|
Popete posted:This is rich, coming from the devs too SCARED to put historically accurate swatiskas in their game. I don’t give a poo poo if they do not want to use Steam. Fine, whatever. The business practices I object to, other being complete assholes, are things like charging $10 for a loving patch. Darkrenown posted:Practically speaking it's still safer to just not include them rather than risk not being rated though. Having worked in the industry before these sorts of art assets are easy to switch and replace, so you (grog developer) might as well submit with the swastika. Worst case scenario you get rejected, and then swap out the assets. Honestly though, again as a former video game developer, the most irritating thing about Germany and Australia art wise was the need to make all the depictions of blood in games green rather than red. Edit Is there any news about War In The East 2? Seems like I haven’t heard much about it lately. Double Edit Asehujiko posted:RTW2 was delayed because Christopher Dean couldn't finish the store in time due to needing to care for his sick wife. Dean happens to also be the sole person responsible for mailing you your APS(which I finally discovered stands for Anti Piracy System instead of anything meaningful) key, which he still insists is easier for the end user than using STEAM[sic], which is known to cause "complications" according to him. I am so confused. The RTW2 release date is still posted as May 17th. ZombieLenin fucked around with this message at 15:33 on May 8, 2019 |
#
¿
May 8, 2019 15:01
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 12:18 |
|
|
Darkrenown posted:I also work in the industry and was speaking from our (PDS's) PoV. Speaking abstractly it should be simple enough to colour swap the blood too, but in war even the simplest things can be very difficult It isn’t. You are right. I am just speaking from an artistic perspective. I was way cooler with not using swastikas than I was period games where representations of soldiers bled green...
|
|
#
¿
May 8, 2019 20:03
|
|
|
Dandywalken posted:I'm also part of the industry and boy are my arms tired!!! This is exactly why I stopped making video games for a living!
|
|
#
¿
May 8, 2019 20:07
|
|
|
I am super excited about RTW2, but... Please gods, I know grog devs read here, could someone please remake Fighting Steel, preferably with a campaign a la the NWS Fighting Steel Project? Pretty please? I would legit pay super grog prices for it. Like $200 without a single hesitation.
|
|
#
¿
May 10, 2019 15:06
|
|
|
Tythas posted:Thank you, you finally helped me find the name of the game I remembered from my childhood but couldnt ever find no matter how much i googled You are welcome! And thanks for reminding me of how old I am. I was in my 3rd year of undergrad when Fighting Steel came out  The game I have fond memories of from my early teens was GNBNA, or Great Naval Battles of the North Atlantic. It looks like this one is actually getting remade/cloned; however the new version someone linked her looks almost exactly like a game from 1992. I will still buy the poo poo out of it though.
|
|
#
¿
May 11, 2019 23:02
|
|
|
Panzeh posted:Do you know how many devastators flailed into Kido Butai and did nothing? The devastators were terrible planes, at least by 1942, and unlike the Swordfish at Trento, were often deployed in situations where very capable IJN naval fighters were trying to shoot them down; however, the real problem was with the plane as far as its lack of results sinking ships was the MK 13 torpedo. In fact, the early war version of the American submarine launched Mk 14 was terrible too. Both torpedoes ran too deep, their magnetic triggers didn’t work and at best caused early detonations, and their contact detonators so faulty they had an 80% dud rate and bounced harmlessly off the hulls of enemy ships. So really you cannot make a good comparison between the RN and her swordfish pilots and the American Devastators. On paper, while a poor plane by 1942 standards, the Devastator was a better and more capable aircraft and her crews well trained. Its just that they were used in high profile carrier battles where they were heavily interdicted by Japanese Zeros and had torpedos that either passed under their targets or bounced off the sides of their targets. ZombieLenin fucked around with this message at 18:14 on May 16, 2019 |
|
#
¿
May 16, 2019 18:10
|
|
|
fart_man_69 posted:Close Combat 2: A Bridge Too Far is a goddamn brutal game after getting used to Gateway to Caen, holy poo poo. All my pixel soldiers die so easily. It seems you really have to use smoke grenades constantly to advance into favourable positions. It's really loving cool and the campaign setup of branching outcomes has been perfect so far. I've played hundreds of hours of Total War games but this series might be even better. Yes. Cancel Operation Market Garden. The Wehrmacht is not as close to collapse as you think, and is going to gently caress your paratroopers up.
|
|
#
¿
May 16, 2019 19:20
|
|
|
Mr Luxury Yacht posted:China's listed, just not the Ottomans. Why are the Ottomans not in unmodded RTW and RTW2, but... the Confederacy is?
|
|
#
¿
May 22, 2019 14:39
|
|
|
Hey, someone posted this in the old thread, but can someone give me a link to the game in development that looks like it uses a remade Great Naval Battles of the North Atlantic engine?
|
|
#
¿
May 23, 2019 14:52
|
|
|
Zeond posted:Splinters will go through any armour under 2" so until you research all or nothing armour schemes giving 2" of armour to BE and DE will reduce instances of hull damage and speed reductions from uptake damages. Splinters will also knock out secondaries and unenclosed main guns. Why is it that I can build KEs during peace time? So confused as to what these corvettes are actually supposed to represent.
|
|
#
¿
May 24, 2019 20:54
|
|
|
RTW2 question: is there any value at all to not just throwing your mothballed obsolete 1899 destroyers into trade protection during a war? RTW2 comment: rebuilding the German navy in the 1920 start is hard.
|
|
#
¿
May 29, 2019 15:17
|
|
|
So I have a RTW2 complaint. What is the use of having the ability to convert ships to CVs and CVLs? The only time you really want to do this is early on in carrier development; however, during this early period the "design committee" usually insists that "you cannot build this ship without at least x number of x types of guns." The problem being you cannot add turrets and are confined to utilizing the turret positions on the original ship, meaning unless the ship you are converting had enough wing turrets in its the original configuration to meet the demands of the design committee, you cannot actually convert said ships to CVs or CVLs.
ZombieLenin fucked around with this message at 14:32 on Jun 6, 2019 |
|
#
¿
Jun 6, 2019 14:27
|
|
|
Pirate Radar posted:That’s an issue for CVs but shouldn’t apply to CVLs... I think. I have the same problem. I think part of the problem with CVLs is the minimum speed requirement, making it impossible to convert some of my old pre-dreadnoughts and protected cruisers into CVLs.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 6, 2019 14:33
|
|
|
ArchangeI posted:I've never had that issue. I would just remove all turrets and add a few in the wings with no complaints. The bigger issue with CV/CVL conversions is that you end up dragging a bunch of useless weight around with the 14 inch belt you decided to put on your BB. When I try to put on new wing turrets I get the "cannot add new turret!" error. Speaking of which, it appears you cannot have center line turrets on a CV. So does that pretty much mean no experimental hybrid carrier battleships? I was looking forward to stupidly building an entire fleet of these.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 6, 2019 17:24
|
|
|
RTW2 question: why are missiles in the game and researchable? From what I can tell you cannot actually fit these on to ships. So great, improved SAMs... hat I cannot put on my ships.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 10, 2019 15:08
|
|
|
[ a,quote="Pirate Radar" post="495798607"] They originally planned to have them in the game from day 1, and started working on them, but didn't have them finished by launch day, so they took out the parts where you could put them on ships and left the techs in the tech tree. They'll be properly implemented in a forthcoming 1.1 release. [/quote] Follow up question: is it actually possible to build the ship classes mentioned in the manual/referenced in the game like mine sweepers and Q-ships? Or are these too “things for later use?”
|
|
#
¿
Jun 10, 2019 18:20
|
|
|
I prefer Black Sea to SF, playing the overwhelming force side of asymmetrical is a kind of fun that doesn’t last very long for me.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 20, 2019 16:47
|
|
|
Sometimes I feel like I am alone in liking ageod games.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 25, 2019 14:03
|
|
|
Been playing a lot of RTW2. Really makes me want to play some more WiTP; unfortunately, I cannot stand playing the scripted AI; and my pbem games always die early, plus I hate waiting days for turns.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 26, 2019 14:22
|
|
|
MonkeyLibFront posted:As someone who enjoys the CM games I'm looking at the Graviteam range of games, with 85% off should i go with Tank Warfare? I'm really looking for something that's an in-between CM Normandy and HOI and with SD2 being full price I'm looking for a similar fix of a dynamic campaign and I've heard generally good things. I mean, I am the odd man out... at 85% it might be worth a go, but as someone who plays and likes CM games let’s get two things out of the way: 1. Graviteam games are not the same as CM games, you have much less fine control over what units do; and 2. Coming from CM, where the UI is old, but intuitive, it literally took me 20ish hours to just “get” the Graviteam UI—and I still rarely play these games just because I hate the UI so much.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 27, 2019 15:41
|
|
|
I just finished reading Miracle at Midway, which makes me want to play a carrier based WW2 naval combat sim—and yes I own WiTP. Any recommendations? Is the John Tiller title any good? How about the 2007 remake of Carriers of War?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 29, 2019 15:13
|
|
|
Gewehr 43 posted:Ditto. Indeed. Me too.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 8, 2019 20:03
|
|
|
SerthVarnee posted:Ooooh i like this. I think WITP is desperately in need of (I know it would make the game take longer) at least 3 pulses a day. I have always found that the current system makes the combat wonky, particularly carrier combat. Also, the air model is great! I love it! Way more than I love the vaunted WITW model; however, by late war (around summer 1944) the model breaks and is not capable of handling massive aircraft strikes. Thus the Japanese player, for instance, can send 200 unescorted torpedo bombers against an Allied fleet covered by 800 cap fighters at the exact appropriate altitudes, and half of those torpedo bombers will get through. And of course, same goes for the ultimate American strategic bombing. I am also such a fan of the DC:B system, I think this should be added to almost every operational grog game. Especially in a game like WiTPAE where (in multiplayer) Japanese players often do wildly ahistorical things like “let’s invade the West Coast.” For that matter, so do Allied players who try and pull a Sir Robin and do ridiculous poo poo like abandon Singapore and the DEI. Things that would have been politically impossible for the Allies to do.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 9, 2019 17:51
|
|
|
Saros posted:The two hundred planes thing hasn't been true for a long time. In a pbem Downfall+ I've put an eleven hundred plane strike onto the USN CV mass, about 800 CAP and had about forty break through to score no hits. Casualty rate was over 95%. Your were using which mods? Edit. Favorite gamey Japanese tactic, let’s invade and capture Los Angeles for one day, and thus completely eliminate all the American ships in the shipyards, including any reinforcement ships that would spawn there. ZombieLenin fucked around with this message at 18:30 on Jul 9, 2019 |
|
#
¿
Jul 9, 2019 18:27
|
|
|
Pharnakes posted:Honestly if the allied player lets you pull that off he deserves it. Maybe, but no matter what side I am playing my primary ‘joy’ from playing these games is being able to pretend I am re-fighting a war or battle, and let’s see if I could do it better than history. The whole notion that games like WiTPAE are the same as monopoly, and I just better exploit the rules so I can “win” in completely ahistorical/impossible ways is totally alien to me. I am not saying that there is a right or wrong way to play grog games, rather I am saying that I don’t want to play an opponent who is approaching a grog game as a game of checkers. Also, like I said, I just don’t get the fun in playing grog games like this. ZombieLenin fucked around with this message at 14:07 on Jul 10, 2019 |
|
#
¿
Jul 9, 2019 20:39
|
|
|
Grumio posted:We joke about the maddening complexity of WitP (all the suggestions were plausible), but it's born out of a love/appreciation for the game and its grand scale. I would completely change the land combat, make each day at least 3 pulses so carrier combat is more realistic and less suicidal, I would adjust the surface combat model slightly, and I think something needs to be done to allow the Allied player to accelerate ships, but more importantly plane models. The last part because, again, from an historical perspective the Japanese getting late war fighters by the end of 1942 is ridiculous. This is doubly the case when the game mechanics preclude the Allies from actually being able to respond to the very early arrival of planes the Japanese had only barely thought up at the beginning of the war so early that basically eat the gently caress out of anything the Allied player can field in numbers until 1944.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 10, 2019 21:00
|
|
|
Grey Hunter posted:WITP2 chat I did.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 11, 2019 14:33
|
|
|
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". I actually think when WiTP was being designed they had a lot more planned in terms of ground combat, and in particular supply tracing, road construction (let’s simulate the Burma road!), and mechanics built around HQs. At least that’s what I remember reading. In practice they ended up abandoning a bunch of it, while leaving other parts only partially implemented because, as is always the case in video games, they decided they had scope overreach (aka they wanted to publish and sell the game). And of course, this was never gotten back to. In fact, the land combat model is so hosed up that, besides some edits on positions, names, and addition of smaller construction units, the modding community has not even wanted to touch it. Incidentally, I hinted at this before, but the game economy is completely hosed. Particularly because the Japanese player is completely incentivized—and given the ability to—fast forward production of really advanced airframes, while the allied player has zero ways to respond (though some mods have tried to address this). Similarly, while I get that Japan, Germany, and Italy were at war with 2/3rds of the industrial capacity of the Earth, having infinite supply generate in basically every major North American port is kind of bullshit.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 11, 2019 18:11
|
|
|
Angry_Ed posted:So after seeing a lot of Screenshot LPs of RTW 1 and 2 I decided I'd get RTW 2 for myself even though I'm not all that great at this type of game, and don't have a huge knowledge of shipbuilding, and have since been stumbling my way through. I'm sure the two questions I'm about to ask have been asked before but I didn't locate them going back a few pages. From an historical perspective, a dreadnought was a an “all big gun” battleship. So a pre-dreadnought battleship typically had two large caliber turrets with two guns, then a huge number of slightly smaller secondary guns, then tertiary guns, etc; whereas a dreadnought’s main armament is multiple big gun turrets (at least three).
|
|
#
¿
Jul 21, 2019 02:39
|
|
|
Angry_Ed posted:Well it could be that but again the French build a Dreadnought with only 10-inch guns as per treaty terms. I mean, it’s not. Try sending your pre-dreads up against your dreadnoughts in a fleet exercise sometime.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 21, 2019 04:23
|
|
|
Pirate Radar posted:Reading the WITP thread has me thinking about the combat system and wondering: are there any well-regarded games that focus in on the island battles of the Pacific Campaign? I can see that Order of Battle has entries for the Pacific but I’ve never played any of those. There is the John Tiller stuff—Panzer Battles/Campaigns: Pacific. I have never played them though, so I cannot comment on whether or not they are worth your time.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 23, 2019 13:38
|
|
|
Angry_Ed posted:Yeah after starting a second game (got fired in 1945 in my Italy game) I'm better understanding B vs. BB vs. BC. Just wish I had a way to show the design that originally confounded me. You can actually continue playing after you are fired, you just don’t accumulate any more “points.” mllaneza posted:Here's an invaluable guide to war at sea in the steel and coal era. It's focused on WW1, but gives background on the strategic situation, the technologies in use, what makes a good battleship, why you want more destroyers, and so on. I will have to check this out! If people haven’t already they should also (if they are interested) check out Castles of Steel (or any of Massie’s books really.) ZombieLenin fucked around with this message at 19:30 on Jul 23, 2019 |
|
#
¿
Jul 23, 2019 19:26
|
|
|
mllaneza posted:Castles of Steel is a narrative, and a very good one. Fighting the Great War is organized by topic and is a better reference, especially for technical details. It is a narrative, but it very well written and also contains quite a bit of information. It’s a great place to start if you are starting at a point where you are totally unfamiliar with HMS Dreadnought’s role in naval history, how Battlecruisers and Battleships are different, etc. It will also teach you a hell of a lot about the First World War at sea if you are just vaguely familiar with Jutland.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 23, 2019 23:34
|
|
|
dtkozl posted:They should add an officer system to rule the waves where you are forced to promote all the favored inbred aristos over the guys with skill or suffer a prestige loss, and then during war when they lose a battle you can axe the whole lot They really should. This is actually a great idea.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 26, 2019 14:06
|
|
|
feedmegin posted:He also wrote a book on predreadnoughts which I thought was pretty interesting Distant Guns and Jutland! were awesome. Then Norm et al. Had to sell everything to some random Russians who do not even do basic support for the game.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 26, 2019 19:09
|
|
|
wedgekree posted:No, no. Don’t forget the Italian pasta points. Grey Hunter posted:
Since there is no AI you are correct, you would really need two threads for each side and place your trust in goon honor. ZombieLenin fucked around with this message at 14:02 on Aug 1, 2019 |
|
#
¿
Aug 1, 2019 14:00
|
|
|
Does anyone remember the naval game in development that uses what looks like a modified version of GNBNA? Edit It was the steam green light project Naval Battles Simulator, that appears was being developed by some dude in Poland. It has a release date of January, 2019. It is currently August and the game has not been released. AKA it appears to be paetron vapor ware. ZombieLenin fucked around with this message at 21:11 on Aug 9, 2019 |
|
#
¿
Aug 8, 2019 14:45
|
|
|
Top Hats Monthly posted:IDK why I have the nuclear itch with games. It's pretty underexplored and yes, there is the obvious end result. Probably because it is so rare in games in the first place, I've fought the Civil War, WWII, and Middle East like 1000x. I agree. Ever since I have seen Wargames as a kid I have wanted to play a game of Global Thermal Nuclear War—and not some arcadey aesthetic copy of what was in that movie, like DEFCON, but an honest to god grog level sim. And yes, I understand every game would end the same. Edit This is why I loved the original Harpoon so much as a kid. I could check a little box and use nukes on things like ships, submarines, and airbases. ZombieLenin fucked around with this message at 18:12 on Aug 15, 2019 |
|
#
¿
Aug 15, 2019 17:18
|
|
|
Tias posted:cross posting from 'help us identify a game' thread, since we're stumped for once: You mean Battle Brothers? It’s available on steam.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 13, 2019 14:48
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 12:18 |
|
|
Zaodai posted:We'd already eliminated Battle Brothers in the other thread. Also Battle Brothers doesn't really have those dispatch missions as described. It sounds a bit like the really old school Warhammer Fantasy game Shadow of the Horned Rat too. I have no idea if it was ever ported to mobile, or whether or not a successor game was made though.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 13, 2019 15:48
|
|