Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

Awesome news - but... Normandy...? Again? Really...?

Jump to latest Follow Reply
  • 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.
Steel Division: Normandy 44 2266 Please link&sync your Paradox account to Steam Steel Division - Let's Plays and AARs!
1944 is the time you wanna put your game in if you want the most stuff possible.
If it's set in Poland there's quite a hefty limit on what can be put in game, let alone who ;)

Normandy of course is the biggest event in 1944 so it's the obvious choice.
It's not a coincidence that is become the target for game themes.. But I do agree, it does get a bit dull re-playing the same campaign over and over again across 20 different games.

There are many stories untold.
BUT.
The rule of cool prevails.
 
Soyaman said:
1944 is the time you wanna put your game in if you want the most stuff possible.
If it's set in Poland there's quite a hefty limit on what can be put in game, let alone who ;)
Click to expand...

Eh not so much a hefty, you could do Poland vs Germany but also have as their own theatres, UK+France in France with Belgium, Greece front with Italy+uk+germany, UK Indian army+ANZAC vs Italy in Africa, a fair few things, all using vehicles rarely touched in a RTT/RTS and massively in the "mobility over build a wall" type gameplay. All these got involved in the early days with relatively the same kit used overall per nation in the same timeframe.
 
I think if you're not going to make everything right away, 1944 in the west is a pretty good start, you get a lot of allies with common equipment, the late Germans with all their stuff, and even some funny stuff(captured French tanks if they want).

I'm hoping we can play some low quality formations, like a German luftwaffe field division or a plain infantry division.
 
It's not the Eugem System way to charge for specific theaters (their three Wargames proves this) but I'm sure they'll dlc the hell of the game (which is great).

I just hope they'll give some love for the Pacific theater.
 
mitchverr said:
Eh not so much a hefty, you could do Poland vs Germany but also have as their own theatres, UK+France in France with Belgium, Greece front with Italy+uk+germany, UK Indian army+ANZAC vs Italy in Africa, a fair few things, all using vehicles rarely touched in a RTT/RTS and massively in the "mobility over build a wall" type gameplay. All these got involved in the early days with relatively the same kit used overall per nation in the same timeframe.
Click to expand...

After seeing what happened with Wargame, I think such an approach would be precisely the wrong direction to take. Much better to do one exact time and place really detailed and accurately. Bloating the game with half a dozen theaters and a dozen nations is just another recipe for unrealistic buffs and prototype creep.

When you go down that path, it's not long before we're at "well, this unit is already in the game because of this country, and another country started using it mid-late war, might as well just give to them anyway, they're a weak deck" and before you know it, we're stuck with a flabby, shapeless, gelatinous mass of a "WW2" sandbox game that lacks any authenticity. I don't want to see this game get Red Dragon'd.
 
I gotta say, the accuracy of the map (from what we've seen) and the fact that Eugen seem to be innovating even just slightly makes me feel a lot less disappointed.
 
lukesilveira said:
It's not the Eugem System way to charge for specific theaters (their three Wargames proves this) but I'm sure they'll dlc the hell of the game (which is great).

I just hope they'll give some love for the Pacific theater.
Click to expand...

Umm, European Escalation was in Germany, Airland Battle was in Scandinavia and Red Dragon was in Asia. All three came separate and cost the same. If anything, Eugen does charge for specific theaters.

The HOPE at least from me is that they take the Paradox approach and release large expansions with some smaller DLC that all hook together to form one large game.
 
Graphic said:
After seeing what happened with Wargame, I think such an approach would be precisely the wrong direction to take. Much better to do one exact time and place really detailed and accurately. Bloating the game with half a dozen theaters and a dozen nations is just another recipe for unrealistic buffs and prototype creep.

When you go down that path, it's not long before we're at "well, this unit is already in the game because of this country, and another country started using it mid-late war, might as well just give to them anyway, they're a weak deck" and before you know it, we're stuck with a flabby, shapeless, gelatinous mass of a "WW2" sandbox game that lacks any authenticity. I don't want to see this game get Red Dragon'd.
Click to expand...

Just have the theaters isolated via DLC. I don't want to see a 1940 Italian deck anywhere near a 1944 Soviet deck. And I really don't want to see Soviets fighting on Iwo Jima maps or something.

I'd be fine if they did "North Africa" or whatever and just allowed X, Y, Z, Q, T divisions like it seems they are. X "theater" gets Y "divisions".

Really the only hook in I'm talking about in my above post is to have a common launch interface and have all the servers listed together.



Edit: God, imagine if they'd have done that for Wargame. No more Eurocorps vs NSWP fighting on Chosin Reservoir. The horror.
 
I WUB PUGS said:
Umm, European Escalation was in Germany, Airland Battle was in Scandinavia and Red Dragon was in Asia. All three came separate and cost the same. If anything, Eugen does charge for specific theaters.

The HOPE at least from me is that they take the Paradox approach and release large expansions with some smaller DLC that all hook together to form one large game.
Click to expand...

I hope so too. I just want the theaters to be separated. I don't want a CoH2 situation with US and USSR vs. Ostheer at Carentan.
 
I WUB PUGS said:
Umm, European Escalation was in Germany, Airland Battle was in Scandinavia and Red Dragon was in Asia. All three came separate and cost the same. If anything, Eugen does charge for specific theaters.

The HOPE at least from me is that they take the Paradox approach and release large expansions with some smaller DLC that all hook together to form one large game.
Click to expand...
Yes indeed my good sir, but my point was that they made separate games with different content (well, mostly air units). As you pointed out, it'd make much more sense it was a single contiguous game with each themed expansion as a DLC. It's also my hope.
 
Graphic said:
After seeing what happened with Wargame, I think such an approach would be precisely the wrong direction to take. Much better to do one exact time and place really detailed and accurately. Bloating the game with half a dozen theaters and a dozen nations is just another recipe for unrealistic buffs and prototype creep.

When you go down that path, it's not long before we're at "well, this unit is already in the game because of this country, and another country started using it mid-late war, might as well just give to them anyway, they're a weak deck" and before you know it, we're stuck with a flabby, shapeless, gelatinous mass of a "WW2" sandbox game that lacks any authenticity. I don't want to see this game get Red Dragon'd.
Click to expand...

Actually all those i named used pretty much the exact same equipment across them, such as Cruiser mk III/IV, panzer 2/3, matilda 1/2. Specifically why i mentioned those 1s, they dont "build up a blob of stuff", those conflicts were all relatively close to each other in time and location, close enough before the "speed train of progress" so to speak.
 
Sovietunion had the complicated fact that it wasn't really part of the Allies but if we had to add it it would in fact land under the faction of Allies.
Then Great Britain FanBoys want their Churchhill tanks and stuff.

If Nations Choice expands than hopefully they add one for each side.
Italy & GB with an Africa Campaign.
Japan & Sovietunion with a China Campaign.
 
mitchverr said:
Actually all those i named used pretty much the exact same equipment across them, such as Cruiser mk III/IV, panzer 2/3, matilda 1/2. Specifically why i mentioned those 1s, they dont "build up a blob of stuff", those conflicts were all relatively close to each other in time and location, close enough before the "speed train of progress" so to speak.
Click to expand...

But when you're doing "early war" and not an exact thing, its very easy for the definition of that vague time period to expand. It happened like crazy when it was just supposed to be one year, "1991."
 
I really do hope that they expand to multiple theatres of the war such as Ukraine and the Pacific. I'm tired of fighting on the same beaches over and over again with the same tanks and infantry units. Please, for the love of god at least have North Africa and Russia.
 
I hope it is like wargame where it will cover a wide veriaty of years but will have the option to limit what you can use based on year. So have it divided into Early, Mid, And Late war, and I also hope it will have a wide choice of nations.
I just hope we don't see sea assets at all.
 
Rasma said:
I hope it is like wargame where it will cover a wide veriaty of years but will have the option to limit what you can use based on year. So have it divided into Early, Mid, And Late war, and I also hope it will have a wide choice of nations.
I just hope we don't see sea assets at all.
Click to expand...

Normadny 1944
 
Last edited:
Rasma said:
I just hope we don't see sea assets at all.
Click to expand...

Even the arguably poor Red Dragon system could work wonderfully in WW2. Though it would be a great shame to not have aircraft carriers in the Pacific if they went that way and going off of how it appears planes will be called in (similar to wargame), large scale WW2 naval may be out of the question.

Kind of a bummer for me, but at least it seems possible to do an acceptable Pacific setting with defenders getting pre-deployments and invaders rolling in during later phases.

I hope they have these sorts of gamemodes. The "Rush v1" and "Rush v2" of wargame got pretty meh even though I've sunk far too many hours into it. I can't imagine a D-Day scenario without at least one pre-deployed set of defending Germans holding out against invading allies.
 
Normandy is actually okay from a diverse gameplay perspective so long as they follow through on the promise of featuring a wide variety of Divisions and they feature more than just the American sector around Omaha/St Lo. The "Normandy fatigue" is really due to the overuse of the Omaha to St Lo battles when there were a lot of interesting battles in the British sector (around Caen) plus to push up to Cherbourg.

I would note however that Eugen would really need to work out how to improve the infantry vs infantry combat portion. Normandy, if realistically depicted map-wise, is very poor terrain for tanks. Most of the battles historically revolved around slow and methodical advances to clear the next hedgegrow - as tanks did not really have a lot of open country to work with and even if they did there tended to be high ground where long-ranged anti-tank weapons could be concentrated to counter such a push (see Goodwood).

The Wargame series, while modelling tank and anti-tank combat pretty well (it's about the only game that models long-ranged anti-tank missiles in a manner that bears some resemblance to reality) had very shallow modelling of infantry combat - often devolving to "throw more guys with higher rate of fire at infantry who are in buildings". Of course the real Normandy campaign featured a lot of this sort of head-banging assaults, but ultimately they proved unsustainable and required the development of combined-arms teams to deal with such entrenched enemies.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back