Yes, indeed. It looks like an offspring of World in Conflict and R.U.S.E.
Would it hurt if you'd elaborate what I am watching though? What is this that I should be glad that it is not another Starcraft clone?
Shall we play a game?
just reminds me of that line..
anyway yea it looks pretty kewl.
as for it not being starcraft: not tiny maps. not top-down. not micro resource gathering i would imagine.
There is a good reason to promote wargames like European Escalation and Total War:
Traditional Competitive RTS has never been about strategy. Reaction (scouting and countering) and micro is more important then planning in these games.
We finally have games about strategies, it's a good idea for people that enjoy strategy (not APM) to know about them.
yeah.. so long as its not like world in conflict.
HEY! here's your 4 heavy tanks. now go micro!
it was a good idea. but it shoulda been ground control 3
im hoping its not too much like ruse either.
i allways felt that was HEAVILY optimised for console and pc suffers.
my main argument for this is zooming out unit selection sorta auto-stacked. I DON'T WANT TO SELECT MY TANKS TOO DAMN YOU!
im hoping that its -exactly- how it looks. big maps. small units. epic scale. less micro.
i want to know if i set up my anti-air asset around my artillery enemy aircraft cant just micro-manage in and out of it to kill the artilley. hard counter plox!
I don't really want to start an offtopic war, but Starcraft is as much about strategy as it is about reactive gameplay. It's also like saying fighting games don't have any strategical depth because you can win by mashing buttons.
And, I still have no idea what that game is all about. Nice trailers and whatnot, but I still have no idea what I was watching other than a trailer. What's the story? What are the gameplay thingies that make it better/more interesting than other games?
And, if it were like Ruse and WiC then it'd be great. Level of Detail from WiC and Ruse's depth and scale would be truly great.
Very looking forward to this. RUSE was a very fun strategic level RTS, and there is certainly some RUSEiness inside Wargame.
Fixed.I don't really want to start an offtopic war, but Starcraft is as much about
strategybuild orders as it is about reactiverock paper scissors gameplay
yeah.. i played starcraft 2 for a bit. but i kept building balanced forces of rocks papers and scisors only to get raped by a BIG F**KTONNE of rocks, papers or scissors...
First off, i think this is already an instant buy for me as (people have already mentioned) it looks like a modern day Ruse mixed with WiC both of which i loved (I also really wanted Eugen to make a modern RUSE game )
Secondly about Starcraft..... yes its about knowing Build Orders... BUT its not very Rock Paper scissory.... yes some units hardcounter others, but at the same time any unit can beat any unit (sometimes you need more then one yes) if you micro properly.. From my experience (ive been playing since SC2 was released) SC2 is much less Rock Paper Scissory then any other game and like Misoik said, its a very reactive based game and where you have to rely on scouting to know what you should be building.
I'm going to be wait and see Oliver on this, after getting world in conflict , tom clancy end war etc, i'm a little cautious about these types of rts.
No qaurter back men, only forward or we will hold this line forever!!!
Row Row Row Fight the Powha
I've been looking forward to this for a few months now. It's looking like it'll be an excellent mainstream war game which is something we've needed since World in Conflict. According to their website, they're going to be modelling ballistics, morale, and vehicle damage like a proper game should. The maps are going to be fairly large and engagement ranges aren't absurdly close like in some other games. I'm intrigued as to the multiplayer prospects. The devs say that you build a "deck" of units that you use for each battle and you may choose between all the units each side has to offer--and there are hundreds of units represented. This should be great--especially since the trend in the RTS/RTT field has been towards more unit-centric games. Hopefully, if this turns out like it seems it will, it'll show the people at Creative Assembly and Relic how these kinds of games are supposed to be done.
My problem with SC or its ilk is there is very little deception and it's much easier to better to scout enemy plan and counter it then to execute your own plan.
I am fine with this sort of game as long as I don't consider them strategy games.
Ammo, fuel and morale is indeed refreshing in an era where everyone else is trying to cater to "pros" and make games that are honestly more fun to watch then to play.
Last edited by Nerdfish; 13th Jan 12 at 5:39 PM.
My only downside with WiC was the rank-stacked teams in online play, not fun when all the general rank players are stacking up on one side ensuring your side is probably going to get stomped.
This looks okay, will have to see more before signing up but the first little taste in the vids doesn't look unpromising.
Last edited by Nurizeko; 14th Jan 12 at 4:04 PM.
I'm getting a significant Rush for Berlin vibe from those trailers.
Looks interesting but I have a sneaking suspicion that the campaign will be America dominated and it will have numerous things that piss me off. Specifically LoS issues thanks to dodgy scouting mechanics and snipers WTF pwn'ing everything infantry related.
I'll wait and see I think.
RUSE was pretty good when it came to its depiction of the Allies. The American PC had a British officer helping him through most of the campaign. The other American general was incompetent, and the sexy lady one was a Russian spy. You used British and post-VE day German troops in some missions, and the German general wasn't a Nazi. Even the Free French got in on some of the action.
Actually, looking through the website http://wargame-ee.com/, the NATO is the USA, France, Britain, and West Germany; no surprises there. The Warsaw pact is Russia, East Germany, Czechoslovakia, and Poland.
Unlikely to have american dominance if your army is a "deck" built out of any possible unit from your alliance - Since you can always have mixed armies from different nations dominance will only occur if you allow it to.
Campaign dominance of USA is possible, but considering the characters will be leading multinational armies, it's unlikely.
Oooh, this gets released tomorrow. And accidentaly, it's made by the same guys responsible for RUSE, and judging how Ruse turned out, I don't think I want it. Don't get me wrong, Ruse wasn't bad, but it basically died overnight. Also, the lack of proper gameplay videos and how nothing was said about the game doesnt bode well in my eyes.
Okay, odd. Different websites give different release dates. What's up?
Last edited by Misiok; 17th Jan 12 at 3:15 PM.
"Died over night"
RUSE has very active PC players playing custom games up until my gaming HDD crashed in November.
The game seemed to be quite a ways off, if anyone have a better idea on that, please post on it. Releasing tomorrow is highly unlikely.
there most recent announcements seem to be shooting for a February to march release window.
New video about the 'strategic' zoom of the map.
Game is looking quite promising, maybe Relic can take some notes when they design the Epic scale DOW 3? (one can dream, can't they?)
Large scale modern warfare? DO WANT!
It's been a gap for so long and so many recent games have been scaling things down more - heck I'm betting in Red Alert 4 that you'll have hardly enough space to build a construction yard before you're hitting your opponents base.
Historical has quite a few of these games, whilst modern battles have mostly been smaller scale, or slightly broken (aka titans in Supreme Commander). Sadly I've a feeling my computer won't run it, but glad to see it making it out to the market soon, and hopefully might inspire a few more epic scale wargames.
Its not really modern; its easy to forget just how much technology has advanced since 1975. For example, all missiles are all either wire/radio guided or laser riders. No Fire and Forget here folks, if you want that ATGM to hit, you need to keep your target in view through the entire flight.
So it's basically a more modern RUSE? Played the demo of that game, didn't like it at all. It's too bad because I've been itching for a Cold War/Modern era RTS ever since World in Conflict.
- sincerely, the Sign Painter
More like Close Combat on RUSE's scale. Morale, ammunition and fuel, cover, component damage, are all in the game. I believe one of the developers even mentioned that vehicles can get stuck in mud on the forum.
yea, it is funny how 30-40 year old fightingtech is considered 'modern' still...
really in danger of putting a bridge too far's pc release as 'modern warfare' due to its release only some 45 years after ww2.. :P
Honestly I consider most RTS games which have a tank which are not WW1 or clearly steam punk (and both those genre in RTS are so limited that you're basically just down to a handful) in origin to be some form of modern warefare.
Once lasers and such come out it starts to bridge into quasi modern and then as things tech up into futuristic.
Scary thing is how many of those futuristic techs are actually viable in the real world, if not actually deployed/fully realised yet. Then again this could just reflect the fact that the RTS world is not that overly abundant with modern warfare games, WW2 and fully futuristic games are far more common place.
I'm sure come a decade or more and opinions on modern will change, but right now electronic warfare is considered modern, just as robotics and lasers and whatever are still futuristic.
Saying that the Cold War Gone Hot is such a powerful theme I'm surprised by how few games have bought into it in favour of Towelhead Bashing Warfare 4: Regime Change.
It involves the kind of technology in war we still use, Abram tanks are still around, A10's still stalk the skies, but the Cold War had the potential to promise a bloody good REAL conventional war, just a shame about the nukes.
Gonna keep an eye on this anyway.
but no challenger 2's.. dorchester2 chobham would be hillarious. best tank in game! (bounce ALL THE SHELLS EVAR) would be a bit unfair tho.. putting a '98 tank in against 70's tanks like abrams and t72
no. its not. but its the best the world has managed to put on a tank thus far. asuming you dont hit it in an unarmoured spot it stands up to all the AP rounds and missiles being used at the time alot. and doesnt have the disadvantage of the 1-hit reactive blocks that many tanks had adopted at the time (challenger 1 certainly did)The Challenger 2's armor is hardly indestructable.
If were going to discuss Modern Warfare, the simple reason why there hasn't been a really true modern warfare game is that no game, until this one, has actually put the player on a battlefield the size of a modern battlefield.
The WW2 games and the anti-terror games place the player on extremely small maps with a particular range vs speed balance. What appears to be different about this game is the quantity of distance, range of firepower, and power of the weapons. From what a beta tester said, infantry units take 30 minutes to cross the map on foot(!). And, extrapolating from that with the importance of range and it becomes obvious that maneuver over a battlefield will become a driving force in this game.
Second, most (if not all RTS) games have a very limited LoS mechanic. You can only see objects within a certain range. This game turns that around, from all appearances. The visual range of units is very far, there is no "balancing" tanks against infantry by giving tanks meaningfully shorter ranges. Tanks may have a shorter range, but the infantry will still be unable to close to attacking distance before the tanks destroy them. Compare this to Starcraft 2 / CoH, where a unit of infantry on foot can rush a tank in most situations. Here, that won't happen unless the tank drives near a town or forest.
Finally, modern warfare games shout not really have "damaged" units. A true modern warfare game would make weapons powerful enough to gut tanks in a single hit. The beta testers reported that single hits from ATGMs will kill tanks, and ATGMs have a longer range than tank guns. This makes the game far less forgiving. If you end up in the wrong position and the enemy are present, your forces will die quickly. Other games, with the hit point mechanic, give most units the ability to survive a shot or two. Here, units will only survive if they are not hit. Once again, positioning becomes crucial, if a force is ambushed by hostile tanks at short distance, those tanks will annihilate the force in short order.
The essence of modern warfare, at least post WW2 if not actually in WW2, is the combination of widespread battlefields, visual capability with the ability to engage effectively out to the limits of visual range (2 km for tank guns!), and the sheer killing power of tanks. I don't know of a game that has integrated those three elements yet and we'll see how Wargame does that.
When I looked at R.U.S.E. In stores I thought it was some kind of combat RTS, but half of it was dominated by goofy deception gimmicks. But if this is like that I might have to give it another look...
I also like cold-war-gone-hot scenarios. The Hunt for Red October, Red Storm Rising, Invasion: America, Fortress America, World in Conflict, Objective: Moscow are all games/novels/media that deal with this premise. It's not so low-tech and overdone like World War 2, it's nice and recent with a lot of modern technology in play but still not at the level of push-button wars.
Like the Total war series I like games that focus more on the use and implementation of limited units instead of making us responsible for generating gobs of troops and knowing the precise build orders your opponents are going to be out-clicking you with. So long as the mechanics involved aren't as complex as, say, the civ series I think I'd enjoy a purely tactical game like this... both watching and playing.
Now the question is will I have the specs to play a game like this? :\
Author: Children of Kadesh, Children of Kadesh (book 2), The Taiidan Civil War, The Fire ,Tradition, Outcry (oneshot), Chronicles of the Nadiim-Basad,
and maker of the Map of the Homeworld universe, and the Homeworld 2 Grand Strategy Game. Responsible for Cataclysm 2nd. Also has a running short story collection.
Not really wierd, shots to the side/rear may not have had optimal angling, and if you do not angle it right it will not penetrate.
may be modern warfare, but u still cant beat a good old traditional artillery barrage
as for that blur between modern and futuristic:
-electrical 'shielding' is in development for armoured vehicles by a group working with the MoD in the UK.
-lasers are in advanced stages of development for several uses (one including finding IEDs)
-the US navy want to get railguns on their ships by the end of the decade and have been working on that for some time now. (the 'calibre' for want of a better word with this tech.. would have the range of current tomahawks and the like, the same destructive power, for a fraction of the cost....)
-exoskeletons/suits are being tested in the field now and/or in development with realistic prototypes..
-ways of making explosives..more explosive..have been found.
sci fi movies are gonna have to be a bit more imaginative for risk of falling behind the times lol
Considering a Challenger 2 has been recorded to have been stuck and under fire for several hours, I find it hard to believe that no one actually thought to fire at it from a straight angle in that time. It came back with 40+ RPG blast marks, nothing 8 hours of repair couldn't fix.
The only other incident i can think of with an Abrams would be one that got stuck in a ditch, got rushed by 4 T-72s, survived and killed all of them, and when the others came to help the Abrams, they decided it was easier to scuttle it than to tow it out. Guess how that turned out? HINT: Turns out Abrams are resilient to fire from OTHER Abrams as well, the best they could do was cause the ammunition to cook off, but the explosion got vented off the roof anyway. They towed it out eventually, shipped the turret back for examination, gave it a new one, and it was back in service.
Well, in my ignorant opinion, helicopters and assault rifles = modern, so basically everything post-ww2 is modern to me. And no, the Drache and StG44 don't count.
Afoxi, considering that your average insurgent has essentially nothing but old rotted Soviet stocks of RPG-7s, thats not really indicative of anything. You can fire RPG-7s at any modern MBT all day and not make a dent.
You are looking at shitty cold war era monkeymodel T-72s using training ammunition and regular AP rounds against modern MBTs. Regarding the incident, I kind of have doubts considering there were numerous times the M1 Abrams was penetrated by friendly fire.The only other incident i can think of with an Abrams would be one that got stuck in a ditch, got rushed by 4 T-72s, survived and killed all of them, and when the others came to help the Abrams, they decided it was easier to scuttle it than to tow it out. Guess how that turned out? HINT: Turns out Abrams are resilient to fire from OTHER Abrams as well, the best they could do was cause the ammunition to cook off, but the explosion got vented off the roof anyway. They towed it out eventually, shipped the turret back for examination, gave it a new one, and it was back in service.
From a military report in the Battle of Norfolk:
"At approximately 4:30 AM on 27 February, an anti-tank guided missile (probably fired from a Bradley) struck A-33 in the engine compartment. The crew, uninjured, was evacuating the disabled tank when two DU rounds hit the tank in the left side of the hull and exited through the right side. The tank commander, driver, and gunner sustained injuries from fragments. The loader, who was already outside the tank, was uninjured. A-31 crew members assisted in rescuing A-33's crew."
wups! i derailed the thread. my bad!
the thing with the abrams incident afoxi is describing with the scuttle fail is that particular squadron hadn't been upgraded to the new 120mm M256A1 leapord style smoothbore gun from the old british liscenced M68A1 105mm (i think it was based of the royal ordenance l7)
anyways, what that meant was they didnt have the new style APFSDS rounds that went from doing well against the export t72 to literally creaming them at over 4 miles (the old rifled AP rounds were only good to 2.9miles or something) and they just couldn't scuttle the thing. and thats only against first gen CHOBHAM at point blank.
the rpg29 that took out that challenger 2 was one of something like 40 other missiles that bounced of the vehicle to no effect. it got a lucky hit on the front of the vehicles sloped armour perpendicular to the apex designed to bounce forward shots up or down (were talking about hitting a spot on a join in the armour on a 5mm thick line)
as for that challenger 2 friendly fire incident, that was also lucky an a good demonstration for other natural weak points that ALL tanks have in common. MOD insists on keeping a rifled 120mm gun that can use HESH rounds... not a lot of penetrating power but it was wedged between the drivers hatch and the turret ring, directing the explosion in a way that literally prized the turret off
keeping a weapon that fires HESH that work better on light vehicles at up to 8 miles is actualy fairly smart considering were modern vehicle design paradigms are going (see, Stryker and BMP armoured vehicles and other medium-armoured assets focused on speed technology over size and armour) although knowing the MOD thats probably an accident.
AAANYWAYS back on track.
first mod for this game will be modern combat.
The database on the games website is up.
Its not complete and there are maybe some errors in there, but hey, we get to see how much awesome the Challenger 1 is. (Hint, its very awesome).
I hope we get a Code Geass mod. Wargames: Britannian Escalation would be pretty awesome.first mod for this game will be modern combat.
Challenger IS awesome:
Challenger have overall the strongest armor and best optics. Leopard has a stronger but less accurate gun.
Challenger 2 would be the overall best tank in the game if NATO gets it as a prototype.
Noticed something: Russian MBT have poor armor, but many of them have SALH on them, they would horribly out range NATO MBT with those ...
This game actually have a unit with 42KM of range ... take that supcom :P
Forget that ... Russia have Smerch with 87 KM of range ... just how big are those maps ...
Last edited by Nerdfish; 26th Jan 12 at 2:18 PM.
The SMERCH also has accuracy 7 and fires 11 rounds a minute, 12 rounds being the only let down but that depends on how 'supply' units work.
The Soviets are looking interesting, namely because most of their tanks get ATGM's and their artillery, both saturation and precision look better than their NATO counterparts. Oh, and the extremely good looking stats on the Tungunska to keep the sky's clear for my Hinds, which I shall be very disappointed with if they can't carry infantry and heroically slay things at the same time.
I'm looking forward to this now, especially if it's a Close Combat style game and to see how infantry ATGM's with more range and AP power than tank guns work.
Oh, and the Soviet DANA artillery is extremely sexy looking.
Edit: And we must not forget to post a link to the T-80 when we are comparing MBT's, since chances are it's going to be what the others will be shooting at.
Compairable Armour, accuracy and firepower, only with a free ATGM, goes faster and has a superior HE for dealing with infantry.
It's also worth noting that the Challanger, the Leopard and the T-80 only have a single MG while the Abrams has two, and concidering the stats on the Infantry based AT, that is probably a very good thing.
The Challanger also only goes 40kmph, and while it does have armour of 11, most Russian heli's and the T-80 match that in AP power, with the RPG-16, Carl Gustav and the MILAN ramping it up to 12.
Last edited by Goobers; 26th Jan 12 at 3:00 AM.
but.. why? isnt code geass sunrise's emo anime that added giant robots because thats all sunrise knows how to do anymore to be cool? XDI hope we get a Code Geass mod. Wargames: Britannian Escalation would be pretty awesome.
it'd be easier to put in full metal panic, or hell even GUNDAM (and it'd probably be SEED, seems to be most popular- nostalgia aside)
anyways. more thread derailment.
the game looks... really nicely balanced on paper! im torn over Russian spetsnaz, or Scots Dragoons, im guessing were still doing this deck building thing
I would very like to see a Battletech or Starwars mod.
Beta testers have said that Spetsnaz are evil infantry killers of doom. The RPO Rys is an incendiary rocket launcher. They make NATO infantry very, very, dead.the game looks... really nicely balanced on paper! im torn over Russian spetsnaz, or Scots Dragoons, im guessing were still doing this deck building thing
Nerdfish - I take issue with your contention that the Challenger is the best tank. It looks like there are three different options for NATO's best tank:
Challenger 1 - Best armor
Leopard 2A4 - Best gun and fastest, but poor stabilizers
M1A1 - Best accuracy + Best stabilizers
So it all depends on what you want to do with your units.
Anyhow, the database is spectacular, I especially like the ranges on all the units, finally a game with realistic weapons range. This will make SUPCOM / CoH, etc. look quite old fashioned (listening Relic?).
I was struck by how much better Warsaw Pact artillery is to NATO artillery. My question is then, what is NATO's counter advantage or will it have to fight in the shade, so to speak. The SMERCH will cost a fortune though.
Edit: Look at the http://www.wargame-ee.com/index.php?...at=1&unit=1329, accuracy 10 guided missiles, with a magazine of 5, on an armored platform? Sign me up for that one. (Though the armor isn't that great...)
The Challenger should be better then the Abrams and the Leopard when speed isn't an issue. Its nearly as accurate as the Abrams, better armoured, only 5 km/h slower and carriers more ammunition. It is also better armoured and more accurate then the Leo and again carriers more shells. However it lacks somewhat in anti-infantry capabilities. So really, the Challenger is for defending locations and steady advances while the Abrams is more about constantly dancing around muderizing things. The Leo is more like the AMX-30 tanks, but with a better gun and actually having a stabilizer and armour.
On the Russian ATGMs, yea, they are pretty pimp. The only downside is that they have to stay still while they guide the missile in and it takes time for them to even launch it, so in theory anything that can't knock them out should be able to run get out of range or behind cover.
T-62M does have pretty poor armor compared to NATO Tank. It might be possible to blitz them with gunships.
BTW, I am really concerned with lack of fix-wing aircrafts. How can we have a wargame with no planes !
FMP battles end occur at a smaller scale. FMP doesn't have a lot of full scale combined arms slugfest because most of battles are counter-terrorism operationsit'd be easier to put in full metal panic, or hell even GUNDAM (and it'd probably be SEED, seems to be most popular- nostalgia aside)
GUNDAM Zero or SEED, definitely.
on NATO top Tier MBT:
Challenger is very well rounded. The Abrams is stronger while moving due to strong stab and highly accurate gun. both tank have a gun with AP9, but challenger have front armor of 10 and there aren't a lot of tanks with AP10. It's unclear if a HMG is a substantial advantage when ATGM Team out-range it so much. Leopard does have an 10 AP and 10 front armor, and move at speed of light, but its side armor is only 5.
Both Abrams and Leopard are more aggressive designs. But if you are using your tanks to tank challenger is a pretty good choice.
Of course, you can have all three if you have enough points and space in unit roster.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)