|
mods changed my name posted:Yeah that was the one. I have the Helper installed, and its detecting my game saves and such but I guess I need to set up a dropbox account and all that. I'm working on figuring this out, sorry I'm slow at this stuff. Ok I tried sharing a dropbox folder with the game file to your email account. I picked the Germans. It's been a long time since I've done this so I kinda forgot how it works. I think you just need one shared dropbox folder and then the thing will automatically stick the files in and out. And yeah no rush, I got a bit busy this weekend and I don't think I'll get a chance to really get the game going until after tomorrow.
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2018 05:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 07:06 |
|
|
No worries at all, I didn't want to have you waiting on me. I'll check in a bit and message you there if shits weird.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2018 06:07
|
|
|
It's too bad battlefront can't like make anything more modern than 1996 though edit: it showed up in the dropbox but not the helper thing, no big deal. I'll gently caress around with it tomorrow and figure it out and we can get going hopefully mods changed my name fucked around with this message at 07:06 on Nov 11, 2018 |
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2018 06:09
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:your choices are AGEOD's Civil War 2 or Gary Grigsby's War Between the States That’s not...awesome is it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2018 09:30
|
|
|
Cerebulon posted:Victory at Sea: Pacific? I've been waiting for it to look more done too, but it still looks like they're releasing beta patches on a weekly basis which add or fix surprisingly fundamental things so it might still need a bit of time. That's pretty disappointing. I'm all for encouraging niche stuff but how can you when everything is such a crap shoot?
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2018 10:47
|
|
|
Pirate Radar posted:Yeah, based on what they were saying on their forums recently it was pretty clear Christmas wasn’t happening. He's going to lose a lot of sales since moms can't buy RTW2 for their kids this holiday season.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2018 12:59
|
|
|
Top Hats Monthly posted:That’s not...awesome is it. For what it's worth, there's someone on youtube that's done a full campaign of AGEOD's Civil War II (from the CSA side ...), so you know that it's a game that technically works from top to bottom and can be completed in a reasonable amount of time. I don't know about the Grigsby game.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2018 13:06
|
|
|
Top Hats Monthly posted:Is there a good strategic level civil war game that covers the whole US? I'd like to manage the other theaters than just the Potomac Forge of freedom?
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2018 13:31
|
|
|
Grey Hunter posted:Forge of freedom? well yeah that exists I guess, but it's so primitive
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2018 13:37
|
|
|
okay I played a quick game of Civil War II with the Bull Run scenario, and obviously you can't influence the tactical outcome at that scale, but it hits all the right operational notes - if you can get Patterson to run interference so that Jo Johnston never links up with PGT Beauregard, then McDowell has a much better chance of winning the fight against Beauregard at Manassas I'm still not entirely sure how the command system works, though
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2018 16:46
|
|
|
ok Ivan I think I sent it back
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2018 16:54
|
|
|
Civil War 2 is demonstrably the best AGEOD game but it's still AGEOD, so who knows if you'll dig it. If you like managing the entire conflict, sure
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2018 17:31
|
|
|
I paid about $100 for forge of freedom and was never able to get it to run. Instant crash to desktop. Matrix support was entirely useless and I was unable to get a refund
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2018 17:48
|
|
|
The reason I want to do massive theater for the Civil War is because I think the maneuvers happening in Arizona/New Mexico, battles in Missouri, and Dakota wars in Minnesota could all be interesting to fight.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2018 21:50
|
|
|
Top Hats Monthly posted:The reason I want to do massive theater for the Civil War is because I think the maneuvers happening in Arizona/New Mexico, battles in Missouri, and Dakota wars in Minnesota could all be interesting to fight. If by "interesting" you mean "so tiny and inconsequentual that you'll forget those theaters even exist after a couple turns" then AGEOD is perfect for you.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2018 02:14
|
|
|
Top Hats Monthly posted:The reason I want to do massive theater for the Civil War is because I think the maneuvers happening in Arizona/New Mexico, battles in Missouri, and Dakota wars in Minnesota could all be interesting to fight. as far as Missouri, John Tiller's ACW series has a game about campaigns in the Ozarks: http://www.johntillersoftware.com/CivilWarBattles/CampaignOzark.html
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2018 02:22
|
|
|
dublish posted:If by "interesting" you mean "so tiny and inconsequentual that you'll forget those theaters even exist after a couple turns" then AGEOD is perfect for you. Despite winning games against the AI as both the US and the Confederates in AGEOD's ACW 2, I still don't think I could accurately describe the game mechanics or how they work.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2018 15:46
|
|
|
HannibalBarca posted:Despite winning games against the AI as both the US and the Confederates in AGEOD's ACW 2, I still don't think I could accurately describe the game mechanics or how they work. I think this is all AGEOD games. I did a TYW match Vs. Saros and the times I expected my forces to win, they were slaughtered and the occasions where emaciated starved troops suddenly held on (against orders) they won. All I really learned is virtually everyone dies in the winter time. Same for Revolution under Siege. The concept sounds cool, but I'm always left scratching my head.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2018 16:33
|
|
|
I feel like the "point" of AGEOD games is mostly about making sure you're able to supply your forces, concentrating your troops into the leaders that you know are good, and having enough spare production/reinforcements that you can recover from bad engagements. It's almost like the game is so logistics and grand-strategy focused that trying to "fight battles" isn't something you really do. That is to say, as the player, you don't actually control Gettysburg, so much as setting the conditions by which it happened in the first place, because you were the one who decided that the Army of Northern Virginia gets the bulk of the CSA's post-Chancellorsville reinforcements, and you were the one who decided that the ANV heads into Pennsylvania and not any other theater.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2018 17:00
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:I feel like the "point" of AGEOD games is mostly about making sure you're able to supply your forces, concentrating your troops into the leaders that you know are good, and having enough spare production/reinforcements that you can recover from bad engagements. I think my defining experience with ACW2 was when I landed a stack of troops to try to capture a port in North Carolina as the Union, and then watched them sit there and do nothing as Joe Johnston railed down from Virginia, overwhelmed the landing with 4:1 odds, and then my stack just sat there immobile for the next ten turns, unable to do anything or get back on their transports, but with the South apparently unable or unwilling to attack them.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2018 17:18
|
|
|
Latest RTW2 dev journal has a hard release date of March and an AAR of a battle between some BCs with CVLs supporting.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2018 01:40
|
|
|
quote:It was 1933. My Italians were engaged in a war with France, the second in 10 years. I found myself in a cruiser mission with two BCs per side. I had two CVLs, the Varese, an old converted BC with 19 aircraft, in company with the Sparviero, a purpose built CVL with 20 planes embarked. The French had a single small CVL carrying 12 planes. We each had a division of destroyers and a light cruiser as escorts. The mission started 2 hours before dawn and my single BC (the other was in a support force) immediately ran into the two enemy BCs at point blank range. Both sides turned and ran from the encounter but not before my BC took two torpedo hits. I limped away to the south with flotation damage at about 70%, but my 2 CVLs were intact and I had every intention of using them to hit the enemy hard. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2018 01:54
|
|
|
yeah! that's cool!
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2018 03:31
|
|
|
oh poo poo RTW2 is gonna be awesome
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2018 03:36
|
|
|
mods changed my name posted:ok Ivan I think I sent it back Got it, looks like it's working just fine 
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2018 04:58
|
|
|
So I'm playing the Longstop Hill DLC for Tank Warfare: Tunisia as the Germans and goddamn, I'm not sure how to stop the British Churchill hordes. In most battles my only AT weapons are 3-4 Pak38's against a company or more of Churchills. At most I can take out one or two before they're destroyed by enemy fire or run out of ammo. None of my infantry seem to have any AT grenades. It is very satisfying when I bag one of them though: Anyone played this before? I feel like there is something in the interface that I'm missing that would help me, but alas, graviteam UI.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2018 08:47
|
|
|
RTW2 is going to be a different game past 1910 or so - I hope the first air techs are not even ship based - land based recon planes for a couple of years before people start converting ships. but the increased recon will help make battles more engaging, as it can occasionally feel like RTW is blundering around until you make contact.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2018 10:47
|
|
|
I love that the AAR we’re all fawning over is just “it was dark, we shot at each other a little but then I couldn’t find them for the rest of the battle, the end” Maybe they’re deliberately holding back an AAR of a big, serious carrier battle that they’ll drop on us in February so we all get hyped
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2018 11:08
|
|
|
I hope we can get battles which make Leyte Gulf look like squabbling children. The year is 1938 and it's the UK vs USA for the control of the Atlantic! Twenty carriers and thirty battleships apiece!
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2018 11:50
|
|
|
Ivan Shitskin posted:Got it, looks like it's working just fine  can't wait to get slaughtered
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2018 16:52
|
|
|
Saros posted:I hope we can get battles which make Leyte Gulf look like squabbling children. I hope so too, but the way RTW1 always worked in my experience was that you ended up in a series of small, scuffly wars that attrite your fleet and everyone else's in such a way that even a late game Size 0 fleet battle doesn't end up quite as big as Jutland was. Maybe they'll have changed it for RTW2, or maybe the scuffly system over 50 years is enough to build up huge fleets like that thanks to the absence of the interwar naval treaties so long as you don't have a first war. Or maybe I just spend too much on light fleet units and everyone else has been having fifty battleship fights all along.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2018 17:04
|
|
|
FrangibleCover posted:I hope so too, but the way RTW1 always worked in my experience was that you ended up in a series of small, scuffly wars that attrite your fleet and everyone else's in such a way that even a late game Size 0 fleet battle doesn't end up quite as big as Jutland was. Maybe they'll have changed it for RTW2, or maybe the scuffly system over 50 years is enough to build up huge fleets like that thanks to the absence of the interwar naval treaties so long as you don't have a first war. Even with very large fleets, it's difficult as the UK to match the historical construction rate of the fleet. You can maybe match the number of battleships built, but usually at the expense of smaller vessels. If you, as the player, follow the natural tendency to build your ships a bit bigger and better than the actual warships of the era, the numbers of ships built are necessarily fewer. This make it pretty difficult to end up with a fleet big enough to have a battle quite like Jutland, but maybe that's not altogether inaccurate; we really only had one Jutland in the first place, and it if things had been a little different it might not have happened at all. The system for having wars is a little weird in RtW; if you're playing for prestige it's not uncommon to have numerous Great Power wars over the course of the game, which is pretty ahistorical.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2018 17:44
|
|
|
Maybe we shouldn't build our ships so big
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2018 22:11
|
|
|
*immediately builds 60 thousand ton carrier in 1920*
Stairmaster fucked around with this message at 22:14 on Nov 13, 2018 |
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2018 22:12
|
|
|
Stairmaster posted:Maybe we shouldn't build our ships so big what's this weak sauce  but seriously cant wait for this one.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2018 04:24
|
|
|
interwar supercarrier
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2018 05:41
|
|
|
Interwar Supercarrier-Superdreadnought Hybrid Even though they're disgusting I do want to see if I can do a run of RTW2 using nothing but hybrid carriers. In theory it shouldn't work but then again going Full Battlecruiser in RTW works when it theoretically shouldn't.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2018 08:46
|
|
|
a Super-Shinano using the Yamato and the Musashi as catamarans
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2018 09:04
|
|
|
I mean, how else are you going to launch 4-engined bombers with parasitic fighters?
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2018 10:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 07:06 |
|
|
Aircraft are for the weak and Elan-less but we must grudgingly acknowledge they can hurt capital ships and are good scouts. Only CV/BC hybrids jam packed with fighters and AAA (only forward firing guns of course). Bat aside the enemy strikes and run them down.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2018 10:43
|
|