|
Building custom decks was nice, but eventually led to very little variety as everyone min/maxed themselves into roughly the same few optimal setups. Historical decks would, for me, create more variety. More options to balance with a strict set of unit setups (shifting balance focus from the units to the decks) and promote team play, too.
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2016 18:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 08:30 |
|
|
So you're saying maps should be bigger. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2016 18:21
|
|
|
I would totally be okay with bigger maps if and only if airplanes cost way more or were way less available. Airplanes become way too game changing on those maps, and the best counter, air superiority planes, can do the dumbest poo poo if not babied the entire way. Having to wait like 6 minutes to replace dead AA is no bueno, we saw that on several of the RD release maps.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2016 18:26
|
|
|
The range scaling is pretty nuts. Having weapons with their real ranges would be an interesting change I think.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2016 19:05
|
|
|
Frosted Flake posted:The range scaling is pretty nuts. Having weapons with their real ranges would be an interesting change I think. Air superiority fighters wouldn't even show up on the map, just an air to air missile from off map streaking over to hit an enemy CAS plane/helicopter.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2016 19:10
|
|
|
DeathSandwich posted:Air superiority fighters wouldn't even show up on the map, just an air to air missile from off map streaking over to hit an enemy CAS plane/helicopter. Do it World in Conflict style, you buy a missile strike with your req points and it comes flying in from nowhere
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2016 19:18
|
|
|
I feel like I'm probably in the minority here but I really want to see a WW2 version. I think it fixes almost all the scaling issues and I really want to see a game where the lower power units are as useful as they are in real life, i.e. having a half-track with a .50 actually being useful as a force multiplier instead of being useful as something to make the enemy waste ATGMs on. That and I think a lot of the problems with air imbalance on big maps goes away when little rocket throwing planes become 100 point assets instead of disposable gimmick swarms. If people really really want cold war then alternatively "what if the Reds/Americans hit Berlin and kept going" alternate history timeline that tops out with first gen MCLOS
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2016 19:50
|
|
|
DeathSandwich posted:Air superiority fighters wouldn't even show up on the map, just an air to air missile from off map streaking over to hit an enemy CAS plane/helicopter. In this case realism is balance. Helicopters being so low most of the time, RADAR guided missiles are rarely a threat. And during the time period (1991 being the latest date IIRC) any long-medium range missiles at this stage are very unreliable and BVR combat are essentially jousting matches while closing into dogfight. We saw this in the Gulf War where giant furballs would appear in the air and the average engagement range was something of 1-10 miles, even with the Iraqis being like 10-20 years behind the US (with export variant) in their airframes.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2016 20:01
|
|
|
DeathSandwich posted:Air superiority fighters wouldn't even show up on the map, just an air to air missile from off map streaking over to hit an enemy CAS plane/helicopter. Good
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2016 20:16
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:I feel like I'm probably in the minority here but I really want to see a WW2 version. I think it fixes almost all the scaling issues and I really want to see a game where the lower power units are as useful as they are in real life, i.e. having a half-track with a .50 actually being useful as a force multiplier instead of being useful as something to make the enemy waste ATGMs on. The humble .50 bmg seems a little underpowered in the game, too.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2016 20:19
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:I feel like I'm probably in the minority here but I really want to see a WW2 version. I think it fixes almost all the scaling issues and I really want to see a game where the lower power units are as useful as they are in real life, i.e. having a half-track with a .50 actually being useful as a force multiplier instead of being useful as something to make the enemy waste ATGMs on. In theory you're correct, but you forget. Of the two people who influence the nitty gritty details of the game, one can't design his way out of a wet paper bag and the other doesn't like strategy games. There's nothing fundamentally wrong with Wargame that can't be fixed, it's just that it won't. Instead, the design will consider units as empty containers which can be arbitrarily assigned attributes depending on "meta" and "balance" and other RTS-y things. Case in point: radar AA vs. SEAD. Turning individual weapons off individual units was an afterthought, done because Steel Panthers had the same feature. It received no attention at all until SEAD entered play and you could micromanage units to shoot at planes at advantageous times. A strategy game would have removed the whole mechanic as stupid attention sink and fudged the results somehow. Instead Eugen went with the crowd who think it's a neat little mechanic and rewards clicky. Result: you have to play clicky or you play at a huge disadvantage. I'm the first person to wish I'm wrong and we get a strategy game for the ages, I really do. I just have very little reason to believe in such a thing.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2016 21:07
|
|
|
Mange Mite posted:The humble .50 bmg seems a little underpowered in the game, too. I think part of the problem is the lack of infantry's role outside of sticking them in buildings where they're tanky. Infantry assaults on foot are just overwhelmingly useless in this game so a lot of times the infantry meta devolves around managing to suicide rush your squads into the few locations where they suddenly became impossible to kill without specific weapons. I think the infantry in game should be a lot cheaper and a lot harder to kill outside of buildings (maybe make them panic more easily to balance?) and have a lot harder time killing tanks/vehicles (a US Rifleman 90 squad carries 6 LAWs for example when it should be more like 1 or 2). Basically there should be way more line infantry on the map, and sending a company across a hundred meter gap between the woodline and a town shouldn't become an instant meat grinder because there's a squad in a building on the edge. Though honestly just reducing the ATGMs on the field so that you can use lighter vehicles without them all being vaporized instantly by an ATGM swarm might fix quite a bit of the problem even just making the logistics of keeping them armed so wasting multiple ATGMs on a M113 isn't a winning strategy anymore might do it. It would also be nice if we could form mixed platoons or otherwise having a single attachment spot for a weapons team when making a platoon of line infantry. Stuff like the SMAW units would be way more useful if you could attach a single team to a line unit to bolster them instead of having to micromanage individual teams or platoons of SMAWs or stingers.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2016 21:27
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:I think part of the problem is the lack of infantry's role outside of sticking them in buildings where they're tanky. Infantry assaults on foot are just overwhelmingly useless in this game so a lot of times the infantry meta devolves around managing to suicide rush your squads into the few locations where they suddenly became impossible to kill without specific weapons. 1) A while ago a patch gave infantry in forests extra resistance to HE damage, so they're not just relevant in cities. Infantry are relevant on every map, and are useful in almost every "lane" of every map. 2) Infantry assaults on foot have been "overwhelmingly useless" since the Somme. This is working as intended. EDIT: Jarmak posted:Basically there should be way more line infantry on the map, and sending a company across a hundred meter gap between the woodline and a town shouldn't become an instant meat grinder because there's a squad in a building on the edge. John Keegan, "The Face of Battle", 247-48 (1976) posted:Most soldiers were encountering heavy fire within seconds of leaving their trenches. The 10th West Yorks, attacking towards the ruined village of Fricourt, had its two follow-up companies caught in the open by German machine gunners who emerged from their dug-outs after the leading waves had passed over them and onward. They were nearly annihilated. The 15th and 16th Royal Scotts were caught in a flank by machine guns firing from the ruins of La Boiselle and lost several hundred men in a few minutes. Dave47 fucked around with this message at 00:07 on Apr 29, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2016 23:53
|
|
|
Dave47 posted:
That's a ridiculous statement and your quote has nothing to do with it. The overwhelming majority of all combat in the 21st century was infantry assaults on foot. You're talking about human wave tactics which are not at all the same thing.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2016 00:53
|
|
|
Dave47 posted:Two responses: No it was to get rid of the fact that infantry in forests took extra HE damage in forests.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2016 00:59
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:That's a ridiculous statement and your quote has nothing to do with it. The overwhelming majority of all combat in the 21st century was infantry assaults on foot. Part of the problem is that wargame abstracts away infantry scale terrain and pretends it doesn't exist, as well as making a total mess of any suppression mechanics.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2016 01:31
|
|
|
xthetenth posted:Part of the problem is that wargame abstracts away infantry scale terrain and pretends it doesn't exist, as well as making a total mess of any suppression mechanics. I think that's really the main problem, the game treats any terrain outside of buildings or forest as if it's a a parking lot.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2016 01:41
|
|
|
Xerxes17 posted:No it was to get rid of the fact that infantry in forests took extra HE damage in forests. Man, Red Dragon launched in terrible shape. It only becomes worse with hindsight. Thank goodness Eugen was willing to keep tinkering with it, even if they don't really have a coherent vision. Jarmak posted:That's a ridiculous statement and your quote has nothing to do with it. The overwhelming majority of all combat in the 21st century was infantry assaults on foot. Especially since infantry assaults are pretty viable right now! A British deck that follow the Somme strategy of "land hella artillery on a town and then send in hella men on foot to capture it" won't really have much trouble with enemy infantry. Special forces are super fast, Territorials are super cheap, and both fire on the move without penalty. (What will ruin the plan is if enemy tanks and IFVs can fire on the advancing infantry. But, again: At some point, sufficient firepower should thwart infantry advances. Tanks are part of a balanced attack!) EDIT: Speaking of "balanced attacks" play Wargame. Right now. Dave47 fucked around with this message at 01:58 on Apr 29, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2016 01:48
|
|
|
Dave47 posted:Wait, really? The problem is that right now the infantry pretty much just get instantly sliced to pieces when trying to move in on foot when the more realistic result would be they would get bogged down and pinned. The latter would allow the attackers to use base of fire elements to try to suppress defenders and move their infantry forward, whereas currently it just pretty much becomes an instant failure. edit: I'm not saying infantry should be able to just run into town without support, but the current meta of "fast drive on the road and hope you make it to houses before your carriers pop" is not realistic or fun. It should be the carriers discharging troops outside of LAW range and providing fire support along with heavier elements as they advance into the town, or troops crossing from a wood line into the town with arty/mortars/smoke and maybe a platoon or some trucks in the wood line trying to suppress the defenders. Jarmak fucked around with this message at 02:03 on Apr 29, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2016 02:00
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:The problem is that right now the infantry pretty much just get instantly sliced to pieces when trying to move in on foot when the more realistic result would be they would get bogged down and pinned. The latter would allow the attackers to use base of fire elements to try to suppress defenders and move their infantry forward, whereas currently it just pretty much becomes an instant failure. Sounds like ssomething that could be handled with changes to the morale system vs. Straight infantry he damage
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2016 03:07
|
|
|
Mange Mite posted:Sounds like ssomething that could be handled with changes to the morale system vs. Straight infantry he damage I think the easiest way to improve it without redoing a huge amount of game systems would be to massively increase infantry survive-ability, especially in the open, but make them massively more susceptible to morale shocks , especially in the open. Also making the infantry combat more morale based leaves the door open to giving a better proper distinction between different troop qualities in a more realistic way then making them run fast and do more damage.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2016 03:27
|
|
|
Also do infantry have crits right now? They should
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2016 03:32
|
|
|
Anybody who has any idea of ALB modding, please help. I'm trying to add various forms of transports to the last campaign of NATO that I have modified. I've added and increased vehicles and all that, but I'd like to have decks with riflemen that can either come with bradleys or humvees, etc etc. I've found a way, which I believe should be correct, in adding them. Yet, it makes the game crash, and it corrupts the ndf. Under TwargameNationDeck, which stores all the decks, I'm opening up the 194th American, which is under the number 64875. Under that, the infantry and their transports, are number 1855, TransportsLimitationsByUnits, a type of MapList, a collection of four. I open that, I add a new row with the same value. As keytype, I assign objectreference, TuniteAuSolDescriptor, 8980, which is the american rifleman unit. Valuetype is a "maplist". When it is done, I open it up, and two screens pop up. The riflemen keytype, which has all the info for riflemen, and then an empty valuetype. In there, I add an objectreference TLimitationByUnit, and I put it number 65076, which is the m998 humvee. I save. I open ALB. It crashes. I go back tot he modeditor, and this NDF can't be opened anymore no matter what I try. I restore the file from a backup. I cry a lot. What gives?
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2016 06:28
|
|
|
Have you tried as something that isn't a maplist? I think there are two kinds of list you can save as, if I'm not mistaken
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2016 06:45
|
|
|
THe other entries are maplists, the existing ones.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2016 06:48
|
|
|
Vahakyla posted:I save. I open ALB. It crashes. I go back tot he modeditor, and this NDF can't be opened anymore no matter what I try. I restore the file from a backup. I cry a lot. What gives? Did you add entries into TTransportableModuleDescriptor?
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2016 07:25
|
|
|
Hob_Gadling posted:Did you add entries into TTransportableModuleDescriptor? Nope, I did not. How and where do I do that?
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2016 08:06
|
|
|
Vahakyla posted:Nope, I did not. How and where do I do that? There's a class called TTransportableModuleDescriptor. If you add new combinations of infantry-transport, you need to edit existing instances there.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2016 11:15
|
|
|
Anybody else a little ticked that the game has no way to model Soviet tactics IE motostrelki attacks where infantry and IFVs advance together
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2016 21:12
|
|
|
I'm more ticked that an infantry squad can be regularly wiped out entirely from 2km away within seconds, without any repercussions whatsoever. Can't really have a mechanized advance without that.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2016 21:59
|
|
|
Phi230 posted:Anybody else a little ticked that the game has no way to model Soviet tactics IE motostrelki attacks where infantry and IFVs advance together Some report I read on the war in Ukraine indicated that this is actually similar in reality. Turns out charging in with IFVs doesn't work. It talked about troops on both sides choosing to ride on the outside because you have a better change of bailing when it inevitably gets hit by an RPG or ATGM. They're huge AT weapon magnets that provide no useful protection against them.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2016 22:15
|
|
|
Elukka posted:Well, you can do it, it's just it's a terrible idea because if the IFVs are in infantry range they get mulched in seconds. Hm is this why the next gen Russian IFV is based on a tank chassis with a similar level of armor? Sort of like those old frankenstein APCs the Israelis used to make out of captured T-55s
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2016 22:41
|
|
|
Mange Mite posted:Hm is this why the next gen Russian IFV is based on a tank chassis with a similar level of armor? Sort of like those old frankenstein APCs the Israelis used to make out of captured T-55s That would be the T-15. They're the replacement for the BMP-2 and MT-LB. They're covered in the same ERA that the T-80U's have. They also come standard with a 30mm autocannon which some people are saying may have CIWS capabilities. (Side note, the new Russian MBT's can fire AA missiles. So, yeah)
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2016 12:23
|
|
|
Dave47 posted:Wait, really? So, in ALB i was able to win games with a cat c w. German deck i called 'vietcong' because everyone was so atgm-focused that heimats could walk right in. In reality there isnt that much truly open ground on a man scale. Theres almost always somewhere to hide. Keegan spoke only of the British experience at the Somme. The more experienced French used the terrain to much better effect with bounding moves and made much better progress.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2016 13:01
|
|
|
Tired of being outdone by the VDV song, the PLA has produced an awkward music video of their own. http://tv.81.cn/sytj-tupian/2016-04/28/content_7028467.htm
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2016 21:04
|
|
|
Latest patch broke Uralmod again.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2016 21:40
|
|
|
reagan posted:Latest patch broke Uralmod again. This. If anyone wants to teach me how the build works I'll be happy to build it, I'm actually literally a professional hosed up build understander (among other more glamorous things).
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2016 23:13
|
|
|
Run the xml thing then do a million complicated manual edits.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2016 12:03
|
|
|
http://aoa.eugensystems.com/act-of-aggression-reboots-and-is-now-50-off-on-steam/ Ignoring the bit about them overhauling their unsuccessful game, at the bottom there's mention of an announcement on something Wargame related soon. ...pleeeeaase be Wargame 4...
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2016 00:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 08:30 |
|
|
Mr Luxury Yacht posted:http://aoa.eugensystems.com/act-of-aggression-reboots-and-is-now-50-off-on-steam/ Oh god please give me a new Wargame game
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2016 00:42
|
|