|
|
|
The Challenger appears to have been changed overnight, having it's stats in optics and frontal Armour reduced, so now it looks rather average.
And the Russian T-62M-V and T-64BV tanks look extremely good on paper, as does the Leopard 1A5 and the A3 Patton, decently quick with good firepower and optics, but hopefully still far enough down the tree to not cost too many arms and legs.
#52
Game is still in development, Nerdfish. :P
I agree though, Any European WW3 scenario that doesn't immediately go to the nukes always involves a battle for air superiority.
Also makes an okay book.
#53
If there's ever going to be a Gundam mod of this (presuming the height of Mobile Suits doesn't make this impractical...), it would be the original Gundam. At least the Original Gundam's supplementary and peripheral media actually takes the effort to document MS combat in a realistic light (plus, consider 8th MS Team). Seed was more like a colorful zip-bang affair with backheavy hummingbird robots that spew light beams and are piloted by teenagers. I haven't seen Zero but from what I've seen it seems to be more of the same. Seems every Gundam after Wing follows the same format really...GUNDAM Zero or SEED, definitely.
You get more bang out of your buck in the original Gundam IP than you do in the newer series.
Actually as I think about it, if you really wanted giant robots with this system, Front Mission would probably be better served. That or Steel Battalion
As to the game itself... I wants. It's like the idea of the Total war series reflected in modern conflict. It's almost the model I wanted with Homeworld all along: give me the units, teach me how to fight with them, and let me at it. Don't give me an unrealistic production model that never reflects real life. Not even World in Conflict was realistic in that regard...
Last edited by Norsehound; 27th Jan 12 at 3:16 PM.
Native Taiidani
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.
#54
oh yeah i agree. but of all the gundam watchers less then half of them started at gundam/wingSeed was more like a colorful zip-bang affair with backheavy hummingbird robots that spew light beams and are piloted by teenagers
lol. so long as its not based on front mission evolved i'd be game for that.Actually as I think about it, if you really wanted giant robots with this system, Front Mission would probably be better served. That or Steel Battalion
i just hope this game keeps its rough-February release date. if i have to wait into march i'll probably be playing end of nations too much XD
#55
So did I, but it encouraged me to go back and find out more about Gundam. I'm always impressed by the things I find about the one-year-war, and the degree of seriousness fans take with it. I wouldn't be surprised if you could dredge up info as complete on Mobile suits as it is for real modern military equipment- right down to organizational patterns for the EF and Zeons to the order of battle of the OYW!oh yeah i agree. but of all the gundam watchers less then half of them started at gundam/wing
Now I thought of it, Gundam Mod would require least work because most of it has been done by fandom. FMP isn't THAT popular and someone here hate Geass.
Odd contradiction here:
Wikipedia stated Roland have rage of 8 KM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roland_(missile)
While the in game database stated it have 2.8KM of range
http://www.wargame-ee.com/index.php?...at=3&unit=1019
Which one is right ?
my guess is 8km.. 2.8km for a missile is short. Like very short. not that 8 is much better considering it flies at >Mach 1 :P Its possible that they shortened it to fit the scope of the game maybe// for balance?
8km is the very very longest range of the missile, most likely shooting at a stationary target at an optimal altitude. The effective range of the Roland is probably much shorter. Missiles do have fuel and chasing after a manoeuvring helicopter will, in fact, use it. The Modern Warfare Mod for WiC simulates this sort of thing and you can see an explanation here:
http://www.moddb.com/mods/wicmw/feat...c-sam-modeling
Of course, the "short" range is also probably for game balance. The Buk-M1 has 4.2km range, which is more then double the Apache and Havoc's ATGM range. That and this isn't stock WiC where heavy air was deliberately overpowered. Small arms fire should be able to shoot down a helo if it flys too close.
To Address someone's concern about american dominance in the campaign. I found a post stating that the player will be in control of both alliances during the campaign.
http://www.wargame-ee.com/forum/view...&t=37&start=20
Knowing in every detail the unfolding of the game's campaign, I can already tell you this is not the case, at all.
There is no "evil" side in Wargame, and actually in the campaign you will play both.
So rest assured, the game doesnt give in any stereotype of that kind or other kind.
The WP is no more evil than NATO? What. That said campaign on both sides is good news. Btw Steam has this on preorder right now and it lets you into the multiplayer beta when it goes online. Also release date is 23rd Feb, dunno if posted.
- sincerely, the Sign Painter
#62
I think they wanted to avoid portraying the Soviet union as the faceless evil empire of the 1970s. It will be something more like World in Conflict, where there will be characters and narrative from the soviet side as well. They can't avoid being the bad guys if they made the cold war go hot in this scenario.
Anyone pre-ordered this? I think I will wait for the reviews, though the game looks good.
In case anyone missed it, this is the trailer on the other thread:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=VkXQ5SbYeNw
Looks good
Update: Comprehensive preview by a french guy.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NVeNnQT7uF4
I've a feeling this game is more fun to watch than to actually play... Will there be a demo?
I think it's quite opposite - since the game isn't going to require 300 RPM, you might get to sit back and watch the action from time to time.
I have posted your question on their forums, let's see if anyone knows the answer:
http://www.wargame-ee.com/forum/view...hp?f=11&t=1027
Hey, thanks.RUSE had a demo IIRC so here's hoping.
My concern isn't that the game requires high APM or whatever, but it will require me to split my concentration across several points on the map, fighting in several places, looking for flanking actions from the woods and constantly monitoring supply levels, which I hate with a passion, not to mention the speed with which the supply trucks are emptied. A "wait and see" approach is required to be sure, but that's the impression I got from the long video.
Looks like a much better game than Ruse, though I'd rather still wait for some proper reviews instead of buying the game blind like Ruse.
Well im DLing the beta now. And it seems like i can stream it (as others on the WEE forums seem to be..) so if i do ill post the VODs here so you guys can see how it is. Also that beta preview from what i watched seemed good. Cant wait for it to finish DLing
I'd appreciate any input you can give.
So my initial impressions are that this game is really fun. Its honestly RUSE with modern day units :P With this said, you dont see any ranges of anything and ive yet to be able to win a game as NATO D:
Edit; If i have time tomorrow ill do my best to stream it for a bit. (no one hold their breath though, i have a ton of school work i got to get threw first xD)
Oh. Too bad.Its honestly RUSE with modern day units
I preorderd and have been playing the beta a little.
I don't think simply calling it that is quite fair. There are a huge number of differences but I am too tired to list them. Instead I will say this: The Mi-24A pilot has hummed flight of Valkyries for me.Its honestly RUSE with modern day units
It pretty much is (from the few games i played) and i dont see that as a bad thing as i enjoyed RUSE. The combat system in near identical with it telling you if your outnumbered, things in forests need to be detected, etc. (i guess the one main difference is that there is ammo and fuel you have to watch out for) You have the map which you can zoom really far in and out of to see more or less of the battlefield. You have the command zones which are kinda like the ones in RUSE but there are fewer of them and they act as the supply points. The way you make units is close to being the same with it using the same style of drop down menu with the only difference being that you dont need to make buildings to make the units, instead they come in along roads to certain points. Then i guess all thats missing are the RUSE cards, which im glad arent in the game xD
This is very very different from RUSE. Which I hated. I dig it and the shot below are from me playing the multiplayer BETA.
Note the specialised damage lie getting stuc in mud or having optics blown. I even had arty have to reboot their targetting computer!! Very cool.
The supply system is great, I just wish it was more automated... prolly a good thing it is not though as this is part of the challenge. The amount of detail for each units stats and the way infantry are treated is vastly different to Ruse.
I do not fully understand the game yet. But it is great fun.
Medieval Real Time, Mount and Blade style Historical Combat.
Don't underestimate infantry, btw. The Russians in particular have really good ATGMs and MANPADs that make tank and helo spammers cry delicious tears. The only thing to watch out for is arty, so keep your transports close and be ready to hop in them and gtfo if you start to see shells coming in. Unfortunately only Motor rifles can ride in BMPs though, but I guess having ATGM/MANPAD infantry ride around in them would be a little bit OP.
#78
Well, those screens would have sold me if I knew I could run this game on my three-year-old laptop. :\
#79
£30? now THAT is a price i can deal with. im sold. IIRC when RUSE came out it was 40, which i wasn't willing to shell out for what i thought was -meh- in the demo.
[EDIT: RUSE + what i hear is -necessary- DLC still comes to over £40... seriously?]
I've played multiplayer demo over the weekend and it is fun. I did not play Ruse but Wargame has something in common with DoW2. You are out there fighting for sectors.
Some things I did not like:
It is hard to understand the game at first without a proper manual.
If you waste your command points unlocking wrong units at first you will gimp yourself competitively. I've got myself a T-55 tree for laughs. There is also a T-34-85.
Some people abuse advanced choppers to score a lot of kills while the opposite side does not have advanced AA unlocked. AA guns suck compared to SAMs.
Holding the objectives will still make you loose if the other side will get better kill ratio.
Did not find any hotkeys whatsoever.
Choppers are too effective at spotting and killing infantry. In the woods.
You can pound enemy deployment with arty first seconds into the game and score kills.
A lot of shiny useless stuff you can unlock.
Hard to load a lot of infantry back to IFVs, you have to do it manually.
I think it can be safely recommended to any RTS/RTT fun. There's a damage model for vehicles, morale, ammo, directional armor, supply and cover factors, realistic ranges, flanking and stuff. Also it is spectacular up close, though you wont be zooming it while playing.
A few silly advices:
First unlock KUB/BUK and Chapparal/Roland. Get a good chopper Apache/Havoc and invest into good tanks Leo/Abrams/T64/72/80, then get supply and recon heli.
[Edit] You dont need a lot of APM for this.
Last edited by Cortlendt; 13th Feb 12 at 12:22 AM.
Game is sweet.
There have been various strategies that I've seen. I do recommend the AA. I got the Tunguska for the USSR because it's got the auto-cannons plus the missiles. People really like their helicopters and the Tunguska is a good choice. The Kub has range, accuracy, and damage, but it's only got 6 missiles.
I've tried to use Tunguska vs Apache and was not impressed with its performance. First of all they will engage you far beyond your gun range. Second I think Tunguska will not use the guns unless out of missiles, third a good player will drop arty on your AA tanks and will suppress them. Fourth they will hold the initiative since you do not outrange them. I think a KUB with ammo track will pwn them due to great range, great accuracy and great HE power.There have been various strategies that I've seen. I do recommend the AA. I got the Tunguska for the USSR because it's got the auto-cannons plus the missiles. People really like their helicopters and the Tunguska is a good choice. The Kub has range, accuracy, and damage, but it's only got 6 missiles.
It is a good idea to cover KUB with Tunguska I think, though they will hammer you with arty.
----------
Taken from the official boards:
I do not like it because fighting for the ground holds less sense then trying to outkill the opponent. I always thought the win is decided by taking and holding some ground, not by having a better kill ratio.This seems unclear, since we have two kinds of points - Deployment Points and Scoreboard Points, so just to clarify for OP:
Deployment Points, in the top left of your screen - the ones with which you order new units - are earned by taking control of and holding Command Zones - the bigger the number associated with them, the more points they provide. Thus, the more Command Zones your team can hold (not you personally - income is split across your team) the more Deployment Points you will accrue per unit time.
Scoreboard Points, in the middle right of your screen on the scoreboard are simply an arcade-style measurement of which players and teams are being the most 'successful' militarily, which is a simply measure of the points value of enemies destroyed - an effective measure since the object of a multiplayer game is for your team to reach the point target first (i.e. kill more enemies before they kill enough of you) and your losses are taken into account since they are mirrored by your enemy's score.
Iglas are all you need for AA. They are amazing, really. Stick them in a forest and lol as those Cobaras and Apaches get knocked out of the sky.
Nope. Well, against level 1 newbs maybe. At worst I've suffered a lucky MLRS hit that stunned one of my BMP-1s as it thundered down the road towards its objective.You can pound enemy deployment with arty first seconds into the game and score kills.
T-55 is no laughing matter. The basic unit is very cheap but effective and the upgrades are very much worth the cost. Particularly, the last variant is armed with the BASTION ATGM but only a little more expensive them some of the T-62 variants.If you waste your command points unlocking wrong units at first you will gimp yourself competitively. I've got myself a T-55 tree for laughs. There is also a T-34-85.
The AA is a good choice as the basic deck really lacks in decent ranged AA. I wouldn't bother with the Apache and Havoc because they are expensive and require a lot of micro to avoid dieing to AA and small arms. For tanks you are honestly better off with a cheaper tank such as the Patton, Leo 1, Chieftain, T-62, and T-55. Anything heavier is taking too much risk IMHO. And with supply and recon, I would say that good recon should be a priority, along with good AA. Then get tanks/infantry, then get a cost effective attack helo, then grab a supply helo.First unlock KUB/BUK and Chapparal/Roland. Get a good chopper Apache/Havoc and invest into good tanks Leo/Abrams/T64/72/80, then get supply and recon heli.
I'm aware that the Beta is MP, but is the game also sporting a singleplayer component - if so any word on the quality of the ai ?
You're right since I've overlooked Bastion completely. But you will get steamrolled with M1s when you out of missiles.T-55 is no laughing matter. The basic unit is very cheap but effective and the upgrades are very much worth the cost. Particularly, the last variant is armed with the BASTION ATGM but only a little more expensive them some of the T-62 variants.
We know there is going to be a few single player campaigns with persistent units as part of your deck. But other then the loose plot of one (politicians nuke the world, Russian General gathers anyone who can carry a gun and hunts them down.) that's all we know.I'm aware that the Beta is MP, but is the game also sporting a singleplayer component - if so any word on the quality of the ai ?
The T-55 is seriously cheaper then the M1, so you will have a lot more of them then him. And you can order them to stop using Bastions at any time, so you can save them for hard targets rather then waste them on APCs and IFVs. Plus, I use the Mi-26 so I don't often run out of anything really.You're right since I've overlooked Bastion completely. But you will get steamrolled with M1s when you out of missiles.
I also have a replay save that shows off some nice T-55 fun on a 4v4 on Airport I believe?. But I lack the means to actually upload it too anything or I would. Looking back on it though I can see some mistakes and holes in my deck, which I need to fix and remember for my next games.
Am i the only one who goes NATO here? ahaha
I've found that I get stuck on the Pact team anyway. I do like my Centurions, Lynx, and Gazelles just as much as the next person, and I have a nice little Anglo-Germanic deck to play with when I do get to play NATO.
Interested in getting this.
Can anyone give me the high points?
#90
Ok I have a question - is there a limit on how many command vehicles i can call in? Because if my jeep gets knocked out and I can't call more in I think I'm screwed.
E=mc^(OMG)/wtf
Ummm i think once that small number in the ( )'s is down to 0 you cant for some period of time. Also the command vehicles can only be made at the deployment phase and only brought back again after some time after dying.
#92
I unlocked the entire T-62 tree, and I do not regret it. The T-62M-V pretty much slaughters the other low end NATO tanks thanks to ATGM spam.
T-62 have very terrible staying power, though. They run out of fuel and ammo very quick. It's embarassing to have a platoon of T-62s unable to defend against infantry because they carry 300 rounds of HMG ammunition versus Leopard 1's 5200 rounds.
#93
easy. just follow it around with 4 trucks. by default you dont shoot trucks IIRC preferring capture instead.
Well, it is "semi-realistic". You get realistic ranges, cover, flanking, directional armor, damage model, morale, suppression and stuff. It kinda plays close to RTT, though there is and economic factor as well. Tons of shines to unlock. Good graphics and sounds. If you like relatively modern combat RTS with cold war flavor, this is for you.Can anyone give me the high points?
#95
Describes maybe about tens of other RTS games out there.Originally Posted by Cortlendt
There actually are tens of RTS games out there? Let alone like what's described? O_O
I can't think of many modern RTS realistic games - even in ancient times we are mostly limited to just the Total War series of games (a few copy the rough model such as Chaos March and King Arthur). Modern times I can't even think of any RTS that spring to mind with having such large maps as European Escalation is offering - heck most modern RTS have followed the Red Alert 3, Starcraft 2, type model of smaller and smaller battlefields - focused on a fast engagement so that the game is not only small scale but also fast paced.
Well, if you factor out realistic ranges, CoH is actually quite close. I'm not so sure about Close Combat series.
When you look at your deck you should see the maximum number of units you can call in. I believe that the basic jeep is limited to six while the armoured cvs are limited to two.Ok I have a question - is there a limit on how many command vehicles i can call in? Because if my jeep gets knocked out and I can't call more in I think I'm screwed.
If you struggle against infantry check out some of the Russian units in the vehicle category. The ASU-85 and SU-122-54 are both cheap spgs that throw some nice HE around for there price, and carry a decent MG. The Afghanskii is also cheap and very good at munching infantry and it helps suppress tanks.T-62 have very terrible staying power, though. They run out of fuel and ammo very quick. It's embarassing to have a platoon of T-62s unable to defend against infantry because they carry 300 rounds of HMG ammunition versus Leopard 1's 5200 rounds.
#100
except i'd argue that CoH is still quite badly unbalanced. it's still play allies -> win gameWell, if you factor out realistic ranges, CoH is actually quite close. I'm not so sure about Close Combat series.
in wargame i've yet to see any terrible balance, hefty nato vehicles are cool. but russians have ATGM's on like.. everything.
it all just.. works. really well.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
