|
Coming back.
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2017 21:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 08:30 |
|
|
I've seen ducks, JU88s, and BF109s go down to massed AAA fire now. Thunderbolts and 190s can still get away though.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2017 22:10
|
|
|
I think you'll find historically that no planes have ever been lost to flak. Unsubscribe.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2017 22:24
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:I think you'll find historically that no planes have ever been lost to flak. only because that noob hitler didn't mass enough 88's lol
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2017 22:32
|
|
|
Apparently the big division balance patch is coming out next week. Buff to 716, 352, Guards, and 3rd AD are some of the stuff mentioned.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2017 23:36
|
|
|
pedro0930 posted:Buff to... 352 
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2017 01:21
|
|
|
Danann posted:I've seen ducks, JU88s, and BF109s go down to massed AAA fire now. Thunderbolts and 190s can still get away though. This seems historically accurate.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2017 01:52
|
|
|
Update is out: https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/index.php?threads/the-division-bell-update-is-now-available.1041731/ quote:Our aim with this update is to offer more diversity in division choice for competitive play while restoring a better balance in larger games. To do so, we have made enhancements at different scales for almost all divisions. pedro0930 fucked around with this message at 10:09 on Aug 30, 2017 |
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2017 09:59
|
|
|
Three months late.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2017 15:25
|
|
|
http://steamcharts.com/app/572410 Yeah, not looking good. Red Dragon has a higher population base at this point.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2017 01:03
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2017 11:29
|
|
|
Game was over faster than the actual invasion of Normandy 
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2017 15:30
|
|
|
I still think it was matchmaking and single player that killed this game. People can point to the oversaturated ww2 game market and that's true. But the big thing is new players came in, got frustrated with the lovely single player, got frustrated with being stomped over and over by teams of guys with 3+ years in wargame, and quit. End of story.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2017 16:09
|
|
|
Tbf I think the players helped to kill the game by never using team ranked or quick match.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2017 16:12
|
|
|
The sad death of a game: e: I'd attribute the failure more to the atrocious online lobby that's been the same since Wargame:EE and the unforgivable fact that its still possible for one person with a poor PC to ruin everyone else's experience. The numbers were there at launch to maintain the game, people were turned off by the unnecessary pain involved in getting an actual game. e: I'll get on discord Alchenar fucked around with this message at 16:28 on Aug 31, 2017 |
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2017 16:19
|
|
|
Too bad, I really liked the game. Still gonna play it some, get on discord.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2017 16:23
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:I still think it was matchmaking and single player that killed this game. People can point to the oversaturated ww2 game market and that's true. But the big thing is new players came in, got frustrated with the lovely single player, got frustrated with being stomped over and over by teams of guys with 3+ years in wargame, and quit. End of story. The single player was kind of lovely, yeah. Some of the missions were pretty cool, some of them weren't. They should have been geared more toward combined arms and giving players more freedom to build decks with cool stuff in them. The maps could be a little overwhelming in terms of size and amount of things to manage, too. I played for a while, then hung up the game to wait for some larger balance patch that only just came out now. Welp. Alchenar posted:The sad death of a game: The lobby and MM were bad, yeah, but I think the bad PC thing has more to do with it. I can't tell you how many WG or SD games were ruined because of one guy.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2017 16:35
|
|
|
I don't deny that for a game that sort of doesn't want you to micromanage, if you're spread out over a front it can be tough to keep track of everything, but honestly the smaller maps where you have too many players really cramped the ability to create salients or push at all. There shouldn't have been 10v10 servers.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2017 17:20
|
|
|
I think another problem is that while the UI tried to show more info, some of the underlying game mechanics actually got more opaque. The penetration/damage model is the example coming to mind; if you played Wargame you could mostly understand it, but if you were new to the series it isn't very obvious at all. One game your Sherman could beat 3 Panzer IIIs head on, and the next game it gets penned and crit in the first shot. To a new player what can you even learn from that? On top of the rest of the stuff you guys covered, which I agree was likely the bigger problems, ultimately this is a good game but features way too many things that forces/scares players away.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2017 17:26
|
|
|
They need to release a drat scenario editor
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2017 18:40
|
|
|
I've got a potentially controversial opinion: the division system was bad. While readily acknowledging there were a lot of problems with the Wargame deck system, and how some of them are addressed by the neat phase system they added in Steel Division, what you ended up with was something that had a lot of very important decisions ("how many units of what kinds and with what veterancy do I bring in each phase based on my income and relative projected strength?") that were implicit rather than obvious. They're juggling total card counts, cards-per-category, income rates, and somewhat arbitrary veterancy and availability numbers that make decks not necessarily hard to make, but intimidating. Meanwhile the limited variety of actual units in each category tended to mean that there wasn't really a whole lot of variety in what you came up with. It seems like a lot of newbie-unfriendly headache for very little ultimate gain in variety. Of course, this is far from the main problem with the game as far as user base goes, but I definitely don't think it helped adoption any.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2017 21:28
|
|
|
I would also have chosen different scope than Normandy. With something like a scope of 1939-1942 you could have had a more colorful Axis side with Italy and Axis Minors. Yes, it would not have solved the problem of everyone still having pretty much the same units, but it would've added some colour. For example Eastern Block countries in Wargame had very many same units, but their infantry units differed enough and you had differing tank variants (mostly cosmetic) with names tied to the country in question. But still those units and those armies felt different enough as to be engaging and fun to play and build armies for. With SD I have the Artillery Germans, the Speed Germans, the Tank Germans etc. Choices that are boring when you just want to have something ludicrous going on like Scandinavia vs. North Korea. I have spent countless hours in Wargame just making decks. Most likely more time than actually playing the game. I found it extremely interesting to find out what some countries were good at and build decks that complement those strengths or build decks that could take on the worst qualities of a country and still try to make it work somehow. Somehow I just don't get the same kicks from making battlegroups in SD. I feel too constrained by Eugen outright explaining what a division is supposed to be good at and limiting the ways you can approach a situation so much that it takes the fun out of my favourite thing in the earlier series. The point I am slowly getting here is that even though the gameplay itself is fun and a definite improvement in many ways over Wargame, the lack of options and color regarding army building makes SD a very hollow game to me. A fourth wargame with just the addition of the frontline system to fix conquest mode would have been the apex of the series. The promise of what could have been makes SD a very bitter pill for me to swallow. I don't exactly hate the game, but I don't get the urge to play it either. A resounding mehh.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2017 22:28
|
|
|
The unlimited deck system sucked rear end
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2017 22:30
|
|
|
The good decks in wargame were all the same but the variety of poo poo decks you could play improved the experience in the team games as you didn't get stuck playing luftlande or 716 or guards which are kind of set in stone. I also think Eugen didn't really do enough to give the divisions a strong design, especially on the allied side. Balance is small fries by comparison to the game being a brick wall for newbies and losing some of the customizability for old red dragon players.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2017 22:40
|
|
|
I thought the Division system was a step in the right direction from the freeform madness that was Red Dragon, the concept was just marred by obvious imbalance and trap choices. Disagree that Normandy was a disappointing choice, it remains by far the most popular setting in WW2 if you want to sell games and that'll never change. Panzeh is correct about the problem with the allies - note that the latest patch changes are long lists of things to try and shake up all the allied decks and then the changes to the Axis are 'eh, one less of these infantry squads per card, maybe?'
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2017 23:26
|
|
|
They have way too many divisions, and they're still pricing identical units identically for each division. Both of those things are not good. An Sherman tank or an MG jeep have different values to different divsions, so why do they cost the same? Also obviously making a non-singleplayer focused RTS is commercial suicide, and that's hardly a revelation.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2017 02:07
|
|
|
I wonder if they'll do another Wargame. They released content for RD after Act of Treason or whatever flopped.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2017 02:21
|
|
|
Steel Division: Fulda 66 would be baller. Any game they release will flop if they don't fix single-player and matchmaking. Holy poo poo guys, make single-player play like an online match against humans. Give the player AI allies. Give the player a lane. Give the player a conquest objective. Suggest that the player race the AI to houses in the middle of the map. Suggest stuff like putting ATGM guys in houses overlooking a road or putting a gun in a keyhole overlooking a road. Suggest simple tactics like setting up a flanking position. Script an AI helo rush and give the player tips on how to defeat it. If you don't play your game online, get somebody who does to help design the tutorials. As a veteran player who has beaten most of the campaigns in ALB and RD, I could not get through the first mission of SD. It was both hectic and boring at the same time. It didn't resemble MP at all. Starcraft 2 teaches you to expand early in like, mission 3? Put team matchmaking as the BIG BUTTON in the multiplayer menu. Bury custom games two levels down. Put in cosmetic rewards like aces to encourage people to play team ranked. Players who are not on top of your ranked ladder should not have 72% win rates. A player with a 72% win rate is making people quit your game. Mechanically there is nothing wrong with Steel Division. It is an improvement on Wargame in every measurable way. Eugen's matchmaking was bad in 2014 and it is unacceptable now. Arglebargle III fucked around with this message at 04:51 on Sep 1, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2017 04:38
|
|
|
Got to play two games with goons tonight. Using 3AD, the biggest change is the income. Merely having an income on par with the other divisions with only 70 income in A is pretty nice as it can build up towards an extra Arm Rifle which is very useful just to keep panzergrens from knocking out AT guns and scouts. Although it feels as though my mortar did most of the work regarding infantry killing. The M4A3 75 feels decently priced but being a 3v3, it can easily run into situations where it is outranged and outgunned. It feels like this is going to be an endemic problem because the combination of requiring two ticks to afford one model and its availability in B means that it doesn't really get the chance to shine when there's a lot of 1200m guns and armor inevitably coming into the field. All the tank slot changes effectively did was give me more M4A3 76s in Phase B because it's not like I'll be able to afford all of them and I have to buy halftracks with my infantry anyways so there's some decent fire support already. I don't really notice the Jumbo availability that much because pubbies keep picking divisions with the Pak 43s or King Tigers when I play with 3AD. Also pubbies still make bad decisions like letting a KT wander into bazooka range or allowing me to drop enough mortars to panic and enable sideshots for the 76mm ATG nearby. With 2ID, the M1919 teams are surviving a bit longer but the biggest change has got to be the buff to Marauder bazookas and more rifle availability. Marauders at 3 stars are more reliable for popping vehicles through hedgerows now and 2ID can actually attack and sustain casualties now. I haven't noticed much about the veteran AT guns because my Luftlande opponent insisted on tossing non-B2 French tanks at me.  Haven't been able to get a good gauge for the changes to 2ID because the opponent in my lane called in a lot of French tanks that died against AT guns and Shermans. My opponent also spent a lot on arty including the FK 39 pieces that simply got CB'd by my 105mm guns. I did notice that JU88s flying over AA can miss their entire stick of 50kg bombs by hundreds of meters. Danann fucked around with this message at 07:22 on Sep 1, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2017 07:05
|
|
|
I always felt that the M4A3 was always better as a defensive tank because it was easier to force short range engagements, so it wasn't as useful as the Jumbo as you would want to be pushing in the latter phases as 3AD. I rather a reduction to the 76mm Sherman as i've pretty much never called one in over a Jumbo and the two tanks would probably complement each other in a push.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2017 08:06
|
|
|
The SP seems thick for me in SD. I just can't do it. Arglebargle is right, and I don't get why Eugen just drops features from their games. Due to coop, I've hundreds of hours in ALB campaign, but besides that, RD campaign was the superior design where unit compositions changed and there were more variables and choices. The solution for us is to pop into discord and mumble, and get better, learn with superiors, and form teams. But it should not be the solution for the game, most players will not have that opportunity and as such they'll just die off and we'll end up with a starving SD. Vahakyla fucked around with this message at 09:29 on Sep 1, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2017 08:44
|
|
|
Lmao coop missions on roadmap, seems fitting to post after my bitch post. http://steamcommunity.com/games/572410/announcements/detail/1448326624864943027 New game modes, four new divisions, coop missions, ands some unit packs. 
Vahakyla fucked around with this message at 15:40 on Sep 5, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2017 15:38
|
|
|
When they mentioned putting recon planes in, I thought that and the comment of mortars being a common artillery piece would mean recon planes and OP vehicles were the only units that could call in howitzer barrages.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2017 16:00
|
|
|
Finally, Italians on REDFOR!
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2017 17:25
|
|
|
Vahakyla posted:Lmao coop missions on roadmap, seems fitting to post after my bitch post. Reinforcements !!! Time to reinstall
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2017 17:41
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:Steel Division: Fulda 66 would be baller. 66 could sort of be done in ALB since most of that equipment was still in operation somewhere (I recall they had a '75 mode which would be pretty close?). I think a hypothetical war in say, 1955 in Europe would be more interesting. Plus there are all these crazy 1946-1955 era Soviet prototype tanks to play with.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2017 17:49
|
|
|
I really want them to make a non-historical game so they aren't constrained in their balance by "realism" and grogs. Make Sci-fi Wargame! 40k Epic Wargame (though that brings it's own share of grogs, it's still less than the nationalists). Or, you know, stop trying to make a game that's balanced. Embrace the unfairness of real life. Stop trying to make a 1v1 esports title where both sides have an equal chance of winning at all times.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2017 19:31
|
|
|
DatonKallandor posted:I really want them to make a non-historical game so they aren't constrained in their balance by "realism" and grogs. Make Sci-fi Wargame! 40k Epic Wargame (though that brings it's own share of grogs, it's still less than the nationalists). Or, you know, stop trying to make a game that's balanced. Embrace the unfairness of real life. Stop trying to make a 1v1 esports title where both sides have an equal chance of winning at all times.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2017 20:01
|
|
|
This has been said about a million games but just apply a Warhammer 40k skin over Steel Division and it would sell bonkers.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2017 20:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 08:30 |
|
|
Steel Division: Rome 44 BC
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2017 20:38
|
|