-
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.
The thought of making WG/SD/whatever more "casual" horrifies me to no ends. Please for the love of pasta DO NOT GO DOWN THAT ROUTE. Maybe I'm not taking what you said right, but whenever I hear people suggest making the game for more "casual players" I tend to cringe and cringe hard.
That being said...
I'm pretty surprised with how hard SDN's player base has dropped off. As you said, with WW2 being the theme I figured this would be a slam dunk for EUGEN. I was anticipating a much bigger and stronger player base for it because, especially here in 'Murika, everyone loves WW2. That the player base has dropped off is shocking to me. I have to agree with you on that, it seemed like a home run way to much bigger sales. That it hasn't turned out to be an overwhelming success has me floored. Especially with some of the new features that they have added in, seemed like the logical step forward.
...and yet despite it "reking" WG the player base is much smaller. Curious that.
The front line system is the way forward, but they need to change it so that damn near everything does not push it forward, maybe just command units. As of right now sneaky stuff is just dead because of how the system currently works. The front line system is the logical progression for conquest, but it needs a lot more refinement.
The sheer openness of the front system causes problems that really ought to be acknowledged even by people who like it (me, for one). Other mechanics cause problems too.
* Maps have to be smaller as all points must have presence and a certain level of concentration is necessary for entertaining fights
* Maps have to have less design complexity because pushing frontline in wide rivers (ex Nuclear Winter is Coming map in WRD) or big mountains (ex Bloody Ridge in WRD) isn't really possible for some divisions.
* Map meta is much harder to create because weird shit is more common. A critical bush or other terrain feature in one game might be totally irrelevant in the next. This creates an enormous learning curve challenge.
* There aren't decisive locations as in CoH2/WRD where ownership forces a fight
* The lack of a tradeoff between investing in victory and purchasing combat power implies that the person winning will generally continue to win absent creative play from the side that's down. Rubber band mechanics like investment (which create a momentary advantage for the down player) are important for helping to keep games even and exciting.
* The scoring system rewards obnoxious play, such as jamming transports on the edge of the map or sneaking fast commanders into the back line. While these might be reasonable and creative solutions, they're also the sort of thing liable to piss someone off when they're on the receiving end, especially if it causes a loss. (I'm sure this never happens to the super elite ego fluffers, but I've done this kind of shit and received large amounts of salt in return so I'm pretty confident in the claim)
* It gives away a lot of information for free that other games make you work for. If your strong force isn't moving the front, it implies enemy is strong there too. If your weak force pushes the front, it means there's nothing there so push for free turf. Much harder to bluff than in other games where a show of force can imply greater strength than exists at a point. If you're not aware of how to read the SD front line or believe its movements contain no informational content as some have implied I question the relevance and/or factual accuracy of your opinion on this system. Yes, cheeki breeki actions are still possible with some units, but nothing like the ability of a player to swing a full mechanized force through a hole unnoticed in other games.
* The resulting game play in no way shape or from resembles actual force allocation at the tactical level. Front lines were not some clearly delineated concept, and in many cases the front was considered to extend dozens of kilometers behind the positions of front line units, all of which remained able to access supply. The ambiguity and hard points of WRD come a little closer in some respects, but neither is historically accurate in any way shape or form. Luckily historical accuracy is zero percent relevant for whether a system makes for good game play, which both manage just fine. This point is only here because some have made this bizarre claim.
* Maps have to be smaller as all points must have presence and a certain level of concentration is necessary for entertaining fights
* Maps have to have less design complexity because pushing frontline in wide rivers (ex Nuclear Winter is Coming map in WRD) or big mountains (ex Bloody Ridge in WRD) isn't really possible for some divisions.
* Map meta is much harder to create because weird shit is more common. A critical bush or other terrain feature in one game might be totally irrelevant in the next. This creates an enormous learning curve challenge.
* There aren't decisive locations as in CoH2/WRD where ownership forces a fight
* The lack of a tradeoff between investing in victory and purchasing combat power implies that the person winning will generally continue to win absent creative play from the side that's down. Rubber band mechanics like investment (which create a momentary advantage for the down player) are important for helping to keep games even and exciting.
* The scoring system rewards obnoxious play, such as jamming transports on the edge of the map or sneaking fast commanders into the back line. While these might be reasonable and creative solutions, they're also the sort of thing liable to piss someone off when they're on the receiving end, especially if it causes a loss. (I'm sure this never happens to the super elite ego fluffers, but I've done this kind of shit and received large amounts of salt in return so I'm pretty confident in the claim)
* It gives away a lot of information for free that other games make you work for. If your strong force isn't moving the front, it implies enemy is strong there too. If your weak force pushes the front, it means there's nothing there so push for free turf. Much harder to bluff than in other games where a show of force can imply greater strength than exists at a point. If you're not aware of how to read the SD front line or believe its movements contain no informational content as some have implied I question the relevance and/or factual accuracy of your opinion on this system. Yes, cheeki breeki actions are still possible with some units, but nothing like the ability of a player to swing a full mechanized force through a hole unnoticed in other games.
* The resulting game play in no way shape or from resembles actual force allocation at the tactical level. Front lines were not some clearly delineated concept, and in many cases the front was considered to extend dozens of kilometers behind the positions of front line units, all of which remained able to access supply. The ambiguity and hard points of WRD come a little closer in some respects, but neither is historically accurate in any way shape or form. Luckily historical accuracy is zero percent relevant for whether a system makes for good game play, which both manage just fine. This point is only here because some have made this bizarre claim.
same reason why WoT has more playerbase than WT.
actually playing the game before making ridiculous suggestions is also a good idea :^)
Instead of being salty, maybe you should realize that I have played this game. I've mentioned it before a couple times. :^)
Maybe just command units...? You realize that command units are not WG command units in that they fill a significantly different role, correct? They are their to command units, not to hold caps. Also, explain how sneaky stuff is 'just dead' as a result of the frontline system. I don't think you realize how effective two man and even four man recon teams are in green cover. The only way to root them out is via other recon coming close to them. Same goes for two man AT teams, they are incredibly hard to root out due to their high stealth.
Mostly it seems CVs are there to buff accuracy rather than buff moral, and that IMO is a rather unrealistic gimmick. That isn't exactly how you "command" if you want to talk about what command really is. I would know, I've actually done it, For Reals(tm) on the squad and platoon levels.
Also, no, I totally wasn't aware that small man recon teams are hard to spot in cover.
This is shocking news for me!
It makes them more resilient to pinning (the morale system) on top of accuracy and reload time. This depends on the unit but this is generally the rule of thumb (an example that differs from this is recon being able to see a bit further under command of a command unit). You should brush up on the mechanics of the game. Also, this might be another shocker for you but commanding in real life is a nontransferable skill to Steel Division and almost any other video game short of mil-sims.Mostly it seems CVs are there to buff accuracy rather than buff moral, and that IMO is a rather unrealistic gimmick. That isn't exactly how you "command" if you want to talk about what command really is. I would know, I've actually done it, For Reals(tm) on the squad and platoon levels.
Also, no, I totally wasn't aware that small man recon teams are hard to spot in cover.
If you want to be snarky at least know what you are talking about so you don't make a fool of yourself.
couldve fooled me, garbage players that are mad they didnt get WG cold war #4 are not known for making very intelligent suggestions :^)
Mostly it seems CVs are there to buff accuracy rather than buff moral, and that IMO is a rather unrealistic gimmick. That isn't exactly how you "command" if you want to talk about what command really is. I would know, I've actually done it, For Reals(tm) on the squad and platoon levels.
Also, no, I totally wasn't aware that small man recon teams are hard to spot in cover.
CV are there mainly for accuracy only on AT guns and tanks. for any other ground unit there are other buffs: RoF, resilience, morale, view range...
the biggest issue with frontline system is the fact little armed jeeps and HT can have big influence on the line, which is mostly a problem in 1v1. but still even with this it is 1000% better than old wargame, where best strat is just helo rush every game size and map. i like having real tactics instead of the RD comfy couch
Thank you Captain Obvious for this lesson.
My point is this isn't what "commanding" really does, its mostly just gimmicky buffs that have little to do with what "commanding" really is. This has literally NOTHING to do with in the field commanding, so don't tell me that CVs in SDN are there to "command" when they are just mobile aura buffs. Feel free to keep nitpicking instead of addressing the point if you wish and try to act like you are smarter than me.Heh, I'm starting to see why so many of the WG community "celebrate this game dying" and forum members like Ashley got sick of things here.
Well then, that is a whole lot of edge, and people say the Wargame community is "bitter."
I remember you complaining about losing your super heavies to ATGM planes a lot. Sounds to me like you never learned to really play WGRD, because countering ATGM planes is stupid easy. Smoke is pretty easy to use you know. :^)i like having real tactics instead of the RD comfy couch
Maybe you should learn to play WGRD better before you try to talk about "real tactics."
Last edited:
Well then, that is a whole lot of edge, and people say the Wargame community is "bitter."
they are bitter. and u try so hard not to show it, but so are u :^)
bitter u dont got a comfy couch WG4 )))))
i remember playing u in RD and absolutely rekking u :^) but a memory is a memory.
i know how to use smoke to break los. funny how clouds of smoke stop tv and infrared guided missiles from targeting a tank tho ^_^... why use proper positioning when u can hit B and make on demand forcefield for ur superheavy ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
why use any strat actually. lemme just click my lynx ah7/ mi8mtv over to enemy spawn and win :^) :^) :^)
i prefer real tactics.. i prefer SD
Its pretty clear you aren't here to help the furtherment of this game. You just want to stir the shit pot and for reasons which I will never understand. I addressed your point plain as day. Suggestions like making command units only capable of pushing the frontline really make explicitly clear that you have no idea how this game works.Thank you Captain Obvious for this lesson.
Heh, I'm starting to see why so many of the WG community "celebrate this game dying" and forum members like Ashley got sick of things here.
Well then, that is a whole lot of edge, and people say the Wargame community is "bitter."
I remember you complaining about losing your super heavies to ATGM planes a lot. Sounds to me like you never learned to really play WGRD, because countering ATGM planes is stupid easy. Smoke is pretty easy to use you know. :^)
Maybe you should learn to play WGRD better before you try to talk about "real tactics."
I've done it at company level...I win.Mostly it seems CVs are there to buff accuracy rather than buff moral, and that IMO is a rather unrealistic gimmick. That isn't exactly how you "command" if you want to talk about what command really is. I would know, I've actually done it, For Reals(tm) on the squad and platoon levels.
Also, no, I totally wasn't aware that small man recon teams are hard to spot in cover.
For the sake of the argument, improved accuracy/targeting/whatever reflects improved fire control or similar. The game was always spoken emphasising the focus on leaders, as opposed to 'command units'...this should have been no surprise to anyone.
Commanding is what we do as players :3
Without a command unit, AT guns shouldn't be able to shoot what scout at the front spots, units will prioritize the biggest threat to them, regardless if they could actually hurt it, and fire machine guns at tanks, And basically just have no AI
If we want to get really realistic, every unit must be assigned to a company in deck editor, and the entire company must deploy at the same time. Or you can't issue any order to them ><
No game have realistic chain of command, not even sure if it's desirable.
Without a command unit, AT guns shouldn't be able to shoot what scout at the front spots, units will prioritize the biggest threat to them, regardless if they could actually hurt it, and fire machine guns at tanks, And basically just have no AI
If we want to get really realistic, every unit must be assigned to a company in deck editor, and the entire company must deploy at the same time. Or you can't issue any order to them ><
No game have realistic chain of command, not even sure if it's desirable.
I don't know, I'm not a nice person, I generally believe that most people are retarded and the whole open front system causes their brains to overheat.
So "casual" horrifies the people that get it, but my biggest concern is that there aren't bodies for me to slay in MP.
I actually have a lobby up right now that I've named "I'm drunk, come take advantage of me" which no one wants to join, either because they don't believe me (I am pretty shitfaced) or they must be scared of this sweet sweet ass that's ripe for the pounding.
Or maybe its just that no one plays this shit. Its like End War 2 years after launch or something.
I feel like steel divisions front-line has set the standard for all of their future games. To tone it down would the biggest mistake they could make. The problem with zones is that you end up with strategy stagnation which was a severe problem in Wargame Red Dragon. For example, in WGRD, the map Apocalypse imminent, there was 3 main strategies.
With that all said, the next evolution for steel division is to bypass the Russia DLC and implement a pacific DLC. Huge maps, naval, air and land forces fighting over islands is a combo that would really resonated with the fan base. Before you judge WGRD's poor naval game-play, I believe you will find WWII naval combat to be much much more enjoyable than WGRD.
- push to the island
- push though the middle bridge
- push along the coast
With that all said, the next evolution for steel division is to bypass the Russia DLC and implement a pacific DLC. Huge maps, naval, air and land forces fighting over islands is a combo that would really resonated with the fan base. Before you judge WGRD's poor naval game-play, I believe you will find WWII naval combat to be much much more enjoyable than WGRD.
Yeah I think a Pacific dlc would be massive. I'd pay a pretty penny to do beach landings with a Fletcher class battleship's supporting fire
If your such a better player than is2 why don't you fight him. (Tip: if he can beat me, you don't have a chance)Thank you Captain Obvious for this lesson.
Heh, I'm starting to see why so many of the WG community "celebrate this game dying" and forum members like Ashley got sick of things here.
Well then, that is a whole lot of edge, and people say the Wargame community is "bitter."
I remember you complaining about losing your super heavies to ATGM planes a lot. Sounds to me like you never learned to really play WGRD, because countering ATGM planes is stupid easy. Smoke is pretty easy to use you know. :^)
Maybe you should learn to play WGRD better before you try to talk about "real tactics."