|
Well there's a final balance patch coming sometime in the future so that could draw people back in for a wile. I play occasionally but I've had enough of the current meta, since we've kinda played it to death by now and everyone competent (i.e. non-goon teams) knows what all the OP stuff is nowadays and every game plays out more or less the same. The next patch will hopefully shake things up.
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2015 19:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 07:20 |
|
|
I've been busy but still play Wargame when I can. As much as I whine about things I miss from ALB, Red Dragon has become the better game. (Shame about those boats, though...) I am so ready for improved maps! Did Stavanger make the cut? Dave47 fucked around with this message at 23:15 on Aug 14, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2015 23:12
|
|
|
Whiskey and beer are both better games that this game.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2015 04:06
|
|
|
Worst part of RD is the palette that they have to use for the maps. I much prefer the assets used in EE and AB. Hopefully the next Wargame goes back to Europe.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2015 15:38
|
|
|
reagan posted:Hopefully the next Wargame goes back to Europe.  I hope they end up making another one eventually.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2015 15:56
|
|
|
Azran posted:
They should do a WW2 Wargame.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2015 16:21
|
|
|
I think it makes sense for them to at least take a break now. I like Red Dragon a lot, but there's not a whole bunch more they could do by expanding the same formula anymore. I hope whenever they're done with the Act of War thing they do a Wargame 2, a real ground up sequel rather than a standalone expansion, and go Cold War again. So many games are WW2 by default and I like the 80's period much better.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2015 16:31
|
|
|
Elukka posted:I think it makes sense for them to at least take a break now. I like Red Dragon a lot, but there's not a whole bunch more they could do by expanding the same formula anymore. I hope whenever they're done with the Act of War thing they do a Wargame 2, a real ground up sequel rather than a standalone expansion, and go Cold War again. So many games are WW2 by default and I like the 80's period much better. 1945-1980 would be my ideal time period. I would say 1975, but 1980 would allow them to sneak in the first variants of NATO heavies like the M1, Leopard 2, and Challenger 1. Improve the AI, make a dynamic campaign encompassing all of Europe, and I would fork over big bucks. And do not let obnoxious fanboys within the development team or elsewhere inflate the stats of their favorite Wunderwaffen.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2015 17:32
|
|
|
Wargame 2: Golan Heights
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2015 17:42
|
|
|
I'd like their next Wargame to have some little design elements like you saw in Longbow2 way back, where the UI was primarily made up of elements like charts, clip boards, maps, stuff you would see in a commanders tent. Let stuff you draw on the map (beacons, dicks) have the appearance of a thick pencil lead. Just getting away from the kinda half assed 'oh ok I'm in a commanders bunker across the ocean I guess' aesthetic.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2015 18:05
|
|
|
I'm not even kidding they should make it a MOBA. Use the maps and control zones and throw in a ton of AI units streaming in from the reinforce points and then give each player their own unit selection to add to the battle with. Strategy is basically dead unless you have CA or Blizzard over the office door anyway.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2015 18:43
|
|
|
MrYenko posted:Wargame 2: Golan Heights Wargame 2: Brushfire Go to exotic locales across South America, Africa, South-East Asia and meet the locals! And then kill them. I'd love to have a more free-roaming 'Conquer the Continent' freeplay mode ala Dark Crusade. A man can dream. Edit: I'll compromise between Brushfire and Golan Heights by including an Idi Amin fantasy campaign.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2015 19:24
|
|
|
Space Wizard posted:Wargame 2: Brushfire Yes. And while we're at it, add a Tropico lite mode where you can assemble your own military balancing buying arms from the Soviets and the Yanquis. Or a turn-based Six Day War.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2015 19:29
|
|
|
No joke, I would love a Paradox/Total War-game where I get to push sliders around while managing my third world hellhole. "Looks like Lubumba embezzled all the army funds again! Guess I can't afford those new Saggers for my boys. What a rascal."
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2015 19:33
|
|
|
Elukka posted:I think it makes sense for them to at least take a break now. I like Red Dragon a lot, but there's not a whole bunch more they could do by expanding the same formula anymore. I hope whenever they're done with the Act of War thing they do a Wargame 2, a real ground up sequel rather than a standalone expansion, and go Cold War again. So many games are WW2 by default and I like the 80's period much better. I guess part of the reason is also that they really need to do a new engine / iteration of the engine. Now that they've seen that RD might have been a step in the wrong direction (meaning naval component) they might have to revamp things like infantry fighting instead of adding new systems in place. I am of the same opinion in that cold war as a setting for the sequel would be the best choice, not to mention that if they want to do WW2 next, they have an existing IP in the form of RUSE.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2015 20:26
|
|
|
Can you imagine how slow the game would be when 90% of your infantry and artillery is at foot speed? Even if foot speed in this game is 30km/h
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2015 20:36
|
|
|
Space Wizard posted:No joke, I would love a Paradox/Total War-game where I get to push sliders around while managing my third world hellhole. "The Americans are willing to sell us their new attack helicopter, but only if we take 5,000 of these factory second Redeye SAMs"
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2015 20:40
|
|
|
Pharnakes posted:Can you imagine how slow the game would be when 90% of your infantry and artillery is at foot speed? Even if foot speed in this game is 30km/h This is why the Arab/Israeli wars appeal to me so much for this game. Lots of motorization, lots of armor, fair to good tank country, and early, primitive ATGMs. Also, the forums would be a pretty much non-stop supply of comedy gold.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2015 20:42
|
|
|
MrYenko posted:This is why the Arab/Israeli wars appeal to me so much for this game. Lots of motorization, lots of armor, fair to good tank country, and early, primitive ATGMs. Also a pretty wacky grab-bag of equipment stretching back to WWII, along with all sorts of oddball local variants and monkey model Soviet stuff.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2015 21:19
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:I'm not even kidding they should make it a MOBA. Use the maps and control zones and throw in a ton of AI units streaming in from the reinforce points and then give each player their own unit selection to add to the battle with. Dumbest thing I've ever heard.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2015 22:30
|
|
|
reagan posted:Dumbest thing I've ever heard. World in Conflict was actually really good, and Total War Arena is ok. MOBA-lized Wargame probably would have a larger player base, be pretty fun and be more competitive. Instead of choosing a hero you choose a specialization and nation, instead of your hero leveling up during a match, you gain access to progressively better equipment; instead of abilities you can call in planes.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2015 23:25
|
|
|
reagan posted:Dumbest thing I've ever heard. Imagine the center of Copenhagen, forever.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2015 00:26
|
|
|
OctaMurk posted:World in Conflict was actually really good, and Total War Arena is ok. MOBA-lized Wargame probably would have a larger player base, be pretty fun and be more competitive. Instead of choosing a hero you choose a specialization and nation, instead of your hero leveling up during a match, you gain access to progressively better equipment; instead of abilities you can call in planes. I would play the poo poo out of this.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2015 00:45
|
|
|
I hate MOBAs. I don't know why they're popular, so maybe I'm a weirdo. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2015 00:53
|
|
|
OctaMurk posted:World in Conflict was actually really good, and Total War Arena is ok. MOBA-lized Wargame probably would have a larger player base, be pretty fun and be more competitive. Instead of choosing a hero you choose a specialization and nation, instead of your hero leveling up during a match, you gain access to progressively better equipment; instead of abilities you can call in planes. There's a reason everybody loved 'tactical' servers.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2015 00:54
|
|
|
Eskaton posted:I hate MOBAs. I don't know why they're popular, so maybe I'm a weirdo. I dislike mobas too, but mainly because they rely on a really twitchy, max apm style of play and I hate that. Tactical servers though showed it could be pretty fun in some situations, and Octa's idea really ain't bad if you broke it down right. It'll still be a slower, more interesting style of play for the most part, more like TW:Arena as mentioned. To expand on the idea a little, you could even make up for some of Conquest's deficiencies by having real rewards for trying to keep dudes alive, like real vet bonuses or something. It'd probably suck as soon as people min/maxed it, as always, but it would be pretty cool none the less. And I've been wanting an Arab/Israeli version of Wargame since EE, it's the perfect loving setting. Lots of cold war equipment before it got too technical, and lots of lovely tactics to use on dumb people. Mazz fucked around with this message at 05:01 on Aug 16, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2015 04:57
|
|
|
My main issue with Wargame in general was the reaction Eugen had to people breaking the engine has been to reel in the system towards reinforcing the classical RTS style mechanics present in the game, when they had originally started in a more interesting, well wargame style hybrid. RTSes are a pretty dead genre, and at least for me one of the very fundamental reasons for it is that traditional RTS designs basically gate the actual, interesting tactical and strategic choices behind a fairly harsh APM and multitasking skill floor. Trying to outsmart the opponent often doesn't matter that much if you don't have the APM and the system mastery over the stupid tricks of the particular RTS engine you are using. Not only does that interfere with the whole 'strategy' thing the game is supposed to be about but it renders it rather stressful to play, as proven by the popularity of very large matches where you can kinda hide and relax a bit versus the tip of the spear 1v1 kinda thing. And the 'tactical' rooms aren't really popular because it's MOBA style, they are popular because the skill ceiling is lower since you don't have to multitask, so a mediocre player can have fun without getting crushed so much. I just wish people would have taken more seriously the UX innovations of Supreme Commander and actually tried to build a more relaxed RTS out of it. Wargame had a legit opportunity to do this with the large maps with rather slow units but quickly backpedaled when i think it really didn't go far enough in the first place. I really think they should have taken more out of the players ability to directly micromanage and simplify the design, if you look at something like "Fire Position" in Wargame it is used ONLY for breaking the system like shooting main guns at helos or targeting ATGMs the tank can't actually see. You may like that stuff if you're an experienced player that actually knows how to exploit it but it's still terrible game design.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2015 07:05
|
|
|
I still think a Cuito Cuanavale, Cuba + SWAPO vs South Africa campaign would be more interesting than Arab/Israeli, if just because you get weird motorized warfare across terrain unlike anything you usually see in wargames. Plus you get PACT as the good guys!
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2015 13:57
|
|
|
DOCTOR ZIMBARDO posted:I still think a Cuito Cuanavale, Cuba + SWAPO vs South Africa campaign would be more interesting than Arab/Israeli, if just because you get weird motorized warfare across terrain unlike anything you usually see in wargames. Plus you get PACT as the good guys! Add in a Rhodesian campaign and you have a deal.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2015 14:08
|
|
|
Mange Mite posted:Also a pretty wacky grab-bag of equipment stretching back to WWII, along with all sorts of oddball local variants and monkey model Soviet stuff. There was very little of anything the Soviets sent to the Arabs during those wars that would qualify as "monkey model". A lot of it came directly from Soviet factories, some of it even directly from Soviet units. Arguably the whole "monkey model" equipment stuff was never really a thing aside from simply selling gear one generation behind the current Soviet model, and not certain top-shelf equipment (like the T-64/80). But yeah, it would be a great mix of Western and Soviet equipment to throw around.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2015 14:36
|
|
|
Kafouille posted:My main issue with Wargame in general was the reaction Eugen had to people breaking the engine has been to reel in the system towards reinforcing the classical RTS style mechanics present in the game, when they had originally started in a more interesting, well wargame style hybrid. A good post.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2015 15:05
|
|
|
Kafouille posted:I just wish people would have taken more seriously the UX innovations of Supreme Commander and actually tried to build a more relaxed RTS out of it. Wargame had a legit opportunity to do this with the large maps with rather slow units but quickly backpedaled when i think it really didn't go far enough in the first place. I really think they should have taken more out of the players ability to directly micromanage and simplify the design, if you look at something like "Fire Position" in Wargame it is used ONLY for breaking the system like shooting main guns at helos or targeting ATGMs the tank can't actually see. You may like that stuff if you're an experienced player that actually knows how to exploit it but it's still terrible game design. And of course the daft part in all of this is that these are the guys who made Ruse so they presumably understand this already.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2015 15:09
|
|
|
The best use of Fire Position, is to use several flame thrower tanks to make literal walls of fire.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2015 15:16
|
|
|
Oh the days when flame tanks didn't need line of sight. Every little forest an infernal doom fortress.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2015 15:21
|
|
|
Pharnakes posted:Oh the days when flame tanks didn't need line of sight. The US campaign in the first game could be won on the backs of like 8 zippos before all the patches. Defending Ramstein involved about 12 units.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2015 17:38
|
|
|
Tropico cross wargame cross CK2 would loving rule.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2015 10:28
|
|
|
Scikar posted:And of course the daft part in all of this is that these are the guys who made Ruse so they presumably understand this already. Ruse, while definitely not a classical RTS is pretty much the poster child for Eugen half-hassing interesting gameplay features on top of basic engine rules that may as well be Dune II. The APM issue is really structural to classic RTS interfaces, and it would take a real concerted effort toward something like Combat Mission style separation of tactical unit AI who decides the exact movement and actions of a unit while the player gives more general orders. Have the player give basic position, facing and aggressive\defensive stance orders and have the units actually figure poo poo out like where exactly do i take cover and who do i shoot when by themselves. You can simulate at whatever depth you want at the unit level, but the orders you give need to be 'Defend this place' not 'Get behind that bush and shoot at that T-72 when it gets at exactly 550m' Having units that can actually get poo poo done when you are not looking at them is basically the goal, and the fact is you really have to both improve unit AI and somewhat hamstring the player ability to micromanage to achieve that.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2015 11:38
|
|
|
Losing that degree of control would be intolerable. I already grind my teeth when I see my tanks wiggle and expose their flanks to get around a tree stump or whatever when they're supposed to be backing up away from the enemy. The APM issue is inevitable unless you impose Harrison Bergeron/tabletop gaming style limitations to the number of orders players can issue in a given time period. Call them "command points" and make them an in-game resource generated by command vehicles. Even then, though, anyone who can issue commands faster still has an advantage.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2015 11:52
|
|
|
DOCTOR ZIMBARDO posted:Losing that degree of control would be intolerable. I already grind my teeth when I see my tanks wiggle and expose their flanks to get around a tree stump or whatever when they're supposed to be backing up away from the enemy. The APM issue is inevitable unless you impose Harrison Bergeron/tabletop gaming style limitations to the number of orders players can issue in a given time period. Call them "command points" and make them an in-game resource generated by command vehicles. Even then, though, anyone who can issue commands faster still has an advantage. Yeah, any RTS where you have control is going to have APM. There are things in games you just have to get good at. RUSE had some good ideas but the unit control, while handy for someone who just likes to push things around was extremely annoying when you were trying to do something specific, like have an AT gun stay in a patch of trees instead of kiting away from the enemy and leaving its position. The automatic behavior was sometimes cool but a lot of the time it just ended up being annoying as hell.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2015 12:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 07:20 |
|
|
The idea is to give units orders relative to your intent, not their physical status. So clicking somewhere (with click and hold to indicate facing) with a group of tanks and AA guns would see them convoy up with the tanks in front, at the speed of the slowest unit, then deploy in concealed positions within LOS and effective fire range with the tanks in front and the AA guns in whatever cover further back where they still have LOS to cover the tanks. And yes you would not be able to micromanage facings to the second in this, and sometimes they will gently caress up. Just like you aren't personally firing the main gun of every tank, and sometimes they miss. It's a spectrum and i'm simply arguing that there is a space to that side of classic RTS design, just like Men of War goes the other way. APM races are not inevitable in any way, but you do have to take some control away from the player to stop them exploiting the unit AI. Current wargame design is sorta going that way with simplified and streamlined system that end up having just as much if not more depth that classic 'everything and the kitchen sink' design, like Unity of Command. (Not to mention that having tanks reverse full speed in a forest is pretty ridiculous in itself but that's another thing)
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2015 12:34
|
|