There is plenty of variety in deck building and the divisions mechanic is awesome if you ask me. It's nice to have limitations to what units you can bring to the fight based on what division you choose.
Last edited:
-
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.
It's fine. I will say there can be discussions about availability balancing, but it works fine. I don't get butthurt when some of my units are damaged and destroyed. I would like strikes to be limited to line-of-sight of the spotter unit, that's always annoyed me but it's uiltimately not a big problem. It's not a bad mechanic, people are just whiny and butthurt because they got beaten once by it and they felt it was "unfair" even though they always knew about the mechanic and should take it into account. This is again an example of what I often talk about - People have a strategy they they THINK is good and then when something comes along and ruins it, they just complain about that thing, instead of figuring out ways to minimise the damage in future. And lets be clear, the only actual criticism I've seen of it is that it ruined their defensive positions. This is not a legitimate complaint. SD is a very offensive oriented game, you SHOULD be punished for turtling up, it makes for a far more interesting game.
I disagree that this is a good idea. More community engagement wouldn't be bad, I don't really think "people whine earlier" is a particularly good reason to not inform people of changes in advance, they're going to whine either way. But I don't think that players who think they're good really know what they want and peopl;e usually just base their "solutions" on things that would make their current strategy easier, whether their current strategy makes any sense or not. I mean it's a balancing act. Perhaps it would be a good idea not to base your solutions on what the community says, but at least run solutions that eugen have come up with by the community in advance, to see how well people think they will go down.
Last edited:
Well I strongly disagree. In reality this ability is not at all used just for breaking turtles even so it's not fun to use and requires no skill. Are you sitting in a town that's being attacked? Ok, just put point and click artillery on the attacking force. Might be a cannon in that woodline thats a threat to your invincible panzer? It's fine just delete it. It moved out of cover? Delete it with a plane. You just can't move all the time. It's just not in the nature of the game. If a bigass tank is covering the open ground ahead of you, you simply cannot advance without proper prep-time. But that prepping can at any time just get shelled out by offmap.
How about this: Lets say it didn't do that much damage unless there's a direct hit, but devastated morale and forced units back. Then you actually have to mop up by moving in and killing the units you just stunned. Not just point and click.
It absolutely is a balancing act. People are absolutely biased. Ultimately, eugen has to make the decision that they feel is correct, but if everyone has tossed shit at each other and called out each others biases and had their say and their reasoning heard and the end solution scrutinized, then end should prove better than just doing something essentially at random that has been produced in essentially the eugen echo-chamber. I mean, it's not like Eugen plays the game as much as some of the most hardcore players. I guarantee that players will have insight that eugen does not when some players have 1000+ hours in the game. You're allowed to disagree with a players proposed solution. But please understand that they might have a real problem worth thinking about. I think more than anything, it's eugens job to see that "ok, this guy is mad about, X, he says we should do Y, but actually he just wants to do that because of his own biases, we can solve X by doing a better solution Z."
Last edited:
Planes have counters. Offmap takes like half a minute or whatever to come in and if you have your forces spread properly (as you usually would in an attack) it shouldn't be that devastating. Like I say, availability could be tweaked because I understand this doesn't necessarily hold when they can call in 3 strikes at once right across your lines. But mostly it's devastating when you have a blob of units, particularly infantry, clustered together waiting for something. Also, if you're clustering units for an attack (not something I'd do, you spread them out across the area you want to attack and hide them so it is difficult for the enemy to judge the strength properly) then they should be hidden. If the enemy is out reconning you and you aren't using the bocage to your advantage then it's not really the fault of offmap. Certainly there could be situations where it is very strong, but if you know your enemy has offmap then be careful about those situations. Also, what I said about line of sight, I think would help quite a bit as often, getting a shot on the enemy would require your vehicle to reveal itself, thus warning the enemy in advance that they are in danger of having an offmap strike coming down. If they are paying attention.
:eh: I don't like the idea that a big high explosive shell can explode right next to an infantry unit and not damage it severely. Perhaps increase dispersion, making it better at pinning down a larger area but less likely to hit a specific thing? But like I say I don't find it that problematic, so far so I don't see it as necessary. I could go along with a balance change like that though if it's deemed necessary.
You realise they do use players for testing patches and giving feedback on changes and stuff right?
Also, the main problem is when X isn't an issue and the issue is that the person can't be bothered or isn't flexible enough to alter his own strategy for something he is vulnerable to. That is the main problem I have with a lot of complaints. When there is something I consider genuinely problematic, I will offer my own solutions if I have them.
Dog I've played Wargame off and on since EE, and I played the hell out of WRD. Pretty sure I'm in the thousand hour club at this point. I'm not calling it a bad game . I'm saying that there aren't too many mechanical differences between the two, and that SD44 has a ton of new infantry mechanics that would be nice in the next Cold War entry.
But neither one is particularly popular. WRD just managed to eke out a meager existence for longer. If it had been released today, I suspect it would have done equally poorly. I don't know why. I'm an old with interests that are far outside the mainstream.
I'd like both to suceed. I get that there's memes about how common WW2 games are, but there are very few well done hard historical 3D WW2 games. Atchung (fucking German, how does it work?) Panzer /Graviteam Tactics is the only good one out there and if you've played it you'll know just how fucking dire it is.
The same is true for Cold War games, although they're sadly lacking in operational wargames too beyond the awesome Vietnam 65 and a few spreadsheet sims.
Certainly as someone who enjoys SP and MP I think more investment in SP is warranted right now although obviously more MP balancing is direly needed so that armor decks are viable in 1v1 without being game winning in bigger formats for example, or so that 3FSJ and 15th Scots are good but not in a league of their own.
The MP system already outclasses most offerings in the field, but the SP is anemic. Steal some ideas (but not the god awful UI) from the Graviteam Tactics campaigns and or CoH1 and really go whole hog on it.
I was expecting a campaign with 1st Canadian Army to fight to and close the Falaise pocket using 1 Pancera and 3RD Canadian, with maybe the other side also playable. That would have been awesome. And the Cotentin Peninsula, Cherbourg and Operation Cobra with the 2nd Inf , 3AD and 82 AB? Would have been great.
Instead we got some nice but very short campaigns with good ideas.
Maybe what Eugen needs to do is acknowledge that RTS games just aren't well loved anymore and get real experimental with a pseudo early access period using the beta system. I don't know. I'm just a fan worried that this might be the last game I see from them.
Oh and I'm frustrated that people like you are making this out to be a pissing contest between two great games no one likes rather than getting worried that both have declining player count averages.
If you think in terms of pissing contests you will see pissing contests everywhere. Those are data.