|
My taste in RTS games leans toward Wargame/Steel Division just because they actually let you zoom out and in freely- the only other one that does that really is SupCom.
|
#
¿
Sep 26, 2018 13:41
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 21:32 |
|
|
AOE3 is probably the best of the AoE games IMO, it's a lot more thought out than 2 was/is.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 3, 2018 14:04
|
|
|
Also you kinda have to be down for RTS mechanics cause cossacks has a lot of shufflin' workers around and stuff.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 24, 2018 15:20
|
|
|
StrixNebulosa posted:So I really gotta get my hands on the third game in the series, huh... that sounds extremely cool. Eador was designed by Russian guys who were trying to fix problems they saw with HOMM3, and they were hardcore MP players, so it's much more difficult.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 17, 2019 13:45
|
|
|
To be more specific, Eador has some of the same assumptions that Heroes does, but it's just more difficult in most respects- units are now individuals, but all tiers of units have value and can get XP- heroes now move on the map and have attacks(and some heroes are very good at this). The building's a lot more complicated, the map's a province map- heroes get equipped with all forms of equipment. This is Eador's full building list from the latest entry in the series. Thankfully, you only actually manage one city as such- only a few things get built in the provinces, usually just to let your heroes gas back up with recruiting or buying items.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 17, 2019 16:35
|
|
|
Lichtenstein posted:Eador is a really cool and good spin on the HoMM genre, but it does have a bit of a slow pace to it (even by turn-based game standards). Go into it with a chillout mindset, like you would into a city builder, except instead of making things pretty you murder goblins and dragons. Also don't play on the highest difficulties because you're funneled into one kind of strategy on that level of difficulty. There's a big stand alone mod for Genesis that can be played for free and is somewhat stable. A lot of the little things it does for balance helps the game out a lot- for example, merc units are now tier 1.5 units instead of just normal units but more expensive.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 18, 2019 14:35
|
|
|
fuf posted:I vaguely remember a thing with that game where patches that tweaked unit strengths for multiplayer reasons ended up making the single player campaign impossibly hard and basically breaking it. That was European Escalation. It also made parts of Steel Division 1's campaign wonky, though nowhere near as bad. That's kinda the problem with the linear campaigns.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 19, 2020 11:42
|
|
|
I picked it up, i've been finding it to be a really fun improvement on panzer corps 1- the leader abilities let you make some ridiculous units(2x ROF, ignores entrenchments and counterattacks tank) but it's pretty fun that way. One thing i'll say is that it doesn't have the air/naval focus of OOB, but other than that it's a really good take. I'm hoping to see if they implement a randomizer campaign because that seems like it could be quite fun(they already have random map scenarios).
|
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2020 11:16
|
|
|
While I think PC2 definitely makes mechanical improvements over its predecessors(it has encirclement as a thing, for example, and core slots aren't just a fixed quantity of units but it's a more flexible resource, AT guns now actually do something), it's a bit short on the scenario content- it just has the original style grand campaign and some various scenarios. Playing with ridiculous poo poo like this is fun, though: 
Panzeh fucked around with this message at 23:45 on Mar 20, 2020 |
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2020 23:40
|
|
|
The alternate history path in panzercorps 2 is kinda wild:
|
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2020 16:03
|
|
|
I'd be so in for it if it was multiplayer. I'm still in for it, but i'm hoping to see a bit more.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 22, 2020 15:55
|
|
|
C.M. Kruger posted:On the Steam forums the dev has said he's not planning on doing MP until Regiments 2 because (paraphrasing) he wants to build a good base game first instead of putting that effort into something that fewer than 20% of players will try (most only once) and will be dead after a month. wargame's(and steel division 44/2) had decent MP communities and still do, but i can understand that- the creator made a mod for airland battle called 1984 which actually, i think influenced steel division's direction That being said, i'm still in.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 23, 2020 15:10
|
|
|
StashAugustine posted:Tried it out and its definitely interesting. The pre-made lists with WiC- style resources and CoH-style retreats are cool, and the shifting objectives along with additional reinforcements are a neat idea to shake up defenses. The UI could use a bit of work although maybe I'm just not used to it yet; and it seems a little poorly optimized (still unfinished) so its not terribly responsive. Hopefully the issues get hammered out because it seems like a good evolution of ideas. Shooting down a plane massively increases the delay to the next one.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 23, 2020 18:22
|
|
|
Jarvisi posted:It's real bad Mobius Front is a really good example of why Advance Wars, Fire Emblem, and a lot of other games are designed for move+attack and to give the attacker an advantage in combat because the other way is Mobius Front which is mostly tedious since pretty much every unit's perfect use state is to sit still and wait for an enemy to blunder into range. It's more realistic, as much as the simple mechanics can be, but it's extremely boring.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 27, 2021 13:32
|
|
|
Murgos posted:Unless there is some kind of breakthrough/envelopment/maneuver mechanic then that does sound really tedious. Yeah, it's not complex enough for that kind of thing. There are units that are suitable for breaking stalemates(artillery and tanks) but tanks in particular are much worse when they move and it's just an absolute crapshoot whether it will work.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 27, 2021 13:59
|
|
|
Bug Squash posted:Just to sell UoC2 a spot more: the central mechanic that the game is built around is cutting off the enemy supply lines. Normally their units (and yours) get fed by resources traveling from specific off-map points, through main highways and railways. If you are able to cut that artery, then you can potentially starve enormous chunks of the enemy. Without resources, even the most fearsome German tanks rapidly becomes completely defenseless within a few turns. The big advantage UoC2 has over the original is that it adds a lot more options for set piece combat if needed- encirclement is still ideal, and you'll do it in pretty much every scenario, but there's more options than rotating units in and out until you get your breakthrough which is the only direct combat option in the original UoC. appropriatemetaphor posted:That's basically what you do in Steel Division 2 (and i guess 1). Someone has a King Tiger or IS-2 chilling in some trees with a load of infantry and anti-tank guns or whatever. Fine, just flank them attack somewhere else and force them to move to reinforce or get surrounded. The big difference is, in SD1, the whole map matters so you can kinda work around something, and you also have things like smoke and airpower to try to stun or approach and kill the things. Mobius front is much too simplistic for that kind of thing, as in particular its scenario design never really stretches the map in a way that lets you do much flanking. A lot of complex tactical games favor the defender, but they usually give the attacker some options other than charging straight in. Panzeh fucked around with this message at 11:03 on Jun 28, 2021 |
|
#
¿
Jun 28, 2021 11:00
|
|
|
pedro0930 posted:The strategic layer of Steel Division 2 is very bad at producing actual interesting battle while the auto-resolve often produce unacceptable outcome so you have to go in and fight out the battles yourselves a lot (or just let the AI actually play and fast forward instead of using auto-resolve). Yeah, SD2's operational layer suffers a lot from not really being built with the RTS game in mind- it's almost like they literally thought it'd be cool if you took the OCS board game and had you fight out the battles in SD2 without thinking 'man, it'd be kinda boring to play all these out in an RTS engine'. To be fair, it's exactly what a lot of reddit/forum people said they thought would be cool and there's not a ton of great design chops at Eugen but still, if your meat and potatoes is being an RTS game, you really have to design these modes to serve that, and not as their own thing. As an operational game, the SD2 operations just feel clunky and weird(it would probably be better from a UI perspective to use counters instead of miniatures at this scale). It might just be my preference for board game style design.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 15, 2021 10:38
|
|
|
Mokotow posted:How does this genere not get totally sick of WWII? Just do something different, even WWI would be miles more interesting. There's been other wars, but there's not really an industrial war like the second that suits what the men of war engine is doing.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 24, 2021 12:43
|
|
|
fuf posted:This does look cool, but it's kind of sad that Eugen came up with such a good formula and then blew their lead by switching to the Steel Division games. It means we have to wait for these new companies to basically rebuild the same 10 year old game from scratch. Imagine where we'd be now if Eugen had stuck with Wargame. Wargame was also about microing individual tanks, lol. They had facing, weird platoon splitting/unsplitting shenanigans, ninja smoke with ATGMs, etc. SD2 did actually make tanks wargame cheap but it made the infantry game so much worse that they went back a little on it. Panzeh fucked around with this message at 11:46 on Dec 15, 2021 |
|
#
¿
Dec 15, 2021 11:40
|
|
|
fuf posted:Wargame was definitely larger scale in general though: you were more likely to have vehicles in groups and the game was at its best when you had loads of units on really big maps. I do mostly play hex games these days(and in fact cardboard ones) but yeah, i can see how the auto-platoons made it feel larger scale, even if they in gameplay terms were kinda bad for the old heads. IMO, wargame was never really an operational game in any way because they're all really finicky games that have a ton of little tactical micro stuff. I actually did some preliminary modding in SD2 to make the infantry squads into infantry platoons as i thought that'd improve the game(it has fidelity problems with 40 men clown carring out of one truck), and make the less detailed infantry combat make more sense, but ultimately SD2 is a pain to mod, even though the mod support is much better than it used to be. Anyway, someone make OCS on the computer, stat. Panzeh fucked around with this message at 12:18 on Dec 15, 2021 |
|
#
¿
Dec 15, 2021 12:16
|
|
|
fuf posted:Yeah that makes sense. It's honestly mostly an aesthetic thing for me. I get happy when I see big sweeping maps with little woods and towns etc. Yeah, honestly, i'd love to see a napoleon/1700s type game in the wargame millieu, lots of map, focused out armies, tons of little villages and towns and bad roads in an engine that lets you zoom around like that, not a total war game where you're kinda already in the chicken coop.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 15, 2021 12:41
|
|
|
appropriatemetaphor posted:But as far as I'm aware all the meta divisions are infantry heavy divisions? I thought if anything infantry is too good! you still need infantry, but you need to be able to spam and keep up on attrition because of the unfriendly environment to them, if you can't spam, you'll get overwhelmed and lose, but that's the only approach to infantry compared to SD44
|
|
#
¿
Dec 17, 2021 00:35
|
|
|
I enjoy panzercorps 2, but yeah for a campaign of escalating difficulty where you're pushing on and stuff, it's hard to pass up the story of the nazis. But then, i kinda see the artifice of it as, they're just really gamey games.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 30, 2022 13:30
|
|
|
Reiterpallasch posted:ultimate general is fun but its campaign layer is...well, why is the gettysburg campaign even happening when I just basically annihilated the ANV at antietam half an hour ago? It's a video game- it has a series of scenarios with a persistent army, there are plenty of strategic level ACW games if you want that.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 13, 2022 10:33
|
|
|
Petroglyph's great war has been the highlight of the demos i've played, i think. It knows what it is and works for that. I can't say i'd care for it as a multiplayer game.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 7, 2023 11:08
|
|
|
Kashwashwa posted:Has anyone tried the Broken Arrow demo on steam? Is it just me or is it insanely difficult? There are some weird UI things relating to getting vehicles to shoot into buildings, and unlike with Eugen games, they don't turn 750m into 750 ft so RPG shots feel like they come from way downtown.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 7, 2023 17:25
|
|
|
I've kinda cooled on Petroglyph's ww1 game- I don't think the gameplay once you breach the main line of resistance is very good at all- maybe there's something i haven't understood yet but it just ain't that interesting trying to avoid finnicky situations where your infantry gets shot at while trying to march into the next melee.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 9, 2023 03:46
|
|
|
Funny enough, Game-Labs is coming out with an American Revolutionary War game, but it's still in development. https://www.ug1775.com/
|
|
#
¿
Mar 31, 2023 11:00
|
|
|
Jossar posted:From what I understand of it, it's more of a grognardier/more complicated version of Rome: Total War than a Paradox game. Well, maybe Imperator, I guess, but the Rome ones have always been the black sheep of the Paradox lineup anyway. I think it still requires you to buy both games (Field of Glory II and Empires) to do the zoom-in to fight segment, so that's kind of a turn off. Nice to have the option though. To me, FOG: Empires is actually better as its own game without resolving battles in FoG2 as zooming in for battles significantly flattens the effect of terrain on combats and changes the unit balance a lot, but if you're really in for FoG2 battles, it's still worthwhile. In and of itself, it's an interesting simultaneous-turn (WEGO) take on empire building in the ancient era, using a decadence mechanism to try to push players along.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 29, 2023 11:53
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 21:32 |
|
|
doctorfrog posted:The premise of most 4X's is bullshit anyway: "everyone starts on the same even footing at the same time and the cleverest wins!" Just like human history! What's good for a game and what's good for history are often not the same thing.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 12, 2024 15:47
|
|