simulations so you gotta have your extremely detailed tally of units that comes out to something not dissimilar to collecting odds ratios and DRM in a board game. Though unnecessary detail into bizarre gamey mechanics is very much the Grigsby MO. I'm waiting for an Empire of the Sun-esque take on the Pacific for the computer, but I think most pc designers don't have the chops for it.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 11, 2019 11:35
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:Yeah the WitP designers had it right with "Well we could model the land war more, but every island campaign basically followed a similar pattern of frontal assaults until the island was cleared, and the war in China just didn't go anywhere". The real challenge a lot of Pacific games have with land combat is that they can't really lean on ready-made systems from the rest of wargames because they're made for large spaces with lots of hexes and that's where the fun of it comes from, in the pacific, most of the islands would be one hex- the system suffers a lot from readability issues in the theaters where you actually do move from land hex to land hex, particularly China. If you want to see the problems of trying to translate systems, even ones more willing to be gamey, SCWW2 expanded to the pacific and the land combat there is hosed, too, as the islands tend to just be two hexes. Though in that game trying to have naval units that traverse and control the map like corps really hurts it in trying to handle naval conflicts.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 11, 2019 11:46
|
|
|
fuf posted:The battles look cool but the strategic layer looks very much like a poor mans Total war / Imperator. Any opinions? The strategic layer is generally stronger than Total War's, but the one big weakness is the diplomacy.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 12, 2019 11:10
|
|
|
Also if you're looking for an OPM to start with, Athens is probably the easiest: Athens is a massively developed region, the objectives generally involve taking pretty good regions themselves and once you get enough greek regions to get the Greek province, it's pretty easy to build up tons of troops. Being able to get a lot of money and culture without having to do a ton of painting on the map really helps you stay high in the culture/decadence standings(this is a huge problem for barbarian tribes) and you can kinda do what you like.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 12, 2019 14:01
|
|
|
Man Rhodes is nearly impossible to take.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 13, 2019 16:20
|
|
|
Popete posted:How's the game of you don't have FoG2? I have it and I never really felt the need to export to FoG2 but your milage may vary.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 13, 2019 16:58
|
|
|
pedro0930 posted:I don't really get what I am suppose to be doing in FoG:E. Do I just keep building new buildings and units then paint the map? Get legacy, win game- painting the map is generally not as good for legacy as one might think, particularly poor parts of the map. dogsarentdangerous posted:I'm loving FOG:E as a battle creator for FOG2, but as a strategic level game I don't think I would play it for more than an hour or two (I would of course buy it because I am a schmuck). The building option shuffling thing is a bit too limiting in terms of forward planning, and the decadence/objective mechanic seems very rail roady so far as I understand it. I think the building thing is fine, you just sometimes take suboptimal choices and move on. dogsarentdangerous posted:I don't think its very hard if your importing to FOG:2 for must win battles, I was able to fight my way through a decadence/civilisation collapse - although I think the faction I was playing started with an over strong army and was also a phalanx faction, which really helps with the FOG:2 battles. Yeah if you like FOG2 go ham with the battles- IMO i think the FoGE combat system rewards balanced comps more than FoG2 but I do feel that it rewards skirmishers a bit too much and cavalry a bit too little.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 14, 2019 01:44
|
|
|
RestRoomLiterature- posted:For FoGE, I am enjoying the game but am put off by how aggressive foreign powers are. Yes I expect in moments of weakness to get attack by my ambitious rivals/neighbors, but it seems that the AI just wants endless war- even when significantly outmatched. The new patch reduced AI aggression. Also yeah the overall combat values way overstate heavy infantry.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 18, 2019 16:27
|
|
|
wedgekree posted:So is there like no actual audience in general for a full on grog game but one that has a sensical UI and a somewhat decent'ish AI? Full on details is great (you want to have a comprehensive game of the Eastern Front in WW2 down to the squad loadouts, awesome) that does not seem like you're doing a 90's style flowchart breakdown and the tactical/strategic end of things is moderately challenging? The main problem is that full on detail makes a game harder for an AI to play, and many of the things detail adds are not problems of UI but of game design itself. There's no UI that's going to make WitP a sane game. There's also no UI where moving around regiments on the Eastern front is going to be not tedious while you have full control.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 16, 2019 09:38
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:I think theres a definitional issue here. For me, grognard games are a niche corner of the strategy genre that happen to have common traits, some of which might be necessary and some of which might not. For historical games industry reasons devs of grognard games have spent 20 years diverging and not really paying attention to what the rest of the industry has been doing, which is why even best in class games have UIs that come from Windows 95. That's one example, but theres a host of things grognard devs do because that's what they do but it doesnt define a grognard game. I do think that there are games where a better, more informative UI would be a big help- for example, Field of Glory II does a very poor job of explaining capabilities at a glance- for example, learning how pike phalanx units work is really important to being able to beat them(you need to wear down the unit to knock off the rear rank to take the deep pike bonus down to something manageable), but the only way to learn that easily is to watch youtube videos. I mean, a lot of modern UI is having less need for buttons. I'm not really sure what an improvement to, say, WitP's UI would be, given its massive level of complexity and need for all these buttons.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 16, 2019 13:14
|
|
|
I'd be down with a George Marshall personnel management simulator.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 16, 2019 14:46
|
|
|
HerpicleOmnicron5 posted:This though, is good. Would it also be too much to ask for PTO2 style monthly cabinet meetings? It's a really interesting idea but man the card game is almost pure RNG once you understand it.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 17, 2019 18:17
|
|
|
V for Vegas posted:Thanks for posting that. I really like Strategic Command 3 so I've been looking at WaRpLaN, but other than the recent Twitch stream there is very little about it. But that 44% Matrix anniversary voucher is burning a hole in my pocket... The things about it that most appeal to me are that they're a lot less strict about stacking for naval/air units which gets rid of a lot of the oddness of SC3 with things like one-hex islands.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 21, 2019 11:36
|
|
|
ZombieLenin posted:1. No I do not want to watch the tutorial videos, but I did and I still have no clue what’s going on half the time; Fair enough, i didn't find it particularly difficult to understand, but I can see how it's not trivial. ZombieLenin posted:2. This game is the most map painty game I think I have ever played, started as Rome and I just have ate everything around me in around 40 turns. None of the other powers seem to give a poo poo about trying to stop me; This is the age of map painting and huge blobs. The big thing limiting expansion is the CDR, but if you expand into good areas, it's not that big a deal. ZombieLenin posted:3. There is something seriously wrong with the battle calculations in game. I walk onto a mountain and my 200 combat power army will get routinely beaten by a tiny 25 power defender. So instead of using the auto-fight function I find myself actually having to fight the hugely 1 sided wastes of time in Fields of Glory II. The battles in FOGE have frontage, which limits how many units can be engaged. Mountains also debuff the Roman heavy infantry(there's a trait on the unit for that). You may also not be using enough skirmishers/cavalry. Terrain is really, really important in FOGE- skirmishers, are too. To cope with that, you can try to get a provincial unit for that or try to get a superior leader, but 'combat power' isn't the be all and end all. In FOGII the effect of terrain on the overall battle is a lot lower, just because it will always generate an 'interesting' map to fight on, so heavy infantry will always have a place to be.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 22, 2019 11:34
|
|
|
ZombieLenin posted:I read through the manual, so I am a bit better off though I still really don’t understand how decadence works. If you still have the army on a territory, you're allowed to abandon it simply by using the 'abandon' button which is one of the army commands. There's also a command that lets you attack a neighboring territory without staying there. The problem is, once your army moves, you no longer have the option to abandon the territory. The biggest contributor to decadence is just having a bunch of territory, though some buildings give a small amount out, and as your government ages your decadence will increase. Decadence is always considered as a ratio with culture production, hence the game's use of CDR.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 22, 2019 18:38
|
|
|
The good thing about UoC2 is that if you're up against a continuous line of units, that kind of static combat is done much better than in UoC1 where basically you just rotated in and smashed infantry in until you got a breakthrough. UoC2 adds quite a bit with the HQ functions and I think it works pretty well.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 13, 2019 22:59
|
|
|
ZombieLenin posted:I understand what you are saying conceptually, but in practice when I am playing at making war, all I sort of feel in the scenario you are describing is: “it is a forgone conclusion I win (or lose depending on the side), so all I am really ‘playing’ for is some abstracted sense of accomplishment for doing it better than the actual people who fought, or some un-tracked ‘points’ against my ‘real’ enemy that I don’t actually fight in the game, the Soviets.” I kinda feel that way about modern industrialized warfare in general, but then, i'm fine with points, playing for points. Maybe it's my comfort with sports or something.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 14, 2019 19:45
|
|
|
ZombieLenin posted:This is much more compelling to me than the playing against, or playing the, Wehrmacht troops too crappy, generally speaking, to be on the Eastern Front or in Italy, while the Allies have overwhelming land and air power on their side too. Also I don't think that's a particularly good characterization of Wehrmacht forces in Italy and France from 1943-45. German infantry divisions were not particularly strong on either side of Berlin, and the West and Italy certainly drew more than their share of armored/pgren/FJ/etc divisions.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 14, 2019 21:03
|
|
|
UGCW never actually penalizes you for killing the enemy in campaign- though at points it will replace completely even if you blow it all up, based on the difficulty. The scaling mostly affects how full the enemy brigades are- it doesn't add more. There's a maximum for this. On lower difficulties, you will definitely do damage by killing a lot of the enemy.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 9, 2019 16:17
|
|
|
I don't think there's a UI that's ever going to make a game with as much management as WitP actually more manageable just because of the enormity of the tasks before any player.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 5, 2020 18:16
|
|
|
Just got some extended time in with PTO II PC, and there's some significant differences in game mechanics from the SNES version, which kinda makes sense as PTO II SNES came out two years later. The most obvious one is that the PC conferences are significantly worse as the PC version has way more cards available that do one specific thing and you're now allowed to use a refuse card to get rid of someone's plan(and the only counter is the very specific 'threaten' if it's your own or 'support' if it's another's). The PC version also immediately ends an issue if 4 people support it, where in the SNES version, only unanimity caused that. Air attack on naval targets is more detailed, but land targets is less detailed. The way ships move in naval combat is clunkier(you actually have to set a speed and direction and it moves on its own). Newer tanks don't actually appear. You can control army divisions in PC, which you can't do in SNES, but since you don't get to control what the army does otherwise, it's not as neat as one might think. Land combat is super brutal on PC, too. The biggest advantages it has over SNES PTO II is no load times and a mouse interface(it actually does everything so you don't have to use a keyboard) Panzeh fucked around with this message at 13:18 on Feb 4, 2020 |
|
#
¿
Feb 4, 2020 13:13
|
|
|
 This went much faster than the equivalent SNES campaign. May try Japan next.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 5, 2020 02:49
|
|
|
 Probably going to call off the campaign- I managed to get LA and SF, but it's going to be a pretty tedious slog to get to DC because i can't just move troops overland as they'll get destroyed by base AFs without ships shelling the airfields. One of the better changes in the SNES version is that air strikes are less effective against ground units and incur heavy casualties. Battleships are still kinda broken against land units though. So, i'll have to take Panama with my ships and then probably take NO as a supply base before moving on to hammer DC. In the US campaign, once you get Kure you can get Tokyo pretty easily, in the Japanese campaign, not so.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 6, 2020 12:30
|
|
|
GOOD TIMES ON METH posted:I haven't played a PTO past 2. Do you (or anyone) know if the more recent one(s) are worth playing or is it a series best set in the SNES Koei era? 3 has never and will probably never get an English release(due to a bizarre issue with Taiwanese developers). 4 is pretty bad- they added europe, but they took out a bunch of stuff and they went to spaces like the way 2 had bases and posts.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 7, 2020 17:49
|
|
|
VostokProgram posted:YouTubers/streamers are notoriously bad at learning games. I think it's because of the distraction that comes with having to talk while playing. Also reading documentation does not contribute to their bottom line, since that is time they could spend making money on camera by just playing the game. So I don't know if they're representative of the average player. Yeah the youtuber content mill pipeline doesn't really lead to interesting looks at in-depth games, but it's always been the case no matter the review media- there was a time when mainstream game reviewers did grog games and they would give a 77-85/100 after flipping through the interface and being bewildered for an hour, while the writing would be nothing but cliches about how challenging the AI is and how much there is to learn.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 26, 2020 11:39
|
|
|
Grey Hunter posted:As someone who's on,y jsut gotten onto the influencer treadmill, a lot of it comes down to time, you normally get the game at most a week before release, and the pressures there to get the content out NOW - as its being put towards a media buildup - so they want you and everyone else on their list churning out content now. So you go in blind. its not terrible, but for a new game its often a trade between keeping people happy and looking good. Oh, i'm not here to diss you at all. I think you do good stuff, but there's definitely some limitations in the medium.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 26, 2020 13:08
|
|
|
nessin posted:Has anyone tried WarPlan from Matrix? I saw a random reference to it and didn't realize it existed until today. Doesn't look like anything special, especially since I don't remember it being discussed in the thread but just curious if I missed something and it's actually worth looking at. Warplan's similar to strategic command 3 but it was made by somebody willing to make more radical changes- so now theire's air/naval stacking, land units make more sense and there's a more complex economic model behind it.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 14, 2020 19:07
|
|
|
Stago Lego posted:It's pretty good. A real upgrade from PC 1. The heroes let you make absolutely busted units but i think it has some more interesting ways to play legit, too. I'll probably not use them in my next playthrough as the 2x ROF No retaliation flame tank with always overrun makes things pretty trivial. I do think it's got a lot of ways to go to get PC1's breadth of scenarios though.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 24, 2020 12:06
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:What's the relative scale on PC2 like? I didn't really appreciate how the DLC campaigns were all really "zoomed in" and were almost tactical in scope compared to scenarios in the original Panzer Corps (or even Panzer General) where the Stalingrad scenario ranged from Voronezh all the way to well east of Stalingrad. PC2 oscillates in scale a lot- the stalingrad scenario is literally the whole city with things like the tractor factory in there, and then the "up the volga" scenario in the alternate history path has stalingrad as two hexes. Whereas DC to NYC in the America invasion is 3 hexes. It's kinda wild sometimes, like this:  Before stalingrad you have a really wide-ranging case blue scenario. I think the biggest improvements are the more flexible core slots, anti-tank units providing support fire, and the strengthening of infantry a bit(though the infantry balance is still off- pioneers do way too much).
|
|
#
¿
Mar 24, 2020 13:27
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 09:10 |
|
|
 Decided to mess with the editor- it is possible to retrofit the original campaign to whatever country you want with a good bit of work.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2020 19:37
|
|