|
Reddit is organizing some kind of multiplayer campaign; I suggest we all get in on this and stack REDFOR. I have low hopes for it though, the organizers don't seem to know what they're doing.
OctaMurk fucked around with this message at 20:05 on Jun 5, 2014 |
#
?
Jun 5, 2014 19:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 00:29 |
|
|
Shanakin posted:Hubis knows this but it's still a large disadvantage when everyone knows what they're doing because you have to split your attention over a much larger area. When against randoms though it tends to be hilarious unfair and some people intentionally exploit this. That's definitely a fair point.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2014 21:19
|
|
|
OctaMurk posted:Reddit is organizing some kind of multiplayer campaign; I suggest we all get in on this and stack REDFOR. I have low hopes for it though, the organizers don't seem to know what they're doing. May 35th has just passed. A most auspicious date for the PLA!
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2014 23:52
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:May 35th has just passed. A most auspicious date for the PLA! Yessssssss. Beware the giant rubber duckies though.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 00:23
|
|
|
Wait multiplayer campaign? Does red dragon support that?
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 00:53
|
|
|
With enough willingness to build it around regular multiplayer games, yes. The efforts I've seen are all horrible.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 00:56
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:May 35th has just passed. A most auspicious date for the PLA! Very auspicious, and to be observed by keeping forces on high alert to defend against, of course, nothing of significance.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 02:05
|
|
|
I just learned something about Starships, the MBT-70, and how they were meant to fly. Why.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 08:29
|
|
|
xthetenth posted:I just learned something about Starships, the MBT-70, and how they were meant to fly. For the same reason that they made nuclear artillery, air to air missiles, mortars, and tried to design things like nuclear powered aircraft. The military was loving obsessed with nuclear everything back then.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 08:46
|
|
|
Lee Outrageous posted:For the same reason that they made nuclear artillery, air to air missiles, mortars, and tried to design things like nuclear powered aircraft. The military was loving obsessed with nuclear everything back then. I guess it'd make the difficulty with getting accurate long range shots a lot easier.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 08:58
|
|
|
Coming back to this game after a long break: 1. It's amazing how unviable mid-range tanks are in vanilla. That chart with the geometric value curve and linear cost curve was spot on. 2. Shan and Xerxes broke all my decks. 3. The Q-5D is blowing itself up with its own bomb again.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 12:44
|
|
|
You can get poo poo done with vanilla mid range tanks with one extreme attribute like the Brennus but most of them are pants. Any word yet on what the Swedes are getting in the DLC tank wise? The STRV 103 didn't make the RD transition very well.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 15:16
|
|
|
Poor STRV 103.  I loved those things in ALB. Such a good affordable defensive tank.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 15:56
|
|
|
I think it was Fluff mentioning the 103D showing up, but no Strv 2000 or Strv122 (Leopards). Probably an assload of CV90 tank-destroyers and the like.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 16:34
|
|
|
They should really just give up the dumb "alt history" bullshit and hand the Swedes a 2A5. Jesus.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 19:10
|
|
|
I never really got the alt-history thing outside of ALB, since it seems like each single-player campaign is it's own self contained storyline. I thought we were supposed to view them just as possible one-off scenarios from the 70's and 80's.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 19:46
|
|
|
Lee Outrageous posted:For the same reason that they made nuclear artillery, air to air missiles, mortars, and tried to design things like nuclear powered aircraft. The military was loving obsessed with nuclear everything back then. Nukes were hip and in, and if your branch wasn't doing something with them you were falling behind and weren't justifying your budget as part of the New Paradigm of Warfare.  Yeah, we tested dropping Minuteman IIIs out the back of a C-5.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 21:00
|
|
|
But why couldn't they just use nuclear artillery like normal people? I mean really, 150mm range is tiny and it's going to be a wildly overexpensive sucky linear implosion device that you're going to be firing at long range anyway.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 21:24
|
|
|
What's the smallest practical yield on a thermonuclear device, anyways?
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 21:37
|
|
|
xthetenth posted:But why couldn't they just use nuclear artillery like normal people? I mean really, 150mm range is tiny and it's going to be a wildly overexpensive sucky linear implosion device that you're going to be firing at long range anyway. If we're at the point of having nuclear rocket launchers and nuclear mortars, might as well have a nuclear tank too. Gotta do something with all those M60s, because they're gonna be worthless as poo poo when the commies come a knocking. Now that you think about it, it's a wonder we didn't try to figure out how to make a little nuclear bullet that we could shoot individuals with.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 21:44
|
|
|
How do you think all the DU shell research got started?
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 22:00
|
|
|
American tanks needed to fire nuclear shells because they each needed to kill 20 soviet tanks to maintain parity. How else could they defeat T-34 spam?
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 23:41
|
|
|
Uh, obviously by deploying thousands of recoilless rifle Gavins to Fulda. Duh.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 23:54
|
|
|
Thump! posted:I never really got the alt-history thing outside of ALB, since it seems like each single-player campaign is it's own self contained storyline. I thought we were supposed to view them just as possible one-off scenarios from the 70's and 80's. I honestly thought the same. Or they were meant to be some cascading series of events. http://www.wargame-ee.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=155&t=46071&start=30 Why are the Marshalls coming to the same conclusions as Top Ranked players when they arent Top Ranked players themselves??? THEY'RE UNQUALIFIED! WHAT WITCHCRAFT IS AFOOT HERE???
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 23:58
|
|
|
Why do people seem to think that only pro-players have this God-like insight into game mechanics? Understanding game design and making good design decisions can actually happen even if you suck at the game. I cannot stand the "pro" player mentality and the fact that these people seem to use win to loss ratio as some sort of mandate to ignore all other opinions. I'm also not sure why people are so vocal about Eugen ignoring game balance because they are not making sweeping gameplay changes INSTANTLY OMG NOW. Do people really not understand how this works?
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2014 00:42
|
|
|
I don't think wargame even has enough players to support a "pro player" community, like, big fish in a little pond doesn't even begin to describe it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2014 00:59
|
|
|
Minenfeld! posted:Why do people seem to think that only pro-players have this God-like insight into game mechanics? Understanding game design and making good design decisions can actually happen even if you suck at the game. I cannot stand the "pro" player mentality and the fact that these people seem to use win to loss ratio as some sort of mandate to ignore all other opinions. The thing is one of the skills you need to be good is to understand the game mechanics as they are. The hard bit of design isn't that, it's being able to change them and take all the ramifications of that change into account. A good number of "top" players don't have that skill. Some have that as well, and they tend to make solid suggestions.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2014 01:14
|
|
|
Hubis posted:What's the smallest practical yield on a thermonuclear device, anyways? Probably the Mk54 SADM, which had a variable yield of 10 tons - 1 kiloton or the Davey Crockett's 10-20kt warhead.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2014 03:13
|
|
|
xthetenth posted:The thing is one of the skills you need to be good is to understand the game mechanics as they are. The hard bit of design isn't that, it's being able to change them and take all the ramifications of that change into account. A good number of "top" players don't have that skill. Some have that as well, and they tend to make solid suggestions. While I agree with this, my point is that understanding mechanics as they are do not translate automatically into understanding the ramifications of the changes you are suggesting. So, I agree with your sentiment. The interesting thing is that "top" players, in many games, seem to be "top" only for certain metas. If the meta changes, they simply fade away.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2014 04:38
|
|
|
By unpopular demand, the latest Uralgraznomod installer: download
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2014 05:58
|
|
|
That's the Mod Manager version is it? I basically always wait for that one before I install the latest Uralmod. Screwing around with individual files is dumb.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2014 12:12
|
|
|
I hosed up somehow and had to verify local files with steam to restore to Vanilla, and now loading the mod in JSGME isn't doing anything. I hosed UP. 
Arglebargle III fucked around with this message at 14:48 on Jun 7, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2014 14:35
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:I hosed up somehow and had to verify local files with steam to restore to Vanilla, and now loading the mod in JSGME isn't doing anything. I hosed UP. Deactivate all mods then delete everything in the MODS folder, then drop the newest copy of the mod in there, and try
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2014 14:44
|
|
|
I really love the game, love the mod, love everything (except navy stuff) but there is no-one to play against! What happened to the community, I seem to recall a similar number playing WALB just a month ago and I assumed that was dead cause of the sequal. I paid my 40 bucks I want a little more time with it 
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2014 14:56
|
|
|
1200 players online right now, more than EE and ALB had except maybe right after release.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2014 16:03
|
|
|
Elukka posted:1200 players online right now, more than EE and ALB had except maybe right after release. GAMES DEAD PACK IT UP GUYS. So would it be wise to lobby for a few mirrored maps for ranked play? I hate mirrored maps, but I also hate most things. But this seems to be an ongoing issue since W:EE. Just like 4 or so mirrored maps.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2014 02:34
|
|
|
How about increasing the autonomy range overall since alot of the earlier tanks cant really maneuver to far due to lovely fuel stats? Or has this been covered befor?
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2014 11:57
|
|
|
Dandywalken posted:GAMES DEAD PACK IT UP GUYS. A few mirrored maps would help ranked played and tournaments I'm sure. I like the asymmetrical maps, even if some are imbalanced; it makes public games more interesting. Some maps such as Nuclear Winter need to be changed in player count; Nuclear Winter is definitely a 2v2 map at least, for example, and should be made one so that you can play it as a 3v3. Some of the existing maps need to be rethought; e.g, some of the river maps would be a lot better if they simply changed the "axis" of the map to be along the river a la Kristiansund or TMI, because making the river into an automatic frontline encourages horribly boring gameplay and basically makes half the maps unplayable. They wouldn't even need to change the terrain or the fundamental zone layout, just change which zones are deployment zones. Another map I'd like to see is a variation of Strait to the Point where the starting spawns are re-rolled as regular zones, and the spawns that are currently naval spawns become the starting zones, such that instead of attempting to cross the river in the middle, you are fighting "across it" and it separates your front into two. Basically Strait to the Point has always become a far more interesting match when teams have managed to capture the opposing side spawn, so why not make both teams start with the opposing side spawn such that we can start with set-up that produces more interesting gameplay, because you get to use more of the interesting terrain? Another thing to make naval battles more relevant is to have capturable but zero-point naval spawns mid-way between the opposing sides. Marine landings are very tough, yet games in which marine landings are successful often become much more interesting games; the side that invests into the naval battle should get a very short amphibious invasion route that lets them hit the opposing spawn or anywhere along the shore easily. It would fairly reward the naval battle winners considering that naval requires a titanic (haha) points investment. On Gunboat Diplomacy or D-Day in Paradise for example, this would make the coastal zones much more vulnerable to sea-landings because you wouldn't have to capture the entire opposing spawn to start doing marine landings, you'd only have to advance half-way to get a short amphibious route. Besides that, I'd also really like to see them increase the size of zones so that contesting them is more viable. Plunjing Valley is a good map IMO because the side zones are very contestable and yet demands control of the center of the map lest you suddenly lose the ability to shift from side to side, or even lose your center zone. Another D-Day in Paradise is also a great map because all five of the non-spawn zones are very contestable. OctaMurk fucked around with this message at 16:24 on Jun 8, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2014 16:21
|
|
|
Found a strange bug in Uralgraznomod while creating a DDR deck: Rookie Grenzer in SPW-50PK have an avaiability of -1.  Edit: Same goes for elite Li Jian'90 in WZ-551s. Magni fucked around with this message at 18:06 on Jun 10, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2014 17:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 00:29 |
|
|
That's because no one should ever take Grenzers. The game is doing you a favor. So, looks like we have a general list of what to expect from DLC 1: quote:1) upgrading the NSWP-states to 90ies standards by adding ca. 20 units each Seems pretty rad.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2014 00:20
|
|