|
Essentially they just need to make a realtime Steel Panthers 3. I'll settle for SP2 and grumble but play for a decade if they remake SP1.
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2016 18:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 19:51 |
|
|
Agean90 posted:It really was. Sadly the dev is stuck in mobile game hell from what I remember Well they did just release notably non mobile title "Tom Clancy's The Division" (although I bet very little of the original Massive staff is still there). Hob_Gadling posted:Essentially they just need to make a realtime Steel Panthers 3. I'll settle for SP2 and grumble but play for a decade if they remake SP1. What interests me about this game is the move towards an RTS that permits low actions per minute and rewards a focus on positioning, information, and high level macro rather than build orders and micro. That's what I want in Wargame Next, no more fiddling over my radars and no more trying to get my choppers to unload their drat infantry and no more winning or losing the game in the first 5 minutes.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2016 18:13
|
|
|
The fiddly two abilities on every unit in WiC are on their own why I'd rather a wargame inspired by wic than vice versa.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2016 18:21
|
|
|
When it comes to AD radars, veteran units should automatically shut down their radar when there's SEAD in the area and turn them on when they have left or if you specifically order them to attack something.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2016 18:24
|
|
|
Do you think it would be cool if your list unlocked in stages. Like you'd have a recon element, an assault element, and a support element. First ten minutes of the match is all skirmishers, then you start rolling in your mechanized infantry and mortars and tanks, then the air support and heavy artillery pops in. Or would that just create more snowballs, by making the recon stage so vital that it's the only one that matters?
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2016 18:46
|
|
|
General Battuta posted:Do you think it would be cool if your list unlocked in stages. Like you'd have a recon element, an assault element, and a support element. First ten minutes of the match is all skirmishers, then you start rolling in your mechanized infantry and mortars and tanks, then the air support and heavy artillery pops in. It could be really cool, because depending on how it's done, that would mean the guy who takes ground with helo borne infantry is stuck with his tanks taking a lot longer to show up from across the map. Having a real skirmish phase with real skirmishers is a good idea because it sets up so that early game wins can be reversed, and some actual anti slippery slope mechanics brought in. Maybe go all the way and do a mode with victory points coming from territory control but also territory control making the other side get their escalations sooner. So first skirmishing with some heliborne, some helos and some light motorized, then bringing in heavy wheeled with some real AA, and finally a real proper mechanized/armored steamroller, where the guy with a leg up has to hold or consider ceding ground when his helo infantry get assaulted by moto troops and his only heavy support is helos picking around the edges of AA. This idea has been floated before and I think there's some really interesting things you could do with it, so I might have to effortpost.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2016 19:11
|
|
|
xthetenth posted:The fiddly two abilities on every unit in WiC are on their own why I'd rather a wargame inspired by wic than vice versa. Could do cool little ones too. Like switching to Optical mode for a SAM in a SEAD/ECM environment etc with reduced capability but not jammable.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2016 19:25
|
|
|
I don't think dialing back the scope is the right way to move forward at all, that's half the appeal of wargame. Reducing micro and making the larger scope more congruent is how I think they should move forward, if that part of the game has to change at all. Also there's more to the Middle East than deserts, they could have a significant variety of terrain.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2016 19:35
|
|
|
Koramei posted:I don't think dialing back the scope is the right way to move forward at all, that's half the appeal of wargame. Reducing micro and making the larger scope more congruent is how I think they should move forward, if that part of the game has to change at all. Highway of Death (2p) Suez Canal (4p) Toyota Country (4p) Baghdad in the Bag (6p) Golan Heights (8p) Aleppo (10v10 no time limit total destruction) 
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2016 19:53
|
|
|
Koramei posted:I don't think dialing back the scope is the right way to move forward at all, that's half the appeal of wargame. Reducing micro and making the larger scope more congruent is how I think they should move forward, if that part of the game has to change at all. Reducing micro is exactly why I want more automatization to cover for micro AND it gives your units more flavor when they aren't completely helpless on their own. General Battuta posted:Highway of Death (2p) Don't forget Khorramshahr (8p), Mehran (4p), Mersad (6p) and Hawizeh Marshes (4p) for that Iran-Iraq simulation whenever you need to emulate WW1 with jets.
Triple A fucked around with this message at 20:06 on Apr 18, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2016 19:56
|
|
|
I want panicked armored units to reverse away from the threat axis, as well... I'm amazed they seem to have zero interest in another Wargame, given that they are polish and a couple of minor features (and mod tools) away from having the best company-level wargame ( ) in twenty years.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2016 20:01
|
|
|
2006 Tyre Turtle: one side has a balanced force of tanks, jets, and infantry. The other side has a shitload of rocket arty and FOBs.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2016 20:23
|
|
|
MrYenko posted:I want panicked armored units to reverse away from the threat axis, as well... I'm pretty sure Wargame has been financially a lot more successful for them than any other title as well. It has no competition and pretty good market appeal to nationalists, war nerds, people who like war games but are not total grognards, etc. I honestly think they could have gone the DLC route and made a shitload more money off of this game. Release the core NATO and WP nations, then charge like $10 for a Benelux pack that gives you The Netherlands and Belgium, Southern Front pack that gives you Turkey and Italy, etc. Pretty much cosmetic DLC that people that people would deffo pay for.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2016 20:50
|
|
|
Koramei posted:I don't think dialing back the scope is the right way to move forward at all, that's half the appeal of wargame. Reducing micro and making the larger scope more congruent is how I think they should move forward, if that part of the game has to change at all. I agree completely. We shouldn't remove units if we can help it, or otherwise we could risk losing a lot of units we take for granted. We have the units. Now we need the mechanics. And on that note, I have more to add to my wish list. FOBs should have a CRAM system to defend itself against mortar and arty strikes. Can still get overwhelmed. I'd like to abolish 'recon infantry' and just give all infantry varying levels of recon quality depending on their training and combat experience. I'd also like to see armor and aircraft get a reconnaissance buff. Mainly tanks and jets. If a vehicle is known to have NV or thermals, it should be reflected in their optics and whether they can see targets easier in forests, hedgerows, etc. Jets with a good radar should be able to see airborne units (planes, helicopters) from further out. Maybe even going as far as to see ( but not ID ) the quantity of units in the enemy's air corridor before they enter the map. This last bit could synergize well with Leif's proposal of forcing units to larger elements. I'd also like to see a rebalancing of Sam missile damage. A buk or patriot should OHK far more reliably, and shouldnt require calling in two at a time to work. The missiles are the size of telephone poles. Come on. I still think TORs and OSAs should be able to intercept missiles like they can IRL.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2016 21:29
|
|
|
MrYenko posted:I want panicked armored units to reverse away from the threat axis, as well... It's not that we don't have mod tools, it's that we don't have mod support. Steam workshop integration so that people can find the mod, install and then look for games seamlessly is the major stumbling block these days.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2016 21:56
|
|
|
The last thing I attempted to make in Wargame was a SP3-simile with two main ideas. 1) Units come in platoons of 1, 2 or 4. Recon, SF, planes, HQs and such come in one at a time. Modern tanks, ATGM carriers, weapon teams, rocket arty (including Buratinos), helos and so on come in pairs. Infantry, older armor, tube arty and other stuff like that comes in units of four. Split button is disabled: you can only recombine units into larger platoons but you can't split them. The whole thing would need to be re-priced and availed to account for this change. Morale should be largely dependent on platoon size, with single units being susceptible to routing while platoons of four being effectively immune. 2) No supply trucks. Huge fuel increase for all units, enough to make gas irrelevant except in cases of crits. Artillery ammo amount would be checked to make all tubes have at least some ammo. Rocket artillery is effectively one-shot but since you get launchers in pairs it'd be pretty drat powerful, once. Planes don't reload ammo or repair damage, "fuel" is just a timer until they can make another pass. This doesn't touch the game modes and other things I'd change if I could, but it might have been a start. Unfortunately I couldn't find a way to force several individual units to spawn every time something was called on the field; the only variable was visual only. If anyone knows a way, PM me.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2016 22:03
|
|
|
Koramei posted:I don't think dialing back the scope is the right way to move forward at all, that's half the appeal of wargame. Reducing micro and making the larger scope more congruent is how I think they should move forward, if that part of the game has to change at all. They could learn a ton from Battlefleet Gothic. That has the ability to set behaviors for every unit and you can put every ability on autocast at will. In multiplayer it gives each player a limited (non-regenerating) pool of bullet-time for those critical high-micro moments. And most importantly - you can give your units orders during the deployment phase (three loving Wargame-series games and you still haven't done this Eugen?).
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2016 22:59
|
|
|
Amtranik, agree with everything you said,Amtranik posted:CRAM system THAAD/C-RAM platforms in general please
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2016 23:14
|
|
|
Xerxes17 posted:It's not that we don't have mod tools, it's that we don't have mod support. Steam workshop integration so that people can find the mod, install and then look for games seamlessly is the major stumbling block these days. They're less mod tools and more ways of making mods, IMO. I'd kill for access to stuff that only the devs have. Amtranik posted:I'd also like to see a rebalancing of Sam missile damage. A buk or patriot should OHK far more reliably, and shouldnt require calling in two at a time to work. The missiles are the size of telephone poles. Come on. One shot kills are swingy as poo poo. Dandywalken posted:Could do cool little ones too. Like switching to Optical mode for a SAM in a SEAD/ECM environment etc with reduced capability but not jammable. Those would actually be worth having, although it might be good to move that to as high a spot in the UI as possible (IE an always-visible button).
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2016 23:15
|
|
|
Xerxes17 posted:Deserts only Wargame makes me thing of every map being Hop to Glory and I shudder in pain. Yes this.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2016 01:07
|
|
|
RD would have been much more playable at least at the outset if they'd rebalanced all of the units instead of just having power creep added to the top. It would have also benefitted from having all of the old superfluous poo poo removed. In a world where you're slinging Ka-52s, M1A2s, etc. anything from 1965 will either be utterly useless or ridiculous cheese. Fun as it may have been to fast-move RR jeeps across Ragnarok.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2016 03:51
|
|
|
I'd be really interested to see what could be done if deck building was combining platoon/company strength elements together rather than buying a selection of squads and jamming them together however the minmax dictates. One thing I think could be done that would be really interesting is letting you make line infantry in expensive fast helicopters viable and a distinct choice rather than a way to spend a lot of points on a really weak infantry force. So for example, you could have the option of four squads of riflemen 90 in blackhawks, two squads of rangers in blackhawks and a DAP, two squads of delta force in little birds with two more carrying grenade launchers, and two squads of marines 90 in CH-46s and a seacobra as the infantry selection for a modern airborne company. Right now I think the deck system has a huge amount of minmax optimization for a small amount of really serious capability choice (although that does have its own appeal), and I'd be interested to see if the feeling of jamming together a scratch force from the campaigns could work and be interesting in regular multi.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2016 04:27
|
|
|
Even if Eugen changes literally nothing else, if they had customizable multiplayer campaigns downloadable via steam workshop then WG4 would be the groggiest game ever and grognards would never stop buying it. This would really put the giant unit roster filled with units from 1950 onward to good use. A small thing, but something I've wanted since EE, is a smarter unload system. I want the unload command to be targeted, with a click-drag system. Where you initially target the unload is where the vehicle attempts to move to to unload, and the drag location gives an automatic first move command to the infantry it unloads. (Double-hit 'U' to instantly unload at the current position like normal.) This would be amazing if paired with a smarter helicopter waypoint AI, so you'll see a helicopter smoothly descend to its LZ (rather than flailing around drunkenly), and infantry will dismount then automatically moves into the forest or building. That would save a ton of micromanagement. I wonder if there could be way to expand the recon/information game away from the binary system in place. Right now either you have vision on a unit (and thus it can be targeted with any unit in line-of-sight), or you don't. I think it'd be cool if you could have multiple levels of contact info, such as a historical fog-of-war contact for a unit nobody can currently see, or even "seeing" a unit but not having an exact fix on its location precise enough to fire on it (and maybe having its rendered position be different than its actual position so even commanded-fire is inaccurate). One game to check out is the Modern Warfare mod for World in Conflict. (http://www.moddb.com/mods/wicmw). The author's gone all-out on trying to model network-centric warfare, and he's gone so far so every missile in the game uses custom missile code to allow for better flight modeling and missile interception via APS or C-RAM. He's also removed all the "press-button for extra damage" like vanilla WiC has (units automatically fire TOWs, and APS/smoke automatically deploys.) He's also removed a lot of the tactical call-ins and offloaded them to actual artillery/plane units, and then took manual control away from those unless you use a JTAC or a unit with radio to call in from the artillery net. That would be interesting to add to Wargame, as it would completely eliminate artillery sniping. I'm not sure it would work so well for planes -- in WiCMWMod planes are constantly falling out of the sky as they get constantly shot down by F-22s or S-300s, and it only works because you don't have to pay for new planes. The game also tends to end up as ballistic missile spam, as you use the tac points to call in ballistic or cruise missile launchers, hoping that eventually you can overcome the enemy's IADS shooting down your missile via sheer numbers. I don't know how the game plays against human, but versus AI the game doesn't seem quite balanced for gameplay rather than realism. The Apache Longbow can radar-designate then ripple off a ton of Hellfire-Ks and demolish entire tank platoons in seconds while staying underneath an IADS umbrella, which doesn't seem like it'd be fun to play against.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2016 06:29
|
|
|
Azran posted:Wrong link, buddy. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4SgsWx4yrWY
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2016 16:04
|
|
|
I will say I don't mind crazy prototypes at all so long as they fit in the design of the game. For instance, instead of shoving in the Longbow as a recon Helo on top being the best AT helo in the game, you could've thrown a RAH-66 in there with something like 4 Stingers and 2 Hellfire As, but like really small size or whatever the ECM for helos was. Good, interesting, but nothing that defines a nations style of play. The unicorn unit problem was they rarely balanced them to fit in the overall scheme. The BMPT was an example, at first it was way too cheap but later on it was just a cool and good unit after like 3 balance passes. Stuff like the MBT-70, or a working Sgt. York are part of the cool factor of a Cold War gone hot game, so I don't want to see them gone entirely. This is especially true for decks that have some big hole. If the US needs the Javelin or the Chinese the Type 96 to be more competitive in some factor, I'd just give it to them in some balanced form then leave this big stupid hole. Also, idk if I agree with off map artillery since then CB or artillery hunting SF runs are no longer a thing. Artillery worked fine in ALB as a debuff/HVT (CV, AA) killer, I don't see the need for much change there barring stuff like that ammo cost rebalance for light howitzers they did in the latest RD patch. Also, I've always been of the opinion that more nations isn't always a good thing if they end up half full or not interesting. I look at both blue dragon decks this way right now. Mazz fucked around with this message at 14:16 on Apr 21, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2016 14:08
|
|
|
Blue Dragons are grenade launcher fun. The Commonwealth minors and Scandi teams are the ones I'd call generic. I didn't get into the series until Red Dragon but personally the variety of factions and scale of the maps have been some of the biggest selling points of it to me. The fact most people play nothing but USSR is my biggest complaint, so encouraging more of that by limiting the teams seems really weird to me. Unit bloat is part of the game, you could strip half them out and it'd still be confusing as poo poo for new players, and as it is they add a hell of a lot of character. I don't understand why people ITT want to turn literally the only RTS ever of this scale into CoH/WiC 2.0.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2016 05:09
|
|
|
A public scenario editor would be fantastic, especially if they could be easily distributed for multiplayer. Obviously public mod tools + steam workshop or similar would also be great.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2016 07:28
|
|
|
Oh man. Coop campaign/scenario playing, moddable campaigns and scenarios, map editor and scenario editor, workshop support. I would be playing this game for years and years, cooping with my buddies from ww1 to vietnam to modern times. But instead there is Act of Aggression.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2016 07:34
|
|
|
Oh yeah the map editor would be the best thing they could release. Apparently there are licensing issues with that though.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2016 07:37
|
|
|
Hey other Mod guys, did we ever find out if the "AA accuracy versus aircraft isnt dependent on range" thing? For SAM's I mean. gently caress I'd love to somehow make that scaleable for both AA missiles and SAM's 
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2016 00:26
|
|
|
When editing the ALB campaign I am working on, I want to not only change the transports of some of the infantry, but add new combinations. However, I do not know how. Under TWargameNationDeck, I open up TransportLimitationsByUnits, which has the infantry units in there. I added a new row, under MAP, with TuniteAuSolDescriptor Value of the US rifleman, 8980. However, I can't add the transport. If I open any of the existing infantry units, two windows pop up. The objectreference for the vehicle, and the unitdescription for the infantry. How do I make my newly added riflemen have transports and how do I add it in?
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2016 01:55
|
|
|
Looking at it now. TWargameNationDeck is where you go. Under Unit Limitations find the unit, and d-click TLimitationPerUnit Transporter is defined there. PS I genuinely didnt know when you asked me on Steam, I just opened it now in the background and looked a bit :P
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2016 02:09
|
|
|
Sorry, I don't know about that. edit: gently caress 
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2016 02:10
|
|
|
Incidentally, someone who knows, how hard is it to build a new version of Uralmod? I'd love to know, I'm not actually up to speed with how it works with the current tools.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2016 02:52
|
|
|
I'm crying right now.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2016 02:57
|
|
|
Historical and 'realistic' decks are a great way to play. It's different handling a Motor Rifle Regiment or Separate Naval Infantry Regiment that having a mishmash of all kinds of assets. I would be on board with future wargames building decks with real units.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2016 18:06
|
|
|
Koramei posted:I didn't get into the series until Red Dragon but personally the variety of factions and scale of the maps have been some of the biggest selling points of it to me. The fact most people play nothing but USSR is my biggest complaint, so encouraging more of that by limiting the teams seems really weird to me. Unit bloat is part of the game, you could strip half them out and it'd still be confusing as poo poo for new players, and as it is they add a hell of a lot of character. I don't understand why people ITT want to turn literally the only RTS ever of this scale into CoH/WiC 2.0. This. One of the big draws for the game for me is I can set up silly skirmishes of everything from US vs. Soviet Union in the early 1980s to France vs. Germany in the 90s. Building themed decks out of a billion and a half units is a ton of fun. Naval was a bit pointless yes, but personally I want more nations and above all more campaigns in a newer Wargame. Also not blocking out deck names in lobbies because dammit I worked hard on those puns! ...if we ever get one 
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2016 21:50
|
|
|
I would have forgiven the naval aspect if they had actually sperged out like they did with the land equipment and included all the boats.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2016 00:53
|
|
|
The boats show how adding in anti-missile systems would actually be annoying as gently caress
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2016 17:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 19:51 |
|
|
The boats were done very poorly and highlight the scaling problems. Youre launching missiles that are supposed to be fired like 80 miles away at essentually point blank. Plus we dont have the ships (ticonderoga/kirov) to actually fight with missiles properly Also if you measure it out a 2 lane road is 150 meters across. The ranges are horribly scaled so it makes all the engagements wonky and not play as they should
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2016 18:00
|
|