World in Conflict

[Slivin]

At first I thought this was another C&C 3 build up and overwhelm, but after I downloaded the demo I was glad I did. While no CoH, its still an amazing game. Its refreshing, I want to know your thoughts on the demo.

[Woolly]

I have only seen the trailers but I see it has lots of nice volumetric smoke effects. :)

[Giant Moth]

With higher graphics on, the maps turn grey and dusty if you call in too much tactical bombardment :)

[hiddensmoke]

Theres another thread on this mate. LINKAGE! (http://forums.relicnews.com/showthread.php?t=125672)

- hidden

[Busby]

Well my comments killed that thread. Anyway, to expand, WiC is to much "wosh bang boom!" for my liking, and tactics are limited to move orders into perimeter circles.

[JHD536]

The primary thing that bugs me about this game is Sierra is producing it, which is most definitely a bad thing. They have a history of cutting support for games early on.

[robnubis]

The primary thing that bugs me about this game is Sierra is producing it, which is most definitely a bad thing. They have a history of cutting support for games early on.

They're still running Homeworld and Homeworld 2 servers last i checked.

If the games popular enough, I dont see them cutting online support for several years tbh. This is being pushed as one of Sierra's big games for this fiscal year, so I would assume they'll be supporting it fully.

[Mantaray]

its actualy a rebuild of another game they made, ground controlle 2 in assosciation with massive ent. massive ent will do what sierra failed to do with all its games and that is priovide support.
in my personal oppinion, WiC is crap. i was in the online beta and it was basicly who can wait the longest before bringing in the most reinforcements and outnumber the enemy.

ground controll 2 however was a truely class game. it had much more tactical gameplay and it wasnt all about outnumbering the enemy. the rear armour was much weaker wich they seem to have skipped on in WiC...
if i were to continue it would be a rant so i will rest here on my lorals.

[Homdax]

manta...it is true that some squad and "victory point/strategic point" elements and perhaps other stuff is inspired by Ground Control 2 and even Ground Control 1, but that does not remove the fact that it is a new game with a different overall concept. I am not that interested in WiC, but I think Massive Entertainment is doing a great job and I have been following the development on and off on their forums from day one.

And Massive has done all those three games from scratch. Sierra does not code, AFAIK.

[dex_911]

WiC is the best RTS i have ever played. Its just pure awesome. Going to get it as soon as its out.

cheers
dex

[DatonKallandor]

They're still running Homeworld and Homeworld 2 servers last i checked.

Homeworld 2 runs on gamespy. And WON is frequently cutting out.

As for WiC - it's not an RTS. It's RTT.
It's Counterstrike with Birds Eye View - extremely shallow, but you can play for 30 minutes and get 5 games in.

[Caesar]

It's as shallow as you want it to be. But if you care to look at it a bit more and don't play just to see the nukes, you'll find it to be more logical and deeper than Company of Heroes and the like.

[Busby]

Huh? I don't understand how a game were Helicopters can't fire there clearly equipped rocket pods, transport jets scream from the sky dropping flares like mad before dropping M1 Abrams and T-80s in boxes, and every infantry man is a trained paratrooper is more "logical" then CoH.

Oh, and why can't my Mil Mi-24 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mil_Mi-24) carry troops, and how come said helicopters can shrug off multiple missile hits?

[Caesar]

Obviously liberties were taken on the deployment of troops. The point was unit design is more logical than CoH. The heavy tanks *gasp* work like heavy tanks. You need helicopters are artillery to take them down. Everything is performing in its intended, real-life role. It's bliss.

[Wargrim]

Huh? Care to extend a bit on that point? Since the demo has only 1 map and 1 gamemode i might be missing something that you or others may know out of the Beta, where does the game get deeper and more logical then CoH and the like?

On the demo servers its like this:
Step 1 - Rush armor on the points, keep sitting on them to get points for fortifying, support spams AA to protect the armor from the helicopters, infantry sits in the houses and waits for a counterattack. If it comes, bomb it. If it doesnt come, you win.

Step 2 - Replace the losses you have because of shit raining on you.

Step 3 - Repeat step 1.

Failure is mostly caused by support spamming heavy artillery instead of AA, which means your tanks will get killed by the helicopters. Alternatively, some people are to dumb to move units into the circles and go for frags.

[Caesar]

There's a simple formula to every match, true, but that formula reflects reality. Artillery pounds enemy defenses. Armor breaks through the gap and exploits the breakthrough. Infantry move up to take and hold the ground. Rinse and repeat. Welcome to modern warfare 101.

The single most important thing to see here is that powerful units are powerful. There are no stupid artificial balances put in place. Heavy Artillery is dangerous and can tear things to shreds. But, it's expensive to field. There is logic. Heavy Artillery units are expensive and require more effort by high command to field and keep supplied. This is reflected in game. The same goes for basically any of the heavy units. This also shows for the light tanks as well. Sure they're cheap and you can field many, but that's not practical. You only need so many to scout and perform hit and run AT missile attacks on larger tanks.

Everything works in its intended role.

[Busby]

Caeser, I have no idea what your saying. I still don't understand how WiC is more "logical" then CoH. (Mostly because I expect my rocket pod equipped gunships to shoot rockets?)

[ÜberJumper]

After playing WiC Beta and the demo, it's clear to me that it's as fantastic as any other RTS game.

Anyone claiming it's "more real" than any other RTS is silly. (It's not even really an RTT game, that would imply that you had a single selection of units and used them until they were dead and gone). It's a game, with units loosely based on real life military hardware.

[Mac_Bug]

I think Caesar's beef is that if it doesn't function exactly like real life it's not good enough.

[ÜberJumper]

Well WiC doesn't function anything like real life.

[Luwinkle]

I have to agree with the majority on here. I found it fun for a while..but ultimately too shallow to keep my interest for long. You maxed out on resources earlier (it was like..4800) so it always came down to getting as many units as you can. And as Air..all you really had to do was get like 7 medium helicopters..they worked well against anything but AA and heavy tanks and their anti-air missiles made REALLY short work of any oncoming helicopters if you spammed them fast enough. But it really did feel like a Counter-Strike in RTS form. Good for multiple games in a short timeframe..but it always boiled down to the same routine each game(or close to the same).
And WiC had a large amount of incredibly useless units. Base infantry was pretty much useless..as AA or AT infantry could deal with infantry and vehicles with ease(basic infantry took care of helicopters and tanks with relative ease as well)..snipers were never used. APCs were hardly ever used except as fillers..light tanks were never touched(maybe just to swarm in large numbers when you got bored and wanted laughs). Light Aircraft were also pretty useless.
It all came down to either using the same tactic every fight..or just giving one person all if your tactical points so they could spam the crap out of the other guys with nukes. I think the most I saw at one go was 3 nukes..I'm surprised my monitor didn't go out from all the blinding white.

[Someguy]

moving away from the perception of reality...

I loved the single player a lot. I'm glad that kept a tight lid on that.

[Busby]

Well I played the demo a little more, and I have decided that WiC should be renamed World in Spam, since the best way to win is to have your team spam the right units to out spam the other team, while spamming surport on there spammed units.

Luwinkle is right, the amount of useless units is actually amazing. Light tanks? Useless. Medium AA? Useless. Medium Copters? Useless if your support isn't spamming heavy artillery. APCs? Useless since they are too expensive for the infantry player and worthless of the armor player. Scout copters? Die way to fast so they are useless. Snipers? Other then scouting, useless. Transport copters? Useless except for placing sniper scouts (again, too expensive for infantry, worthless for air).

[Someguy]

ok, scout copters are not useless. They see way ahead than most other units can see. People underestimate the power of the scout copters when they realize that they're getting sniped by heavy tanks that they can't see.

[Busby]

Well I tend to spawn scout copters when I decide to spam heavy artillery so I can target landing areas, but long range tank duels are uncommon with such a urban demo map.

[Oryhara]

I would like to point out that you can put your infantry into other peoples transport helicopters and APCs. The problem is finding players who will work together.

[ÜberJumper]

I would like to point out that you can put your infantry into other peoples transport helicopters and APCs. The problem is finding players who will work together.

See, that's one of my big beefs with the game. Infantry units should be provided with cheap APCs and Helicopters. That would vastly increase the appeal of using said trees.


I loved the single player a lot. I'm glad that kept a tight lid on that.


Absofreakinlootly. Although I'm not liking some of the plot points, I'm quite liking their cut-scenes.

[Oryhara]

Well, you do get transport trucks and humvees, though those tend to die fast. But atleast their cheap. :p

[ÜberJumper]

Well yeah, but mechanized infantry has APCs, not trucks and humvees. The infantry tree is essentially a motorized infantry tree, not a mechanized infantry tree.

[Caesar]

I hate to say this, but you're obviously not using Light Tanks correctly if you find them to be useless. They tear up infantry, are fast, and have AT missiles which rape tanks from behind. I have this feeling you're trying to go toe-to-toe with Heavy Tanks.

Yes, they are motorized. If you want to be Air Cav or Mechanized you work with an Air or Armor buddy.

[ÜberJumper]

Caesar:

That's the problem, the game's not based on RL because it's forcing you to rely on someone else to provide transport when mechanized (or airmobile) infantry has that transport capability inherently. The game's placing arbitrary limits on things to meet the designers whims.

[Oryhara]

Personally, I like the "Few Player Mode" myself. It's for 2v2's and 1v1's where each player get around 16,000 reinforcement points and can call down any unit at basic price. Mass infantry + lots of transport helicopters = lol.

[Caesar]

You mean kinda like Relic and history?

I agree with you. I campaigned long and hard on the Massgate forums for APCs and Helis for the Infantry. However, this concession was made to encourage teamplay.

[Oryhara]

The problem is though, is that players go "why should I get these transport copters when I could just heavy attack copters?" and the same thing with tanks and APCs.

[ÜberJumper]

Caesar:

What about Relic and history?

I'm aware that they made the concession re: Infantry Transport in the name of teamplay, however they make the concession at the wrong point. Teamplay in a situation like this means that commanders should be providing combined arms support (helicopters hunting artillery units, C3 units and other assets behind enemy lines), not moving units about on the battlefield ("hai guyz, put your mens in my chopper so I can fly them over an AAA position"). The Air wing guy should fly his attack and support choppers through the planned route with armour support and clear it. Then the Infantry should come in and take and hold the ground behind the armour.

[JHD536]

They're still running Homeworld and Homeworld 2 servers last i checked.

If the games popular enough, I dont see them cutting online support for several years tbh. This is being pushed as one of Sierra's big games for this fiscal year, so I would assume they'll be supporting it fully.

They cut all active support for Tribes: Vengeance and HW 2 very early. Servers don't exactly require people to be working on them all the time, especially for low pop games.

I have 0 trust in Sierra's commitment to the games they're supposed to be managing. Hell, EA had better support for their games than Sierra.

[Caesar]

Ueber, I was referring to the bastardization of history that is Company of Heroes. However, I do agree with you on your point. As I said, I impressed upon the developers these points. I take it as a partial victory however that I got what I asked for as an Armor player.

Unfortunately, it can be very hard to get people to play nice and understand some of the simple concepts with which we need to be conducting battle. People seem intent on assault points with infantry and no support whatsoever =[

[ÜberJumper]

Caesar:

CoH isn't trying to be Realistic though, and that was made clear by the developers. It's more authentic than Realistic. The same can be said about WiC.

[dex_911]

I dont know what servers you guys are playing on, but I have been playing WiC since the first beta. I'll tell you, I have seen more teamwork in this game then anyother RTS period. That along side with the fact that the Visual element and sound effects of this game are out of this world.

WiC rocks and personally, I think its alot better than CoH.

cheers
dex

[Caesar]

I don't care if things are realistic down to their very nuts and bolts. I simply like to see units filling roles that they do in reality. World in Conflict does this very well I believe (for the most part). Company of Heroes meanwhile plays more like kids playing with their toy soldiers in the backyard.

[ÜberJumper]

dex:

Don't get me wrong, I've seen some great teamwork in WiC. I'm just specifically annoyed about the methods (and types of teamwork!) that the developers are using to encourage teamwork.

As for WiC or CoH being better than the other, that remains to be seen. Personally, CoH's single player seems to be more engaging than WiC's single player. I am of the opinion that playing WiC in multiplayer is more fun than CoH's Multiplayer (it's more stressful finding a game in CoH than in WiC... look for my thread on it in CoH forum), but I do enjoy a good match in CoH as well.

[TheDeadlyShoe]

I reaffirm my opinion that caesar is on a quixotic anti-coh crusade. ;p

Fingers crossed: dont suck, WiC.

[Caesar]

The biggest problem I have with CoH online is that 50-60% of the games I end up joining I get stomped into the ground by someone much, much better than I am. That's no fun. I want to play a nice, longer game against someone as skilled as I. I don't care if I lose. I just want to have a nice game for a change. CoH is so cutthroat.

[Luwinkle]

Infantry is borderline useless in most MP games on WiC. I've seen games won where the winning team was just all armor and air, maybe 1 or 2 guys support. And even on the small maps infantry are insanely slow. The truck only holds 1 squad (for being so lightly armored and not even armed..it should hold like 4). The HMMWV is good for repairing mechanized units..that's it.
The "Transportation" thing in MP is almost always empty. I think the most I saw it at in one game was 15. I was totally bored with the WiC MP beta in probably 2 weeks. In contrast, CoH is one of the most realistic awesome RTS's I have ever played in my entire life, and I still play it to this day.
And medium AA aren't that useless, neither are medium helicopters(good for taking out other helicopters).
I normally found myself not doing what I actually WANTED to do in the game, but found myself forced to spam a counter-unit to take care of the enemy's spam.
I once spammed a full 4800 of resources of light tanks..I spammed the AT missiles against heavy tanks..they even said in the ability's description that it does damn near nothing to heavy tanks and are meant to be used VS medium tanks. A swarm of like 7 or so light tanks got wiped out by like 2 or so heavy tanks.
My main gripe about cnc3 goes to this game, too. Both sides are pretty much exactly the same. There are different models and different voices..maybe a few different abilities..but they're still the same.

If this is your kind of game, more power to you, I just prefer more.....substance to my games. Spamming nukes almost every round takes away the fun from it. Maybe AI Skirmish would be more fun in WiC since it probably wouldn't follow human players' spamtactics. I'll probably never know cause I'll probably never touch it again, it just doesn't do it for me.

[ÜberJumper]

The biggest problem I have with CoH online is that 50-60% of the games I end up joining I get stomped into the ground by someone much, much better than I am. That's no fun. I want to play a nice, longer game against someone as skilled as I. I don't care if I lose. I just want to have a nice game for a change. CoH is so cutthroat.

I agree. That's why when WiC is released, I'll likely play more multiplayer of it than CoH... that is until OF is released!

[DatonKallandor]

Both sides are pretty much exactly the same. There are different models and different voices..maybe a few different abilities..but they're still the same.

They are 95+% the same. The Devs said that was a decision they made on purpose to keep balancing simple. Frankly, it's the prime example of why balance should not be the top priority in game design.

[Caesar]

Welcome to modern warfare where armies fight with the same kinds of weapons.

[TheDeadlyShoe]

Meh. You always have to follow your strict role in WIC. Theres only a few things you can do. Armored players capture control circles and plink at other armor and pop smoke. Infantry players make beelines for forests and buildings in useful locations. Air players wolfpack around the map and blow up artillery and armor. Support at least does three things: AA, artillery, repair.

When I play infantry (as I usually do) there are only two things I do: put infantry in buildings/forests, and transport infantry to buildings/forests. That's it.

The only thing that keeps the game remotely interesting is tactical aid. :/

[DatonKallandor]

Welcome to modern warfare where armies fight with the same kinds of weapons.
Welcome to the world of computer games, where you can choose to set your game in a boring easy to balance Cold War setting or an interesting, diverse Sci-Fi or Fantasy setting.
Again, this is Massive we are talking about here. They had the chance and the setting already laid out of them. And they blew it. On shallow, mirror side cold war.

[TheDeadlyShoe]

Modern warfare isn't the problem. OFP used a cold war setting and was an interesting game. It had depth. There were different weapons that felt different.

Supreme Commanders units all fill the same roles, but they do it different ways and with differing performance, which makes them a helluvalot more interesting. And there were still tons of complaints about 'identical units'.

[DatonKallandor]

Yes, but as you see with Caesar, Massive has the excuse of "it's modern war!" when they face their mirroring scheme.

[ÜberJumper]

WiC should have gone more authentic with the sides. Soviet tanks should be cheap and easy to repair. US Tanks should have been high tech monsters capable of individually defeating groups of T-72's at range.

The US of the 80's was far more high tech than the soviets. The US should have had tech to it's advantage, and the soviets numbers.

[Grankl]

I actually prefer the both-sides-are-the-same approach to balance... It worked in Homeworld. Instead of relying upon a few overpowered units for which the enemy has no counter, you build just what your opponent builds and have to rely on TACTICS more than unit quality... makes the game more fun... It also makes you appreciate the few differences your team does have ALOT more...

I don't really like it when each side has "its own unique technology" because in a world war situation there would be no *great* disparity between oposing armies... ESPECAILLY not in 1989... There might have been a few minor technological advancements either way, but basically, the USA and the USSR were playing with the same toys...

The only unit in Wic which I can't think of a complement for is the Shilka & Gepard... What does the USA use in their place?

[Mr Carrot]

There were significant doctrinal differences between the US/NATO and the USSR especially in the 80s.

I found WIC slightly dissapointing because i was expecting combat more along the lines of Red Storm Rising - slight qualatitive differences in tech but the difference between the two sides lieing in quantitive differences in numbers, the soviets having far more men for the meat grinder and the signficiantly higher quality of US/NATO troops due to better training and tactics.

[Wargrim]

What is absolutely great about the WiC demo though is how fast and easy you can get into a match. Start the game, connect to Massgate, refresh server list, enter a server, play. From desktop to battle in roughly a minute. Comparing this to CoH ( that i personally find the "better" game gameplay wise ) where i often have to restart my router just to connect to Relic Online, and where it takes many minutes to fill up a 3on3 or 4on4 match, and where dropping, lag and such are plagueing the multiplayer, WiC wins 100% in that aspect.

I know that the comparison is unfair as CoH is peer to peer and WiC server based, but in the name of Gork and Mork, if Relic could switch to a server based system too with future games, to avoid all the connectivity, lag and router troubles that p2p brings with them for both DoW/Gamespy and CoH/Relic Online, that would be like 5 times Christmas in one year! :p

The inbuild Clan System is also verry neat, its so easy to create and manage a clan, i verry much hope that the system comming with CoH:Of is just as good. :)

( If you are interested in meeting up for WiC demo battles drop me a line ingame, my nic there is also wargrim, Clan leader of the Pink Panzer Party :p )

[DatonKallandor]

I know that the comparison is unfair as CoH is peer to peer and WiC server based, but in the name of Gork and Mork, if Relic could switch to a server based system too with future games, to avoid all the connectivity, lag and router troubles that p2p brings with them for both DoW/Gamespy and CoH/Relic Online, that would be like 5 times Christmas in one year!

Except for the whole cheating thing. Which doesn't work in P2P, but is rampant and nearly impossible to stop for any period of time in Server based. Eg.: Counterstrike.

[Wargrim]

Any known cases of cheating in WiC demo/beta?

In games like Counterstrike its a matter of server settings. Anticheat tools never stop all cheaters, but an admin and/or kickvote enabled makes short process with cheaters. Alternately, teamkilling cheaters is a fun hobby. What sucks though is if there is no teamdamage, no admin, and no kickvote enabled. That is like an invitation for cheaters to stay.

[Grankl]

the soviets having far more men for the meat grinder and the signficiantly higher quality of US/NATO troops due to better training and tactics

Yeah, but its not WW2 8) Besides who knows whose tactics would have been better had it come to war? Neither were ever put to the test... And I think its better to let the player decide what tactics to use, as opposed to having his tactical choice dictated to him/her by the unit choice... Which is seen SO OFTEN in strategy games...

I.e. if we got the stereotyped "red horde" story, the Soviet player would be reduced to rushing with a heap of poorly armed units , and the US player would be reduced to turtling until he had a huge force... It would be a snooze... And since there were no GLARING omissions in either sides' arsenal (except the Shilka?) it would also be factually incorrect

Giving each player identical weapons is truer to life, because it allows the player to make tactical decisions... The player can CHOOSE to produce many poor units, if they wish... Or produce a few High-tech units, if they wish... The player can choose which weapons to employ, when, where and how they want, instead of feeling limited by what the "tech-tree" allows them to build...

[Talos]

I played the beta but I found the game way to shallow. It may be fun for a few games but it gets boring fast.

[Luwinkle]

Exactly Talos. I pretty much never played Infantry or Armor. Because I could never get the support both sides really need. As armor my tanks would get drilled by friendly artillery when trying to take a point and would never get air support as they're getting raped by helicopters. As infantry they'd just take for fricking EVER to get anywhere..then get quickly mowed down when they got there. So it was always Air when I wanted to do actual fighting, and support when I wanted to sit back and barrage the hell out of people.
Another thing I didn't care for was the generic naming scheme "light tank" "medium tank" etc...why not actually USE the name of the vehicle as the name? Anyone with pseudo-semi-decent eyesight can tell if it is a medium/heavy by the icon anyway.

[Busby]

In any case WiC is "I throw infantry/tanks/helicopters/HE shells/missiles/low-yield nuclear warheads at thee!" Outside clans I doubt that the amount of team work forced in and yearned by the developers will ever be accomplished, and since infantry requires easily destroyed buildings and not everywhere forests to actually have some survivability it feels the entire role is useless since armor does everything infantry can do faster and better.

Edit: Fun fact, the Sheridan was pulled out of frontline use in the late 70s, and my understanding is WiC is set in the 80s.

[Caesar]

On paper NATO tanks may appear to be superior, but I wouldn't exactly underestimate a T-72 or T-80.

It would be nice to see what happens if you made Soviet tanks cheaper. I mean...NATO doctrine was basically to use tactical nukes to stop Soviet tank divisions since there were just so goddamned many tanks.

[Busby]

Well if its shoots bullets/shells its nothing to cough at. In any case, Wikipedia says the unrecoverable Abrams has been know to survive side hits from friendly Abrams, but the T-72's performance in the Gulf War against Abrams was pitaful-ie they couldn't even knock out one. Both Leopards, Challengers, the French's tank that's name I can't rember have similar armour.

[Caesar]

Le Clerc.

There are a few reports of Abrams being put out of action by Iraqi T-72s. If you read about the Gulf War however, you'll notice that A) Iraqi commanders used tanks as mobile artillery for indirect fire missions and B) they were old, out-dated export models without any modern Russiann gear.

[Luwinkle]

Aye.. the only Abrams that were lost were due to mechanical problems..they totally chewed through the soviet tanks in the Gulf War.
The soviet tanks had a bigger gun..and could probably take it out..but they didn't have the technology..they didn't have all the uber-electronic sights and nightvision and the such. The Abrams totally removed the soviet tanks before they even knew what hit them.


The outdated tanks the Iraqis used were probably from the previous decade...which is kinda when WiC takes place..the 80's ish. The Abrams had, more or less, the same setup in the 80's that it did in the Gulf War.

[Talos]

My Father fought in the gulf war and the biggest threat to the Abrams was American Friendly fire.

The British lost more troops to the Americans than to the Iraqis.


But anyway I when I first heard of WIC I was hoping it would have COH style tactics but on a larger scale and with out base building.

So your troops would take cover and tanks would have a COH style Damage system.

[Nurizeko]

CoH without the base building dross would be sweet, except for defenses, I could live with being able to build those.

[Busby]

Well its possible to mod CoH like that, unfortunately I don't have the patience to do so.

[Luwinkle]

I love basebuilding. One of the first things I thought after seeing my first CoH screenshots were "I hope this is a basebuilding rts!"

[Slivin]

well, guys, im glad this thread is getting responces galore, but lets try to stay on topic here, we went from WiC to WiC vs CoH, which is understandable, to realism disputes of CoH and WiC, then the Gulf War Abrams vs T80 Soviet Tanks and now how CoH base-building conflicts. Can we get back on topic here, personally even though WiC can get a little shallow, I still love it. The singleplayer mission was amazing.

[Ammon Ra]

My main issue with both coh and wic is that i'm no fan of contemporary and recent historical wars. i.e. ww1, ww2, and everything since.
ground control 2 however was a truely class game. it had much more tactical gameplay and it wasnt all about outnumbering the enemy. Matches were almost entirely about having more ravagers/hellfires/engineers/shields than your opponents. These were called "turtles", deploy rav's, deploy shields, destroy everything in range, pack up and move on. Matches were generally "wait until your army is bigger then the opponents", with people running away to the other side of maps if they lost a few units, since the points to buy new units was rare for players with large armies. Loosing your units meant that you lost the game, or were on a continuous uphill struggle. In wic you can loose all your units to the enemy, but you can quickly enough get replacements, meaning that you have a fighting chance throughout the game.

[DatonKallandor]

But just imagine how cool a battle between Imperium (Mechs and Hoverdynes, elite infantry) and Alliance (tanks, medium infantry, recon) would have been in WiC's engine. Where different sides actually play differently. Orbital Precision Strikes with WiC FX? Hell yes.

[Commander ASOP]

Well I finally down loaded the demo that big ass file.


Must say the game is diferent from what else is out there. Just as the stategic point system wa a major change from resource gathering this takes the concept a bit further and eliminates bases entirely.


This then changes the focus of the game and how it is played. A one on one comparision with CoH is unfair as they are signifigantly different. So after playing a late night of games and the single mission here are my opinions.


Graphics- This is a strong point of the game I can only imagine what it would look like with dx10. That said it did not slow my system down or cause any lag on my part. Whatever engine they are using works very well. I must admit the few cut scenes are not as good as CoH and I am talking in graphics quality not content. This combined with all the little details would have to give it an A+

Interface. The amount of camera control is impressive. It is a bit to get used to and often I was using my mouse whrn I should have used WASD keys leading to slight disorintation. I found the most effective camera angle for me was from the enemy position looking back on my own units. It is a point of view every commander would love to have in reality. The one thing that would make this work better would be the ability to lock the camera onto a unit and have it move with the unit. If this exists already I apologize over all intrface is a B as for me it was not complicated but not intuitive either.

Fun It was very fun while lacking the stratigic portion since no bases it is fast fun and over all an A-.


Ok would like to right more but work calls.


Quick point of fact sheradin tanks exsited with the 82nd airborn division through the mid 90's. They were supposed to be replaced by the Armored Gun System which never occured. The possibility that a national guard cav squardren had sheradins in the late 80's is quite possible.

[Caesar]

Different sides being different doesn't matter at all. If the game is still fun to play why does it matter? I know you're a pure Relic fanboi, but difference for difference's sake is not a good thing. Remember Homeworld. Token differences between Taiidani and Kushan fleets--still fun to play.

[DatonKallandor]

Remember Homeworld. Token differences between Taiidani and Kushan fleets--still fun to play.

Remember Homeworld? 1999. The time for a single mirror side has passed. Long ago. And even Homeworld had more factional difference than WiC.

[Oryhara]

The one thing that would make this work better would be the ability to lock the camera onto a unit and have it move with the unit. If this exists already I apologize over all intrface is a B as for me it was not complicated but not intuitive either.


If you double right-click on one of the unit icons at the bottom of the screen it should locked onto said unit.

[Zir]

http://i6.tinypic.com/2i24cv9.jpg

How amazing is that?

Sonic Rush Adventure...Skate...I mean really do people have any taste at all? :(

[DatonKallandor]

Wait, Lair is coming in September?! WOHOOO!

[grdja]

http://i6.tinypic.com/2i24cv9.jpg

How amazing is that?

Sonic Rush Adventure...Skate...I mean really do people have any taste at all? :(


Wow, that pretty much describes the sad state of gaming in this time.

[JHD536]

Not too surprising since PC releases as of late have been... lackluster...

And before the haters come rushing in, Bungie knows what they're doing with Halo 3. I have full confidence that it will own the market for a long time.

[Luwinkle]

Hopefully it won't take 3 years for it to go from console to PC like Halo 2 did. Even though it'll probably be Vista only, anyway.

[Ammon Ra]

The topic says WIC, not how lackluster PC games have been, or how some game will have global effects, etc, etc ;)

My main problem is with these demo sizes, especially WIC. You can use "broadband" scapegoat all you want, sure go ahead. Problem is, i currently have an ISP with a monthly allocation of 10-12GB, after which the bandwidth drops to 15KB/s. So no, using up 10% of my monthly allowance for a demo isn't worth it. :rant:

[Caesar]

I pre-ordered so I got extra maps with my demo =P

[Commander ASOP]

Ok played the shit out of the demo this weekend. One thing I will say is that no matter your opinion of the game the online multiplayer server kicks ass.

Leaderboard updates are almost instant.

Also in over 50 games I had no lagg issues and this with a DSL connection and slightly older computer.

While I did not have a mike it seems the interface was easy and I culd hear people talging clearly.

All this and I am sure that their were alot of people on there with the demo release and all.


As for the game it does have some room for improvement but I think the Fun factor is pretty high and I do applaud some of the orgininality in the concept. Also kudos for the graphics as well.

[DrRansom]

How did you get multiplayer part of the demo to work?

[Commander ASOP]

after installing the demo played the tutorial and single mission then just clicked on multiplayer.

Had to register for Massgate but it went very smoothly