|
Steam has the Ironclad series on sale this entire week. I can't vouch for the quality or grog but it looks about on par with Naval Circle Arctic War. I figured it warranted mentioning I guess?
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2014 23:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 11:56 |
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:This is what mine looks like: It is the red triangle with the explosion.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2014 00:06
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:Yeah it's a legal requirement that you display prices inclusive of tax. The Greece pack's Google Earth files of the battlefields are very cool, especially given how mountainous the terrain is. It's pretty neat to zoom around 3D maps of the land you're fighting over, even though you have to go back to the 2D maps to actually play.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2014 00:16
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:This really is not the kind of game you want to do a live video LP of. That dude's channel is fantastic for seeing how a game actually plays.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2014 01:23
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:This is what mine looks like: Speaking of the John Tiller campaign games, does any one have any have any experience with the Civil War 'Campaign' titles? I really like the idea of a big dynamic campaign with 'what-if' maps and such, but how well executed is it? Do unit casualties carry over from scenario to scenario and such, or is it just a glorified scenario menu where they all stand alone and you're just playing them in a slightly different order?
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2014 02:36
|
|
|
In Commander, does anyone know what bonuses the AI gets on the highest difficulty?
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2014 03:12
|
|
|
Dark_Swordmaster posted:Steam has the Ironclad series on sale this entire week. I can't vouch for the quality or grog but it looks about on par with Naval Circle Arctic War. I figured it warranted mentioning I guess? I have the American Civil War version, it's incredibly basic and simple. If there was multiplayer I could maybe recommend it. However as it exists, even at $2.50, I'd hesitate to rate it as worthwhile.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2014 04:37
|
|
|
I'd be up for a PBEM match of Commander: The Great War but I am definitely not an expert.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2014 07:06
|
|
|
I just had the most wonderful idea for a strategic wargame setting: You are Simon Bolivar and have to liberate South America from Spanish oppression.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2014 17:50
|
|
|
How about you are the spiritual leader of a peasant, pro monarchy rebellion in Brazil? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_Canudos
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2014 00:39
|
|
|
I was tooling around with Panzer Campaigns at work today and I figured out that the "cannot move from enemy ZOC to enemy ZOC" rule applies to retreats as well and it's key to destroying whole units. If you trap an enemy unit by bracketing it on opposite hexsides, it has no place to retreat since the 4 open hexsides are all enemy ZOCs and it'll take massive casualties whenever it loses an assault.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2014 04:42
|
|
|
So in Commander: The Great War, when I have one friendly unit selected and hover over another, I get this arrow-swap looking icon: Does that mean I can have the two units trade places? If so, how? Just clicking it does nothing besides selecting a unit, and right-clicking doesn't do it either.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2014 08:36
|
|
|
Drone posted:So in Commander: The Great War, when I have one friendly unit selected and hover over another, I get this arrow-swap looking icon: Use Control-Left Click to do the swap.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2014 08:49
|
|
|
So in C:TGW, what exactly influences how sympathetic neutral countries feel toward you? It's not really ever made clear what the factors are, and since you're unable to directly influence them as in a Paradox game, I'm pretty clueless. For example, for some reason Denmark is drifting toward the Central Powers, despite them gradually losing the war (or at least, not doing anywhere nearly as well as they did historically), and I'm at a loss to explain why. Is there a mechanic for drawing other neutrals into the war, especially ones who historically stayed out of the conflict (Sweden, Netherlands, etc.) short of declaring war on them?
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2014 12:52
|
|
|
As far as I can tell, all countries war entry is scripted, and the only thing that affects it is that whoever uses gas first causes their enemies' allies to join the war sooner.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2014 14:24
|
|
|
Dark_Swordmaster posted:Steam has the Ironclad series on sale this entire week. I can't vouch for the quality or grog but it looks about on par with Naval Circle Arctic War. I figured it warranted mentioning I guess? Terrible. Mediocre graphics and a damage model that slowly, ever so slowly, chips away at ships. Maybe get one just so you can see for yourself, but I'm the biggest ironclads nut on the forums and I gave up on the series a loooong time ago. It's a shame, the failure of this series will be planed on the period, not the atrocious implementation.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2014 14:34
|
|
|
mllaneza posted:Terrible. Mediocre graphics and a damage model that slowly, ever so slowly, chips away at ships. Maybe get one just so you can see for yourself, but I'm the biggest ironclads nut on the forums and I gave up on the series a loooong time ago. It's a shame, the failure of this series will be planed on the period, not the atrocious implementation. I have these games and played a couple of engagements, and what really put me off was the lack of time compression such that a battle took 2-3x longer than I felt it should have. That and there seemed to be a complete lack of context of where and what and why I was fighting.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2014 14:58
|
|
|
Drone posted:So in C:TGW, what exactly influences how sympathetic neutral countries feel toward you? It's not really ever made clear what the factors are, and since you're unable to directly influence them as in a Paradox game, I'm pretty clueless. For example, for some reason Denmark is drifting toward the Central Powers, despite them gradually losing the war (or at least, not doing anywhere nearly as well as they did historically), and I'm at a loss to explain why. Is there a mechanic for drawing other neutrals into the war, especially ones who historically stayed out of the conflict (Sweden, Netherlands, etc.) short of declaring war on them? Everyone joins their historical side eventually, using Gas or submarines will increase the speed at which neutrals join and knocking out enemy nations will delay entry.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2014 15:08
|
|
|
uPen posted:Everyone joins their historical side eventually, using Gas or submarines will increase the speed at which neutrals join and knocking out enemy nations will delay entry. Oops, that'll explain why Romania's entry into the Entente is getting delayed  . Was looking forward to them completing my massive ring around Austria-Hungary, too.This game is really good, by the way. Edit:  Now it's time to do another campaign with higher difficulty 
Drone fucked around with this message at 21:06 on Jul 30, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2014 16:18
|
|
|
Drone posted:Now it's time to do another campaign with higher difficulty And/or be my new PBEM opponent 
Alikchi fucked around with this message at 22:37 on Jul 30, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2014 22:30
|
|
|
Was gas actually considered a warcrime? I haven't heard anything like that outside of poetry, and certainly nothing that would make an imperial power balk at joining a war it wanted in on. The sub thing makes sense though.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2014 22:37
|
|
|
Using gas doesn't make anyone join the war slower, it just makes your enemies join quicker. I aggree that it still doesn't have much historical precedent that I know of though.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2014 22:39
|
|
|
Gort posted:Was gas actually considered a warcrime? I haven't heard anything like that outside of poetry, and certainly nothing that would make an imperial power balk at joining a war it wanted in on. The use of poison gas in shells was banned by the 1899 Hague convention.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2014 00:47
|
|
|
Strangely, Germany issued a formal diplomatic protest during the first world war, not against the use of gas, but against the use of shotguns.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2014 01:03
|
|
|
uPen posted:Nah just use the graphical tiles, the NATO icons are useless. This is from a few pages back, but I have to disagree. It actually helps me read battle lines and strategic situations a lot more clearly with the icons on.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2014 01:18
|
|
|
Dirt Worshipper posted:This is from a few pages back, but I have to disagree. It actually helps me read battle lines and strategic situations a lot more clearly with the icons on. Absolutely. I can NEVER play these games with the fuckin' toy soldier icons. You spend half the time squinting and thinking about if a unit is an army or a garrison or... That's if they don't blend into the terrain and disappear altogether. Icons are clear and instant. I submit to the court - Strategic Command: 
Fintilgin fucked around with this message at 01:52 on Jul 31, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2014 01:44
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Strangely, Germany issued a formal diplomatic protest during the first world war, not against the use of gas, but against the use of shotguns. The justification was that gas was a perfectly legit weapon of war, but that shotguns, being usually used for hunting, were degrading because they treated whoever was on the barrel end as wild game to be hunted for food. But yeah, it's one of the sillier parts of the First World War. One of the only silly parts, really.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2014 01:49
|
|
|
Fintilgin posted:Absolutely. I can NEVER play these games with the fuckin' toy soldier icons. You spend half the time squinting and thinking about if a unit is an army or a garrison or... That's if they don't blend into the terrain and disappear altogether. Icons are clear and instant. The graphics in G:TGW convey more information than the nato icons do. It's the only game I can think of where I play with graphical icons rather than the NATO tiles.  
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2014 02:04
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Strangely, Germany issued a formal diplomatic protest during the first world war, not against the use of gas, but against the use of shotguns. Well, Germany did use gas as a weapon first, so it's not like they can really complain.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2014 02:49
|
|
|
uPen posted:The graphics in G:TGW convey more information than the nato icons do. It's the only game I can think of where I play with graphical icons rather than the NATO tiles. Yeah, I guess you can see the tech level for some units (Supreme Commander does this too), but drat, I still find it too hard to read at a glance to actually use. V  V
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2014 04:09
|
|
|
I really wish the camera in C:TGW wasn't completely bugged to gently caress. Like, I'd actually like to be able to see what's happening during the enemy turn. Oh, you'd rather show me Turkey again? OK, I guess.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2014 04:23
|
|
|
In Commander: The Great War, is there any point to building garrison units at all? Or should I just go all infantry for my frontline coverage needs? Central Powers game, if that matters.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2014 04:26
|
|
|
They cost half as much and build in half the time as infantry, and can be reasonably competent fighters in the early stages of the war when the other side is fielding lots of garrison troops as well. It seems like they're mainly there to let you quickly fill out a cohesive front line (which you start with nowhere near enough troops to do anywhere except in Belgium) and make some opportunistic attacks here and there. I'm still getting the hang of not sucking at C:TGW, but building as many infantry as possible and using the free industrial capacity for garrisons finally let me get a CP game off the ground. Well, sort of. It's winter 1914 and I'm stuck just outside of Warsaw, took all of Belgium but Antwerp, but haven't lost any territory and am pretty close to completely beating the Serbians.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2014 04:40
|
|
|
Gimmick Account posted:In Commander: The Great War, is there any point to building garrison units at all? Or should I just go all infantry for my frontline coverage needs? Central Powers game, if that matters. They're very useful for filling in gaps in a line. They're not a good choice for solo deployment though because even fully entrenched they can't stand up to a single infantry, much less two. Having a good number of them to fill in the front of the line to pin enemy forces in place makes pocketing troops much easier. In my game I never had enough movement to do deep pockets before the units could escape, so you'll generally only manage pockets if you can completely surround units, having a lot of garrisons could help with that.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2014 04:52
|
|
|
Pornographic Memory posted:They cost half as much and build in half the time as infantry, and can be reasonably competent fighters in the early stages of the war when the other side is fielding lots of garrison troops as well. It seems like they're mainly there to let you quickly fill out a cohesive front line (which you start with nowhere near enough troops to do anywhere except in Belgium) and make some opportunistic attacks here and there. I'm still getting the hang of not sucking at C:TGW, but building as many infantry as possible and using the free industrial capacity for garrisons finally let me get a CP game off the ground. Well, sort of. It's winter 1914 and I'm stuck just outside of Warsaw, took all of Belgium but Antwerp, but haven't lost any territory and am pretty close to completely beating the Serbians. Yeah, filling out the frontlines is a huge problem, especially in the east... But every time I stick a garrison unit somewhere that's not a heavily pre-fortified hex, it just gets mercilessly pummeled because all of the enemy infantry will attempt to focus on the weakest link in the chain (obviously). It just seems to me that they're useless even when on the defense - What good is a division that takes only two turns to field to me, if it's a paper tiger that cannot stand up to ANY pressure?
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2014 04:54
|
|
|
Gimmick Account posted:Yeah, filling out the frontlines is a huge problem, especially in the east... But every time I stick a garrison unit somewhere that's not a heavily pre-fortified hex, it just gets mercilessly pummeled because all of the enemy infantry will attempt to focus on the weakest link in the chain (obviously). Put garrisons in the line behind your infantry to cover gaps since you don't have an infantry in every hex. Garrisons that are only exposed to one enemy hex-side are pretty safe. Look at the German line:
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2014 04:57
|
|
|
uPen posted:Put garrisons in the line behind your infantry to cover gaps since you don't have an infantry in every hex. Garrisons that are only exposed to one enemy hex-side are pretty safe. Oooh, that looks like a really smart deployment plan, thanks! This whole game seems so amazing, I still can't believe I only lucked into it by lazily clicking on 'Last Page' for the grognard thread one day. To think that none of this would have happened if it hadn't been just in the right place on page 1 at the right time... 
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2014 05:04
|
|
|
We don't get Ancient Age wargames very often, so I wanted to make mention of Hegemony Rome: The Rise of Caesar. It's a real-time fully-pausable RTS about Caesar's conquests of Gaul, and what sets it apart from the Total War games is an emphasis on logistics - troops only have a limited amount of food with them whenever they leave the confines of a city or fort, so you need to establish and guard supply lines from cities in Cisalpine Gaul as you expand northwards and westwards. Similarly, troops don't fight very well when they're not paid, so you also need to make sure you have a treasury fed from mining profits so your Legions don't abandon you. The other very cool feature of the game is it does that Supreme Commander thing where you can seamlessly zoom in and out from a tactical, see-every-soldier view to a RUSE-esque strategy level map. On a personal note that does away with all the loading times from entering a tactical battle, which is really what soured me on the Total War series. Right now it's also really cheap - 7.50 USD from Greenmangaming
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2014 08:29
|
|
|
Are there any games like war in the east but on a smaller scale? I've played a lot of Combat Mission and want to try something a bit more strategic but I'm not sure that WitE is as easy to get into as it looks.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2014 08:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 11:56 |
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:We don't get Ancient Age wargames very often, so I wanted to make mention of Hegemony Rome: The Rise of Caesar. It's a real-time fully-pausable RTS about Caesar's conquests of Gaul, and what sets it apart from the Total War games is an emphasis on logistics - troops only have a limited amount of food with them whenever they leave the confines of a city or fort, so you need to establish and guard supply lines from cities in Cisalpine Gaul as you expand northwards and westwards. Similarly, troops don't fight very well when they're not paid, so you also need to make sure you have a treasury fed from mining profits so your Legions don't abandon you. But does it actually deliver?
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2014 08:50
|
|