Seeing the Germans put an 88mm in tanks to take on the Soviet ones, that's a bit of a specious argument. By all rights, any SD set on the eastern front from mid '43 onwards should have a serious lack of German armour compared to the Sovs. I was thinking western front...but we have to remember that by the time the US started getting reasonable numbers of capable tank guns, there was no point in having them.
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
You sense wrong.
I check both games and i have been able to play WG consistently although I check SD first.
SD has potential, Eugen just need to make it work with both game modes.
why focus a mode in a strategy game where attacking the enemy immediately is the only strategy ?
if you want a game about zerg rushes, there is actually a game out there all about zerg rushes and there is hardly any market for another.
Considering The Soviet is on the side of allies this allows symmetric matchup. No longer will one side arbitarily dominate early game and another arbitrarily dominate late game.
If the Russians are in the by the time Germans get big cats Russians will get their Stalins.
If both sides stand a chance people will play 10 v 10 dest and the game will be revived.
Western allies will end up being novelty like Blue Dragons. You play them for fun and for a challenge. That's completely fine. the Russians won WW2.
Meanwhile ...
Last edited:
Conquest isn't about "meta balls" at all. If that were the case, then anyone could become successful if they understand the basic concepts of the game. I hold no shallow beliefs that I could thrash the top Ranked roster by just Fast Moving a few cheese units down a road. It takes skill and thought out plans to succeed. You may think comebacks aren't possible, but I've both pushed and been pushed out of sectors many times, and you can just watch tourny games to see that comebacks do happen and are far from "absolutely impossible." Perhaps your mentality just isn't currently geared for Conquest, as Destruction doesn't really promote the same aggressive push skill sets that Conquest asks of the player.
I have ample amount of playtime of both game modes, and I do find sniping two moving BUs with one ATACMS shot to be entertaining. Don't go so far as to say that I couldn't care less. I put time into both modes and I can list pros and cons of both.
Perhaps the arrogant assumption is yours in victimizing yourself and acting like all Conquest players are elitist pricks. I know many are toxic (I've been BM'd too you know) but that doesn't give you the excuse to be as well. I don't actually remember your play stats but I think you should try to get more hours into Conquest before being so vitriolic towards it.
This. All the RTS games are about killing your enemy with valuable strategies : tower rushes, boom economy and fast tiers to get better troops, combined forces...
Like "attacking the enemy" means something in SD. If you don't bring your assault infantry within 100m they're dead meat but they're deadly units as well in close encounters. The same middle armor may kill a unit way stronger if it manages to get close. You may even block natural line of sights with smoke and sneak units within it.
In this game the ground you make is valuable to get points to get units faster, but more ground you make, more your new units need time to go to the frontline. Crossfire and win the frontline. It is the very basic under mechanic. It is like you're bitching against the very purpose of the game and everything the game is build upon. It's kinda weird.
It is not elitist shit, the time factor imposed to you in conquest mode forces you to move faster with fewer units. You've to pick them well and place them well, way more quickly than in destruction. It is not about killing units, it is about being rewarded a tactical move. In destruction mode you may spend all your game playing arty fire if you want too, tell me you need more skill doing it.
@Nerdfish
I always maintained that the 10v10 community needed to be a definite and clear focus for the game. It's the one game mode that will attract in casuals and bring some flow-on to the rest of the game's community.
I always maintained that the 10v10 community needed to be a definite and clear focus for the game. It's the one game mode that will attract in casuals and bring some flow-on to the rest of the game's community.
Random won a tournament in this manner. I have won conquest in five minutes myself.
I would put more time into it if it's not entirely dominated by gunship and wheeled transport rushes. I have a lot of work so if it's not fun for me I don't care.
Conquest mode invalidate any opener that does immediately come into contact with the enemy. You can't open defensively and bring a lot of AA, you can't open with an SF flank, basically everything except gunship rush or wheeled transport is an automatic loss because the mode force you to contest the middle sector / town immediately.
I am not victimized because I have no problem finding dest games in WG and it's really a boon that all the conquest fanboys left for SD.
Correct, pointed out earlier there has to be a game before there can be any competition. Getting a game to work on all modes isn't really difficult, you only need a couple changes
+ Russians
+ 20 Minute phases, reduce all income by 50%
+ Tanks not stopped by trees.
One or two cards of hardened AT guns is a drop a bucket compare to problems killing the game. It doesn't matter if the game is perfectly balanced if nobody plays it.
Last edited:
It's interesting how the player focus has shifted towards a more allied-centric position...it's funny how the wehraboo viewpoint matched the anti-10v10 angst. Like the bad old days in ALB when anyone who played mech was a game leper...