Morholt posted:

Also later in that thread, grogpost.png:

Pharnakes posted:

2 minutes to process a turn is entirely reasonable. the 30mins+ it took PoN from the midgame onwards is not.

Morholt posted:

Also later in that thread, grogpost.png:

Mans posted:

Graviteam Tactics: Operation Star


Yay or nay?

gradenko_2000 posted:

Maps are too big, controls are way complicated, it's always in real-time, it has nice visuals that you never see because you have to be zoomed because again the maps are too big.

If Combat Mission is too rich for your blood you can step it down to Company of Heroes, but otherwise I don't think GT:OS is going to cover it even if it's that much cheaper.

Flannelette posted:

Yay.
(It's cheap now so it doesn't matter).

I don't understand why people seem to not like it here.
I started playing it as an alternative to CM after the demo originally put me off it a while earlier and now post some patches I like them both.

Some Things it does better than others:
Built off a tank sim engine: If you like war machines and their various bits and bobs you'll like GT more straight away (this is why I liked it). Has the most detailed damage and physics model of all the strat Grognard games (that I know of). Watch individual suspension go up and down, tracks slip on mud, vehicles change gears and rev their engines, that kind of stuff.
Has modern graphics: This one is obvious.
Dynamic/persistent campaigns: as opposed to CM campaigns, only if you like that kind of thing.
Limited abstraction: personal preference again.

Mans posted:

I bought it anyways because it's cheap as gently caress and the idea of a war game set in Angola makes me think both my grandparents would be proud (or mad, depends on what side i choose ).

I'm not sure if your suggestion of CoH was a jab or not since i really hate CoH's mechanics.

Also Men of War Assault Squad 2 is out on steam and i spend too much time playing it to enjoy going back to something so arcadey

I ran a few quick battles to familiarize myself and i've noticed there isn't a single tank destroyer to choose, only t-34s, kvs, panzers and tigers.

Am i looking in the wrong place or something?

Tomn posted:

Of course, the only responses to that were essentially:

- Are you a wargame developer? No? Then STFU.
- Yeah, but will it sell WitP? Obviously not, so no price reductions or Steam ever!
- Sure, but I tried to give away a grog game for free to all my friends once and nobody took the offer, obviously wargames can't do well in the wider market.

That last one bugs me particularly - for all that they pride themselves on being smarter than your average gamer, they seem to have trouble figuring out the problem with anecdotal evidence.

Pharnakes posted:

2 minutes to process a turn is entirely reasonable. the 30mins+ it took PoN from the midgame onwards is not.

Myoclonic Jerk posted:

So, if fighter escorts are mostly ineffective, how do you use fighters offensively? Sweeps?
I haven't played that much, but I've never found sweeps to do much, unless I'm misunderstanding the reports I get back.

uPen posted:

No it's not. Let's say a game has 200 turns in it, 2 minutes of processing is over 6 hours of staring at loading screens.

Pharnakes posted:

2 minutes to process a turn is entirely reasonable. the 30mins+ it took PoN from the midgame onwards is not.

Zamboni Apocalypse posted:

And how much time is actually being spent per turn doing, y'know, the "playing" thing? If it's 30 seconds per, yeah, 2 minutes per is pretty steep; if it's a Grey Hunter day-by-day WitP, I expect it might not be as noticeable overall.

Unless you're going full grog and logging such details, of course.

Goetta posted:

Doesn't Valve give companies pricing recommendations when they want to list games on Steam? Although their advice is presumably "Don't list your old rear end game for $80" which is akin to heresy for some.

somegrog posted:

No. The history of gaming is a history of decline caused by watering down of the audience - of computers becoming more and more common and thus ending up in hands of less and less intelligent people. Wargaming is for intelligent people and intelligent people like to be informed. That's why they were reading game magazines. Because picking up random expensive game in a store isn't something that an intelligent person does.
Wargamers are usually also passionate about history. Most of people are very stupid. History lessons quickly make their stupidity apparent to them so they don't like history.
"Stigmatas" and popularity or lack of it don't have influence on wargaming audience because the audience is accustomed to doing stuff that is unpopular among majority of people and not doing stuff that is popular.
If someone didn't read gaming magazines because gaming was "immature", it is almost certain that he was handed out a faulty brain just like some 90% of human population and thus is condemned to playing Call of Duty and the likes.

But returning to the part of humanity that wasn't handed out a faulty brain, a large part of that population won't be interested in wargames just because, similarly as one for example may have abilities to be very good at a math but simply find them not interesting enough to spend ones time on them. So, there's 5 percent of gamers capable of grasping complex wargames but sadly, most of them will be much more interested in stuff like Project Eternity, Torment 2 and Wasteland 2. (1% of gamers is a wildly optimistic assumption. But still there may be some who don't know that they prefer wargames. Though I have spent quite a lot of time trying to promote wargames among the 5% and almost all of them prefer cRPGs, RTS and similar game genres).

vuk83 posted:

Peak grog

vuk83 posted:

vuk83 posted:

Wargamers are usually also passionate about history. Most of people are very stupid. History lessons quickly make their stupidity apparent to them so they don't like history.

Lichtenstein posted:

I wouldn't be surprised if Matrix actually wanted to go on Steam (see: slow creep of Slitherine's games in there), but was afraid that putting too much there would strip them of excuses for not including the vast amounts of commercially worthless games in their catalogue (World in Flames, Pride of Nations, non-Admiral's Edition WITP still available for $60), thus bringing down the snake oil scheme. This assumes the goal of the company is not to provide quality product, but to exploit confused and naive bedroom developers and dumb grogs. Selling the crappy part of catalogue is like selling porn in the Internet: you need a client that is either very committed, or very dumb about computers, and with many grogs being fairly old dudes, neither seems implausible. Broken poo poo like WiF would be quickly laughed out on Steam and relegated to comedy gifts during extreme sales, like Bad Rats or whatever. The current snake oil system allows Matrix to hold this worthless crap (that doesn't really generate any upkeep costs for them) and rake in $60 whenever some random misguided buyer appears - literal money for nothing every once in a while. A more involved jump to modern distribution and pricing systems would require Matrix to provide actual quality assurance, to make the products commercially viable and the company is not convinced its got enough decent poo poo in the pipeline to cut loose what is perceived as free money, where the company does little more than host the games and give the developer a cut. Right now they can excuse themselves that the non-broken games on Steam (Battle Academy, Panzer Corps) are easy to otherise as beer-and-pretzels gateway games, while non-broken hardcore games (like WitE, for a certain definition of non-broken) cannot go on Steam without breaking the illusion Matrix' rethoric has any loving sense.




Battlefront's games are cool, though, so I guess they're just grumpy old men, like the Spiderweb dude. It's a shame though that the text gets all blurry and hosed up on my new laptop's Intel HD4600 and I cannot find a good workaround for this. 1

Lichtenstein posted:

Battlefront's games are cool, though, so I guess they're just grumpy old men, like the Spiderweb dude.

StashAugustine posted:

Is anyone still playing Commander: The Great War? I got it over Christmas and on my first try at the game the French were in Berlin by summer 1916, and the Serbs are knocking on Budapest. Is the AI that bad or is it luck/low difficulty level?

Alikchi posted:

Eager to finish mine off so that I can try out the beta, actually.

Alchenar posted:

Iain from Matrix pretty much admitted in one of the Steam threads that the reason the good games are outrageously expensive is so that those devs run cover for the terrible games which just ridiculously expensive and need to be ridiculously expensive because they will only ever sell 100 copies or so. When I pointed out that that was pretty lovely for the developers who could actually be making decent money from the mainstream market there wasn't really an answer.

Pharnakes posted:

It is pretty lovely, but at the end of the day there's nothing stopping grog devs going down the steam greenlight route is there?