Support NeoGAF

[Alex Connolly]

I think the big challenge will be creating 'decks', as the huge number of unit types, variants and veterancies means you're really weighing up strengths and weaknesses of your force at a much more minute level than most other games. Armour values, ranges, unit constitution, ability to operate for extended periods under fire and on the move without supply...

...it's going to have some great off-field deliberation. We'll see if slight variant differences make or break contact, but just for the moment, being able to choose the capacity of a motorised infantry company is thrilling.

 

[Alex Connolly]

Just had my first couple of rounds of the pre-order beta. Man, it's come leaps and bounds since the old beta, but already, some stunningly skilled players.

Very cool, very deep.

 

[Sethos]

Played this for an hour or two with a mate of mine, honestly I'm not impressed by the core gameplay and there's a few things that I don't understand. The pacing is good, the engine is stunning and sounds are good, so they certainly nailed that. The problem is in that realism aspect of fuel. God damn everything runs out of fuel by travelling less than half the map(s), some of the bigger ones are impossible to cross. Then you need a supply truck constantly following these units around, which is annoying, especially as they seem to run dry of supplies in seconds, as they both refuel and repair. That's one annoying aspect and not very realistic.

In games like Men of War, each tank can be micromanaged to hell and back, so they are easier to keep alive, thus they are in the field longer. That means when you reach late end-game and the battle starts to become a stalemate, moving around your tanks is at a cost. Here it just seems like an annoying feature that does little to the game other than slow it right now for the sake of it.

The default balance between unit call-in limit and points is horrible. What's the point of calling in lower ranked, worse units when you get enough points to just buy the higher ranked better units? We had a lot of different situations and none of them called for low rank units. When I started lower the amount of points we started out with, the pacing of the game just died, it became boring as hell. So I can't find a middle-ground between the pacing and the points, to make low rank units viable.

Then there's the territory capturing. Now this is probably due to none of us reading the manual but why do we lose the territory when the command jeep moves? You can only call in 4 of them and in the smallest maps there's like 8 points, so the game just 'forces' you into a role of capture 2-3 areas and defend these.

I don't like the lack of proper unit management, unless I'm mistaken your option to move a unit is a 'move to that general area', despite the game having cover zones, line of sight etc. then I can't move the unit to a precise point and turn it in the right direction? The default move is always into some terrible position.

And what's up for the FOBs, you can only build these at the start of the round or what? And what's their purpose? Are they expecting us to constantly drive units back and forth which takes a fortnight to resupply, repair etc.? They seem to do more harm than good when I attacked my friend at his FOB, I took it over and it started repairing and refueling my units.

I'm not sold ...

 

[Alex Connolly]

Really sounds like you're a micro-tactical level man, Sethos. Kinda sorry I didn't do a better job during our discussion earlier.

 

[Alex Connolly]

Found a great introduction to Wargame by one of the focus testers. A lot of information, so make a coffee and put your feet up.

 

[Sethos]

Really sounds like you're a micro-tactical level man, Sethos. Kinda sorry I didn't do a better job during our discussion earlier.

All of my concerns are very much valid, they haven't to do with micro managing. The game has a distinct lack thought behind many of the features, there's lots of nuisances and stuff that just doesn't jive - Stuff like Line of sight, range, cover and concealment are all part of their focus on the unit vs unit combat, why in the hell wouldn't they allow you to do something as basic as giving specific order of placement and direction, which obviously has a great impact of the outcome. The fuel is just annoying beyond words, in all aspects in its current form - Where's all this so called "realism" when a tank runs out of fuel in 2 minutes flat? Yes there's something called game balance but not being able to traverse the map, then having to constantly send in trucks to refuel them is just annoying. And do note, I love when fuel is a part of the game, your tactics and considerations but in this game it gives me a headache.

The rest of my mentions have nothing to do with macro combat, this game has been blessed with some odd developer ideas that doesn't make any sense to me. So many of their ideas and features just seem to counter each other.

 

[Alex Connolly]

All of my concerns are very much valid, they haven't to do with micro managing. The game has a distinct lack thought behind many of the features, there's lots of nuisances and stuff that just doesn't jive - Stuff like Line of sight, range, cover and concealment are all part of their focus on the unit vs unit combat, why in the hell wouldn't they allow you to do something as basic as giving specific order of placement and direction, which obviously has a great impact of the outcome. The fuel is just annoying beyond words, in all aspects in its current form - Where's all this so called "realism" when a tank runs out of fuel in 2 minutes flat? Yes there's something called game balance but not being able to traverse the map, then having to constantly send in trucks to refuel them is just annoying. And do note, I love when fuel is a part of the game, your tactics and considerations but in this game it gives me a headache.

The rest of my mentions have nothing to do with macro combat, this game has been blessed with some odd developer ideas that doesn't make any sense to me. So many of their ideas and features just seem to counter each other.

I was referring simply to the fact you keep mentioning Men of War, and I never said your concerns weren't valid. Maybe you should air some of these opinions on the Wargame forum, just so the devs can see them, especially considering you've already thrown down the clams for it.

I've had some great games of it thus far. Have you got the supply chopper unlocked yet? Either way, I trust you already know you burn ridiculous amounts of fuel traversing across rough terrain and even greater volumes through forests. Not to mention, the scale you're talking about is measured in hundreds of kilometres.

 

[Sethos]

I was referring simply to the fact you keep mentioning Men of War, and I never said your concerns weren't valid. Maybe you should air some of these opinions on the Wargame forum, just so the devs can see them, especially considering you've already thrown down the clams for it.

I've had some great games of it thus far. Have you got the supply chopper unlocked yet? Either way, I trust you already know you burn ridiculous amounts of fuel traversing across rough terrain and even greater volumes through forests. Not to mention, the scale you're talking about is measured in hundreds of kilometres.

I was referring to your comment, it sounded like you dismissed all of my claims purely by me mentioning Men of War. Was merely using that as a comparison to a game where fuel is implemented perfectly and makes a lot of sense, even adds a great dimension to the late-game.

Not sure my brain can cope with posting on official community sites. It's always filled with the worst trash of the gaming scene, that or the most stout fanboys that will just argue against you all day long because nothing is wrong with their favourite game. ( Yeah, my opinion is probably very coloured but after years of visiting various official gaming communities, I'm left mentally scarred. )

Yeah I'm aware of the added fuel consumption but even on open terrain, the fuel use is excessive and it's not like the game is RISK. A mile is a mile and tanks would easily be able to cross this map 3 times before fuel was even close to being a concern. Having it be a concern within the first 1,5 minute is a pisstake, then having to have trucks and helicopters ready to refuel it.

I will play a bit more with my friend over the coming days, unlock more stuff and follow what's happening with the game but right now it's looking bleak. At least I can use my right to cancel the pre-order.

 

[Alex Connolly]

I was referring to your comment, it sounded like you dismissed all of my claims purely by me mentioning Men of War. Was merely using that as a comparison to a game where fuel is implemented perfectly and makes a lot of sense, even adds a great dimension to the late-game.

Not sure my brain can cope with posting on official community sites. It's always filled with the worst trash of the gaming scene, that or the most stout fanboys that will just argue against you all day long because nothing is wrong with their favourite game. ( Yeah, my opinion is probably very coloured but after years of visiting various official gaming communities, I'm left mentally scarred. )

Yeah I'm aware of the added fuel consumption but even on open terrain, the fuel use is excessive and it's not like the game is RISK. A mile is a mile and tanks would easily be able to cross this map 3 times before fuel was even close to being a concern. Having it be a concern within the first 1,5 minute is a pisstake, then having to have trucks and helicopters ready to refuel it.

I will play a bit more with my friend over the coming days, unlock more stuff and follow what's happening with the game but right now it's looking bleak. At least I can use my right to cancel the pre-order.

Yeah, no no, valid points. I've come to know your reverence for ol' Men of War - and rightly so. Each phase of Assault Squad is pretty much pitch-perfect.

I know what you mean about the forums. The WG forum isn't too bad, for what it's worth, but I'm sure your sentiments are being listed by others as well. We'll see how things turn out.

Re: Fuel. I'm sure it's being looked into. The big concern by many at the moment is arty, from my understanding.

 

[Sethos]

Re: Fuel. I'm sure it's being looked into. The big concern by many at the moment is arty, from my understanding.

Yeah, that definitely needs some tweaking, at least a nerf to their range. Me and my friend was laughing when he was backed into a corner with his last jeep, defending it with a blob of units and kept me at bay. Called in some arty basically at the other end of the map, they just started firing from where they were and crushed his defence - I let them aim at the jeep and 4 barrages later I had won.

But I'll check of their forums and see if I can be bothered

However I may sound negative, I have every intention of giving the game as many chances as possible to win me over - Won't dismiss it.

 

[Alex Connolly]

Not that I've any stake in Eugen or anything, but at least you and a few others are giving it a shot! For some reason - probably the aesthetics and "vibe" (as nebulous as that is) of Eugen's games have always struck a chord with me, as well as their take on strategy. Wargame has, if nothing else, a fantastic Cold War design ideology. Something very subdued about it...not just on account of the scale. Colour palette, UI, the international flavour of the unit radio chatter etc.

Floats my boat.

 

[Icefire1424]

Some pretty good discussion in this thread. Even more impressive that it's remained civil - or maybe I'm just more accustomed to threads derailing due to extreme favoritism and a total disregard for the opinions of others. Either way, back on topic.

Pylon, it's funny to hear you mention that you don't have a stake in Eugen, although you are clearly passioniate about their product, and the direction they've taken in respect to approaching strategy games. Funny in that I share that sentiment, although I would almost say I do have a stake in Eugen, in that I truly want to see them succeed. Eugen has definitely taken some risks in developing games requiring much more of a tactical mindset, opposed to the cookie cutter RTS titles that have oftentimes dominated the genre.

R.U.S.E was a risk, and although it certainly had a following, Eugen knew it would never gain the following of a Starcraft, or even a Command and Conquer. Still, it released with some success, and I applaud them for evolving the genre. R.U.S.E wasn't just another RTS title, it was something altogether different - and I have nothing but respect for a developer willing to push the envelope and offer something outside of the norm. As such, I'll be checking this one out.

My apologies for the rant, it's just not often I come across a developer actually trying something new, instead of following the established trail with the intent of maximizing on their return. Just really want to see this game, and Eugen, do well.

Anyways, just wrapping up a relocation and have been away from PC gaming for months now, so looking forward to getting into this one soon...almost time to hunt down some Commies!

 

[SapientWolf]

I was referring to your comment, it sounded like you dismissed all of my claims purely by me mentioning Men of War. Was merely using that as a comparison to a game where fuel is implemented perfectly and makes a lot of sense, even adds a great dimension to the late-game.

Not sure my brain can cope with posting on official community sites. It's always filled with the worst trash of the gaming scene, that or the most stout fanboys that will just argue against you all day long because nothing is wrong with their favourite game. ( Yeah, my opinion is probably very coloured but after years of visiting various official gaming communities, I'm left mentally scarred. )

Yeah I'm aware of the added fuel consumption but even on open terrain, the fuel use is excessive and it's not like the game is RISK. A mile is a mile and tanks would easily be able to cross this map 3 times before fuel was even close to being a concern. Having it be a concern within the first 1,5 minute is a pisstake, then having to have trucks and helicopters ready to refuel it.

I will play a bit more with my friend over the coming days, unlock more stuff and follow what's happening with the game but right now it's looking bleak. At least I can use my right to cancel the pre-order.

The most common complaints on the official forum basically echo yours. I'm curious to see how Eugen handles the situation.

 

[Alex Connolly]

Sapient, you'd be the man to ask...what was the situation with MLRS and arty in WiC in regards to multiplayer? Did speed negate a lot of the devastating impact? I didn't spend much time at all with the online section, owing to having a dodgy rig at the time.

 

[SapientWolf]

Sapient, you'd be the man to ask...what was the situation with MLRS and arty in WiC in regards to multiplayer? Did speed negate a lot of the devastating impact? I didn't spend much time at all with the online section, owing to having a dodgy rig at the time.

IIRC, the heavy arty was asymmetric. The reds got the rockets, which had heavier firepower but had tracer smoke that worked both ways. They were deadly, but ultimately they were balanced by their cost, and because temporary material losses didn't have a long term effect on the match outcome. You had to cap territory to win. That, and the fact that airstrikes were given out like candy. Parking massed units was never a good idea.

They had a negative stigma because new players tended to waste all their unit points on heavy arty and bought no AA, letting air stomp all over the map. It was an easy way to farm points for strikes and air drops and move up on the leaderboard. Basically the RTS equivalent to FPS snipers.

W:EE is a little different in that losing units can quickly lead to losing the match. So getting caught in a barrage has the potential to be much more devastating. But it seems to be balanced by the more stringent LOS requirements and larger maps.

 

[Alex Connolly]

Some pretty good discussion in this thread. Even more impressive that it's remained civil - or maybe I'm just more accustomed to threads derailing due to extreme favoritism and a total disregard for the opinions of others. Either way, back on topic.

Pylon, it's funny to hear you mention that you don't have a stake in Eugen, although you are clearly passioniate about their product, and the direction they've taken in respect to approaching strategy games. Funny in that I share that sentiment, although I would almost say I do have a stake in Eugen, in that I truly want to see them succeed. Eugen has definitely taken some risks in developing games requiring much more of a tactical mindset, opposed to the cookie cutter RTS titles that have oftentimes dominated the genre.

R.U.S.E was a risk, and although it certainly had a following, Eugen knew it would never gain the following of a Starcraft, or even a Command and Conquer. Still, it released with some success, and I applaud them for evolving the genre. R.U.S.E wasn't just another RTS title, it was something altogether different - and I have nothing but respect for a developer willing to push the envelope and offer something outside of the norm. As such, I'll be checking this one out.

My apologies for the rant, it's just not often I come across a developer actually trying something new, instead of following the established trail with the intent of maximizing on their return. Just really want to see this game, and Eugen, do well.

Anyways, just wrapping up a relocation and have been away from PC gaming for months now, so looking forward to getting into this one soon...almost time to hunt down some Commies!

I think part of the reason the discussion is so civilised is (we won't count the decidedly minute level of interest on GAF's part, those fraudsters!) that it really does come down to being a man's game. A neck-beard's affair. I've spoken to a couple of fellows in the game's multiplayer lobby and one of them admitted to being a massive tabletop wargamer, so this is a dream come true.

And also, let's be honest, when the wheat is sorted from the chaff, only good conversation can come of it!

In all seriousness, though, while I'm finding the game great, there is a few things that need attention, and Sethos is pretty spot on with his post. You can argue the game's strengths can only operate effectively upon a solid display of logistics, but the supply aspect does need a little tweaking. I love the awesome variables that occur; bogged, detracked, broken transaxles and all that stuff, so if things were a little easier in regards to supply - for example, automated resupply at the FOB by supply trucks after distribution would be nice, but that sounds like you'd play with fire in the event of uneven forward lines and flanking.

Also, yeah, armour direction is something that needs a little attention - only for the fact we're dealing with differing armour values on vehicles, so unlike RUSE, abstraction simply of gross unit "health" as it were doesn't really work.

That said, the more I play, the more I love it. I think it'll be my RTT of the next few years or so. Especially given the online infrastructure Eugen have created for it. Seems like a really nice community thus far, too.

IIRC, the heavy arty was asymmetric. The reds got the rockets, which had heavier firepower but had tracer smoke that worked both ways. They were deadly, but ultimately they were balanced by their cost, and because temporary material losses didn't have a long term effect on the match outcome. You had to cap territory to win. That, and the fact that airstrikes were given out like candy. Parking massed units was never a good idea.

They had a negative stigma because new players tended to waste all their unit points on heavy arty and bought no AA, letting air stomp all over the map. It was an easy way to farm points for strikes and air drops and move up on the leaderboard. Basically the RTS equivalent to FPS snipers.

W:EE is a little different in that losing units can quickly lead to losing the match. So getting caught in a barrage has the potential to be much more devastating. But it seems to be balanced by the more stringent LOS requirements and larger maps.

Thanks for that, Sapient. You enjoying Wargame thus far, despite the niggles?

 

[Icefire1424]

So, need to pose this question since I haven't had an opportunity to check it out yet (the day I get my PC out of the clutter of boxes I call my 2nd bedroom will be epic...), but to those who have played, what are your thoughts on the role infanty plays in W:EE?

Going back to WiC, I think they were extremely effective if managed well, if one could avoid the inevitable Napalm strike by keeping the units moving. In R.U.S.E, I think their utility was more reserved for defense in locking down chokepoints or laying ambushes against an unwary opponent (or at least one who failed to utilize recon effectively).

Question is then, where does the infantry fall in W:EE? Effective when used in a proper combined arms strategy, predominantly as a means of defense, or simply cannon fodder while rolling in the tanks?

 

[Alex Connolly]

Infantry are, for my money, versatile on account of their capabilities. Outside of the differences of vehicular deployment - APC, Chopper etc. - having infantry that specialise in AA, ATGM, regular motorised and so on, offers a lot of early game fun and cheap (though not always effective) counters or stopgaps.

Still getting a good feel for them, though. Squishy bastards.

 

[SapientWolf]

Thanks for that, Sapient. You enjoying Wargame thus far, despite the niggles?

I'm still on the fence. I'm just keeping current with all the info coming out.

 

[Alex Connolly]

LAUNCH TRAILER

Slight irony in regards to the arty usage and certain multiplayer grievances! But damn, it's a hell of a thing.

 

[Icefire1424]

So....beautiful...

Ahem, anyways...

Still can't believe how quiet this launch has been. I know this isn't exactly a major launch title by any means, but man, there has been nothing on this game. No ads, no trailers (outside of YouTube, obviously), just...nothing.

Picking up, either way. Figured it was an omen that I happen to have tomorrow of from work, and the next three days to enjoy it.

See everyone on the battlefield!

 

[Alex Connolly]

So....beautiful...

Ahem, anyways...

Still can't believe how quiet this launch has been. I know this isn't exactly a major launch title by any means, but man, there has been nothing on this game. No ads, no trailers (outside of YouTube, obviously), just...nothing.

Picking up, either way. Figured it was an omen that I happen to have tomorrow of from work, and the next three days to enjoy it.

See everyone on the battlefield!

It's got good word of mouth, though. Also, I'd say the audience for the most part would be...uh...forum members of RPS, SimHQ and Wargamer than GAFers, present company excepted.

AND IT IS OUT! Very nice.

 

[crimsonheadGCN]

The game seems to have been released earlier than what was posted:

http://store.steampowered.com/app/58610/

No need to uninstall beta, since it'll download the update to full retail through Steam.

Edit: It also has a huge ad on the homepage, so it'll get a lot of people's attention.

 

[childplease]

Waiting on reviews before I jump in and buy it. I absolutely loved Ruse.

 

[Alex Connolly]

Waiting on reviews before I jump in and buy it. I absolutely loved Ruse.

Chances are you'll like this, then. It's Eugen, through and through. A class of its own.

 

[Keasar]

Been playing some singleplayer. I like how the unlocks I do there are the same as in the multiplayer, so new players wont be really left out against people who have grinded through the multiplayer.

 

[Corto]

I'm still dabbling in Unity of Command and Crusader Kings 2, but I will buy this for sure. The hefty single player campaign is a plus for me as I'm not such a multi player. Next sale this will be mine!

 

[Alex Connolly]

Been playing some singleplayer. I like how the unlocks I do there are the same as in the multiplayer, so new players wont be really left out against people who have grinded through the multiplayer.

Yeah, certainly a strong point.

I'm still dabbling in Unity of Command and Crusader Kings 2, but I will buy this for sure. The hefty single player campaign is a plus for me as I'm not such a multi player. Next sale this will be mine!

Corto, you'll dig it.

 

[Nyx]

Very interested, but scared of the minimum specs. (my processor is the minimum needed, rest is slightly better though I still roll with XP)

 

[Alex Connolly]

Very interested, but scared of the minimum specs. (my processor is the minimum needed, rest is slightly better though I still roll with XP)

It's a very scalable engine, and far better optimised than RUSE was. I dunno. Of course, the lack of demo doesn't help. What're your specs in full?

 

[Ponti]

Interested in picking this up but I've been keeping an eye on the official forums trying to gauge how bad the MP is when it comes to spam armies and it doesn't sound good. Will probably hold off on it for now.

 

[Sethos]

This is crazy, I wanted to cancel my pre-order but I forgot all about the game and thought it wasn't released until next month. Then I noticed it started downloading it yesterday, oh well.

Figured I'd play some bot matches with a mate just so we could get some training in ... Apparently they didn't bother adding the ability to play versus bots in multiplayer? For shame. ( Unless I missed it? )

 

[Alex Connolly]

This is crazy, I wanted to cancel my pre-order but I forgot all about the game and thought it wasn't released until next month. Then I noticed it started downloading it yesterday, oh well.

Figured I'd play some bot matches with a mate just so we could get some training in ... Apparently they didn't bother adding the ability to play versus bots in multiplayer? For shame. ( Unless I missed it? )

Seth, you're in luck. Eugen didn't originally plan to include it, perhaps on account of RUSE's iffy online setup and subsequently the lack of interest, but this popped up on the forum during the beta:

Hi all,

We are implementing the ability to play multiplayer againt AI.
We didn't know prior to Open Beta that this feature was so important for the community.
A big part of the Eugen Team is working to implement this feature as fast as we can.

We will have the ability to play multiplayer againt AI before 1 month.
We are doing our best to implement this as fast as possible.

We will keep you informed.

I think the issue was farming AI for command stars and unlocks, but we'll see if they make it XP-less or not. Either way, comp-stomp is coming!

 

[Sethos]

Good, 1 month is a bit steep but it's a lot better than nothing. I don't care about in-game XP, unlocks and whatnot - I just want some training.

I hate training versus other players.

 

[Spookie]

Any demo for this? I could do with a decent RTS.

 

[Alex Connolly]

Good, 1 month is a bit steep but it's a lot better than nothing. I don't care about in-game XP, unlocks and whatnot - I just want some training.

I hate training versus other players.

Not my favourite way to brush up skills, either. It's the sort of thing fit for SC2 players with eyes on the prize and a lot of time to burn. Can't do it much these days.

Any demo for this? I could do with a decent RTS.

Nothing on radar, sadly.

 

[Sethos]

Not my favourite way to brush up skills, either. It's the sort of thing fit for SC2 players with eyes on the prize and a lot of time to burn. Can't do it much these days.

Me neither, even when I do have time I tend to do everything else besides gaming these days. When I finally get the urge I'd like a pleasant experience. Reached the point in my life where getting killed / defeated online just leaves me frustrated like never before. Just want some social fun with a mate versus the computer.

 

[Alex Connolly]

Me neither, even when I do have time I tend to do everything else besides gaming these days. When I finally get the urge I'd like a pleasant experience. Reached the point in my life where getting killed / defeated online just leaves me frustrated like never before. Just want some social fun with a mate versus the computer.

Could not agree more. I don't mind losing - with the caveat of being beaten by friends will always win out against some shut-in. I admire dedication, but not at the expense of fun for all.

 

[Sethos]

Could not agree more. I don't mind losing - with the caveat of being beaten by friends will always win out against some shut-in. I admire dedication, but not at the expense of fun for all.

Exactly. Didn't mean to sound like I get all fired up whenever I lose, against friends or people you had a great fight with it's a pleasure. But my online experience in general has boiled down to encountering douchebags in every sense of the word who will take every shred of fun out of every game.

On another note, been playing the Single-Player for a few hours now ( Bit on / off, tabbed out etc. ) and I'm really starting to enjoy it that aspect of the game. Very slow paced, you can make some tactical decisions, bring out supplies to your troops when they are getting low, focusing on taking over areas with an HQ etc. it's really good. Also love babying around units, really taking care of them so they carry on to the next mission. However I'll still say those aspects are somewhat working against you online as the pace, the requirement for faster tactical ability and not having true control of any battle start to increase.

 

[SolidPain]

Any reviews out yet? I'm interested in the game but still not sure how well it plays out. I really liked world in conflict, so I hope this game can bring something similar with new ideas.

 

[Sethos]

It even manages to fly under the press radar, dang

 

[Alex Connolly]

It even manages to fly under the press radar, dang

Yeah! I was scooting around the net to see if any reviews had popped up, but all I got was Destructoid (Destructoid of all places!) promising a review in the coming week!

I suspect OutOfEight will get a review up soon, and by seeing how often James Allen is in Wargame on the steam list, I think we'll get a great review from the guy. Par for the course. Impressions thus far from him are a weak and frustrating single player campaign with the finest multiplayer he's played in a long time. Interesting. I find the single player quite nice - at least until the co-op comp stomp kicks in.

Just finished off a great multiplayer game, with a decisive victory. I'm learning, ever so slowly, how to change my pace and not stretch beyond supply limitations. Supply has softened up since the beta, but it's still a pillar of gameplay.

Yeah, loving it and getting to know the ins and outs. Such a unique experience.

 

[Sethos]

What's really starting to bother me throughout the single-player campaign is their love for time limited objectives. While many of these objectives may not be mandatory, they will give you a ton of command stars. I hate nothing more than rushing and just running my lines thin because I have to blast through to an objective. Annoys me that you'd need to go through these, quite frankly, boring missions several times to get all the command stars - Loathe that type of progression. Even a mission or two where you'll fail if you don't hit the target time / "when something is overrun". Did they realize they made a game perfect for turtle players, panicked and decided to throw in these shitty objectives?

And the moral system, my god they need to cut that from the game. Doesn't make any sense why a tank platoon, surrounded by friendly units would suddenly decide to route despite haven taken very little damage and the enemy was killed. Pretty sure it's mutiny just to drive off like that?

Eugh.

 

[Alex Connolly]

Agreed on those points.

The morale system should take into consideration proximity to friendly units. I love the fact you can field more seasoned units, but it just needs a little more tweaking.

In regards to the campaign, can you grind the mission again for stars? Ala, perhaps go back and try to achieve a secondary objective you didn't snag the first time? It's not the perfect solution...maybe they don't award stars upon the retry.

 

[Sethos]

In regards to the campaign, can you grind the mission again for stars? Ala, perhaps go back and try to achieve a secondary objective you didn't snag the first time? It's not the perfect solution...maybe they don't award stars upon the retry.

Pretty sure you can, as the main menu lists how many you have, out of how many possible. It's obvious they want you to go back and retry it as you gain access to more units etc. but their missions aren't exactly exciting and it's cheap way to add replay value in my honest opinion.

 

[Alex Connolly]

With you on that one. I've hit the restart button a few times on some missions, but I've more just been trying to perfect certain deployments and positions. Otherwise, I won't retry a mission for stars and secondary objectives unless we can do it in co-op down the line.

Definitely one of those games where the...uh...honour, for lack of a better word, really makes all the difference. To jump into a game and immediately see arty begin raining down on sectors is more sad than annoying, because as much as you'd see MLRs and arty in a Cold War flare-up, isn't it more fun to have units engage on the battlefield? Sending motorised infantry into forests for the ambush? Running recon across fields to get a visual?

As much as you can counter these things, I really thing we're at the point where it's friends or bust to play multiplayer with. As soon as I see chopper spam, I just wish I were playing against someone who relished the unit variety and gentlemanly art of combined arms.

 

[54-46!]

I've never heard of this game before, looks very interesting, what kind of PC do you need to run it at High settings at a solid framerate?

 

[Sethos]

With you on that one. I've hit the restart button a few times on some missions, but I've more just been trying to perfect certain deployments and positions. Otherwise, I won't retry a mission for stars and secondary objectives unless we can do it in co-op down the line.

Definitely one of those games where the...uh...honour, for lack of a better word, really makes all the difference. To jump into a game and immediately see arty begin raining down on sectors is more sad than annoying, because as much as you'd see MLRs and arty in a Cold War flare-up, isn't it more fun to have units engage on the battlefield? Sending motorised infantry into forests for the ambush? Running recon across fields to get a visual?

As much as you can counter these things, I really thing we're at the point where it's friends or bust to play multiplayer with. As soon as I see chopper spam, I just wish I were playing against someone who relished the unit variety and gentlemanly art of combined arms.

Yeah, I've also caught myself in restarting when something doesn't go according to my head. Although, I've now started to quick-save before I make some radical command decision to attack somewhere with the majority of my units, leave a command vehicle unguarded etc. which is something I usually don't do but the pace of the game is brutal and having to restart 45 minutes into a map would kill me.

And yeah, that's what I've heard about online so far and I won't be touching it whatsoever. I mean, sure a lot of it can be countered as you say and a lot of the times they just have fun early-game but gimp themselves throughout the rest of the game by massive resource waste, it still kills that true warfare feeling. A well rounded fight with infantry, tanks, helicopters and lots of tactical decisions is fun.

Hopefully me and my mate can get trained up, would love to take on other players in a 2v2 at some point, however my mates always suck or play once a month - I just don't want to stand beside any of them in combat

 

[Icefire1424]

Yeah, I've also caught myself in restarting when something doesn't go according to my head.

"No battle plan survives contact with the enemy."

Glad to hear everyone else seems to be doing this as well - was starting to think my tactical ability really wasn't up to par.

This game. Few missions into the Campaign, and tried out a few battles in skirmish, but not yet ready to dive into multiplayer (need to get through "boot camp" first, as it were). Ironically, having the most difficulty in the campaign - namely because it took me the better part of yesterday to figure out that recruiting a unit automatically selects the unit of higher rank. Couldn't figure out why it kept saying I was out of deployment points, even though I still had over a thousand to spend. Lesson learned.

Game has serious potential, and (like Pylon said earlier) is remarkably deep. Was personally expecting gameplay more similar to R.U.S.E, but Wargame is considerably more tactical. The concept of supply is particularly intruiging to me, since raiding supply lines and choking the enemy from supply seems like a viable tactic (and a possible counter to the artillery spam I keep hearing about?). I'm curious to start hearing about some of the strategies employed on the battlefield - I'm already hearing that artillery spam, and the tank and chopper rush have been "overutilized" this far - for lack of a better term.

Anyone find out if you can bring your deck into skirmish mode? Put together a fairly basic deck yesterday to get the feel for a few units, but could only use the "start deck" in the skirmish. Have a few American and British units just begging to be played...

 

[ChocolatePuddin]

This game looks right up my alley, cant believe no one is talking about it.Visuals and sound like top notch.Company of hero's and me of valor are some of my favorite games.I will be buying this later, no doubt about it.But why are there no jets?and do you get predator missiles and stuff like that?