My 2 Cents, or Why I Don't Like SD As Much As I Might

[vonLuck]

Destruction doesn't promote aggressive play. Destruction players tend to prefer setting up killing fields and trading artillery. Other than seeing units die and immediately associating that with a point cost destruction does a poor job of educating players. As Robert mentioned in conquest if you can attrite your opponents front you place yourself at an advantage. It's up to you as a player to discover how to exploit that.

von Luck

 

[Gilmund]

Destruction doesn't promote aggressive play. Destruction players tend to prefer setting up killing fields and trading artillery. Other than seeing units die and immediately associating that with a point cost destruction does a poor job of educating players. As Robert mentioned in conquest if you can attrite your opponents front you place yourself at an advantage. It's up to you as a player to discover how to exploit that.

von Luck

Aggressive play is rewarded whether you play destruction or not. Destruction doesn't promote aggressive play but it's not black and white neither. Stays the same game in destruction or conquest : when you outmatch your opponent and move you have the opportunity to make more kills afterwards.
The best destruction players are not the campers.

 

[vonLuck]

The goal of conquest is to occupy more of the map than your opponent - the goal of destruction is to kill more efficiently than your opponent. One of these will engender more aggressive play than the other by virtue of necessity. Yes you CAN learn aggressive play in destruction but you MUST learn it in conquest. Seems pretty straight forward to me. New players don't struggle with the rules of the game - they struggle with the poor matchmaking and vastly different skill levels.

To be clear I'm not entirely against say 52% but if you delineate from the core concept of play too much it becomes much more convoluted. Keep the rules simple so it's easy to grasp your objectives.

von Luck

 

[Kent_Lang]

My biggest gripe with the game is the vehicle spam that allies get from calling in infantry. Most German units arrive in trucks or cars which disappear from play after you unload them. In Wargame you always kept your vehicles afterward which let you do nifty things like relocating infantry really quickly to other parts of the front. If you were clever the opponent would still try to probe your last position or leave it be believing it to be full of infantry when in fact they might have been relocated to reinforce a vulnerable flank or to bolster a counterattack elsewhere.

The allies can do this because they get somewhat powerful vehicles which don't disappear, the axis can't.

I think this is pretty unbalanced, especially since it effectively doubles the firepower of the units that do arrive in these types of transports (not to mention the potential utility benefits of being able to relocate your units quicker). The art of choosing the right transports in Wargame was quite important as some combinations such as the West German or the Soviets transports could be outright terrifying. Also in Wargame - most infantry units do have anti-tank weapons of some description which would wreck most vehicles that would drive into towns. How interesting then that German troops often lack these weapons. This further stack the odds of winning the game against the axis players.

I'm not a historian and I'm more of a fan of the eastern front than the western one but from the few things I've heard about it - I never heard about the menacing mechanized forces of the allies terrifying and overrunning German positions in Normandy. I heard it was the other way around - that the allies had lots of trouble with the famous panzerjäger mechanized and panzer tank divisions but ingame these divisions have relatively few units that do arrive on them halftracks.

Otherwise it's a fun game.

 

[Karlburg]

There are plenty of axis divisions with halftrack infantry, lol.

It's just a more expensive package. Rarely is it actually worth it to load infantry back up and drive it across the map, but typically pgrens are already more expensive than allied squads so you don't want to tack on the surcharge of a halftrack with them. Most pgrens do have antitank weapons and the ones without panzerfausts have a discount for it.

In reality, the Allied forces were more motorized than the Germans in normandy and had a significant advantage in that regard- in the infantry divisions, the Axis are very fortunate to even have any transport at all to the front- divisions like 716, 352, 91.LL, 16LW, and 17SS had no real motor transport ability for the infantry and had to march or rail everywhere.

Play the panzer divisions and you will get halftrack infantry, same as the allies.

 

[Protosszocker]

My biggest gripe with the game is the vehicle spam that allies get from calling in infantry. Most German units arrive in trucks or cars which disappear from play after you unload them. In Wargame you always kept your vehicles afterward which let you do nifty things like relocating infantry really quickly to other parts of the front. If you were clever the opponent would still try to probe your last position or leave it be believing it to be full of infantry when in fact they might have been relocated to reinforce a vulnerable flank or to bolster a counterattack elsewhere.

The allies can do this because they get somewhat powerful vehicles which don't disappear, the axis can't.

I think this is pretty unbalanced, especially since it effectively doubles the firepower of the units that do arrive in these types of transports (not to mention the potential utility benefits of being able to relocate your units quicker). The art of choosing the right transports in Wargame was quite important as some combinations such as the West German or the Soviets transports could be outright terrifying. Also in Wargame - most infantry units do have anti-tank weapons of some description which would wreck most vehicles that would drive into towns. How interesting then that German troops often lack these weapons. This further stack the odds of winning the game against the axis players.

I'm not a historian and I'm more of a fan of the eastern front than the western one but from the few things I've heard about it - I never heard about the menacing mechanized forces of the allies terrifying and overrunning German positions in Normandy. I heard it was the other way around - that the allies had lots of trouble with the famous panzerjäger mechanized and panzer tank divisions but ingame these divisions have relatively few units that do arrive on them halftracks.

Otherwise it's a fun game.

this is not axis vs allies but armored vs inf, and it is realistic ww2 combat tactic wise, inf division push with inf + artillery + support equipment, armored divisions push with mechanised inf + tanks. germany has nearly as many mounted inf troops as the allies have in their tank divisions, just their halftracks are a bit weaker.

This aint wargames Worldwide army vs army structure but division vs division structure, giving inf divisions armored transports would jsut be anoying, also the battles in wg are a bit more widescaled so transports are really needed, not so mcuh in sd and its just aint realistic to have transports in firefights in WW2 (i dont think it is in WG either but dont wanna discuss wg balance and gamedesign here as this is the SD forum).

and german panzerjaeger were feared but not because of their superior armored vehicles but of their status as strong infantry man. Germans mechanized vehicle supply in normandy wasnt even close to the allied one. You read about them in books because it was something special, armored transports were much more standart on allied side.

 

[steve1]

So after more play - I can see the game is definitely broken. The scoring system is shi7. My win rate is now about 35% if I discount my earlier games played against experienced stompers (yeah that's still crap but I've actually got a life unlike many, especially the someone I came up against with 1700 multiplayer games player - sad no doubt pasty pencil necked dweeb).

Despite the witterings of the content winners earlier in the thread about pushing when you thin your opponents line it really is a game generally of luck as rushes win the day. Then you get people who rush and stick a vehicle behind a hedge which is difficult and very time consuming to get to clear but then claims a load of map for just a cheesy push or hide several units behind a hedge which due to the slow nature of points build up proves really hard to then dislodge. Okay, that's the game, but it just proves the point made earlier, rush to take a few fields and then camp and consolidate. Ah, that's called taking the initiative I hear you say. No it's called cheesey broken game play where you oveload and luck out by going through the right side, claim points and camp for a bit.

My premise is still correct - the so called 'good' with win rates over the 70% rates charge left or right, sometimes the middle, leaving a token blocking force that can block any force you can muster with whatever points you have left. Good gameyness. That's what GG means at the end of a game.

The percentage scoring is set too low, it should be about 55% before the points start and the final score should take account of kills as well.

Unless someone has beaten me by map points and significantly more kills then they haven't actually won - then only think they have.

Same goes for me when I beat someone.

At the core of the game is a nugget that is good - but it's been spoiled as many on these threads can testify.

Lack of a good multiplayer matching system has also done for the game.

 

[Karlburg]

I find it difficult to take seriously somebody who complains about 'gameyness' and 'cheese' in a videogame.

Also, somebody who thinks economy of force approaches to defending an area are 'cheese'.

 

[fufubear]

If someone parks a vehicle behind a hedge and you really want to dislodge it then use artillery. After a certain amount of panic, vehicles will start to fall back unless manually stopped.

 

[hellfish6]

So after more play - I can see the game is definitely broken. The scoring system is shi7. My win rate is now about 35% if I discount my earlier games played against experienced stompers (yeah that's still crap but I've actually got a life unlike many, especially the someone I came up against with 1700 multiplayer games player - sad no doubt pasty pencil necked dweeb).

Despite the witterings of the content winners earlier in the thread about pushing when you thin your opponents line it really is a game generally of luck as rushes win the day. Then you get people who rush and stick a vehicle behind a hedge which is difficult and very time consuming to get to clear but then claims a load of map for just a cheesy push or hide several units behind a hedge which due to the slow nature of points build up proves really hard to then dislodge. Okay, that's the game, but it just proves the point made earlier, rush to take a few fields and then camp and consolidate. Ah, that's called taking the initiative I hear you say. No it's called cheesey broken game play where you oveload and luck out by going through the right side, claim points and camp for a bit.

My premise is still correct - the so called 'good' with win rates over the 70% rates charge left or right, sometimes the middle, leaving a token blocking force that can block any force you can muster with whatever points you have left. Good gameyness. That's what GG means at the end of a game.

The percentage scoring is set too low, it should be about 55% before the points start and the final score should take account of kills as well.

Unless someone has beaten me by map points and significantly more kills then they haven't actually won - then only think they have.

Same goes for me when I beat someone.

At the core of the game is a nugget that is good - but it's been spoiled as many on these threads can testify.

Lack of a good multiplayer matching system has also done for the game.

My god, man. You sound so bad at this game I think even I could beat you.

 

[hellfish6]

If someone parks a vehicle behind a hedge and you really want to dislodge it then use artillery. After a certain amount of panic, vehicles will start to fall back unless manually stopped.

Or a PIAT/bazooka/shreck team. Or any infantry with AT.

 

[steve1]

I find it difficult to take seriously somebody who complains about 'gameyness' and 'cheese' in a videogame.

Also, somebody who thinks economy of force approaches to defending an area are 'cheese'.

Then you misunderstand what's been written in the thread. Rushing a sector to gain a worthless few fields to get map points AND then take a beating in numbers of kills sustained which the game doesn't consider is a broken scoring system. Tjeres noghing wrong with economy of force, that's you being a straw man. Sticking a sole vehicle behind a far off hedge is not defending an area.

The game scoring system forces gamey tactics. A game can be won or lost in the first 5 to 10 mins.

 

[steve1]

If someone parks a vehicle behind a hedge and you really want to dislodge it then use artillery. After a certain amount of panic, vehicles will start to fall back unless manually stopped.

You can unless it's out of arty range of thethe main battle. So you may not be able to spare the asset or the points to buy an aircraft or arty to a spawn closer.

There of course solutions, but at heart is a broken scoring mechanic.

 

[steve1]

Or a PIAT/bazooka/shreck team. Or any infantry with AT.

I agree. That's what I did. But it took a long time to get there.

 

[steve1]

My god, man. You sound so bad at this game I think even I could beat you.

Maybe you could. You probably could. What's your in game name?

But anyway, that supports my assertion that the game is broken. This time due to the player matching as if you are that much better than me then we wouldn't bd shouldnt play each other until one of us becomes more closely matched to the other.

By the way, tend to persevere with divisions that I think are poor to try and get a win out of them or play them a different way which I guess us not my style. There are some divisions that i have much more success with but tend to use them sporadically.

Some people are sadly far too competitive and are say lacking something in their lives that makes them feel successful. I'm amused after a game and see someone who for example has 80+ % axis / allied gameplay and is completely well drilled and can set up in a minute.

Even sadder is when they pretend to be new players or won't pause when you ask for more time to set up. Or some pretend they don't know how! I know that these people are sad, sad people lacking a life outside of computer games.

But no one can convincingly say the game isn't broken.

 

[MaXimillion]

Rushing a sector to gain a worthless few fields to get map points AND then take a beating in numbers of kills sustained which the game doesn't consider is a broken scoring system.

If you want to play for kills, play destruction. Conquest mode is about territory control, not kills.

 

[steve1]

If you want to play for kills, play destruction. Conquest mode is about territory control, not kills.

It shouldn't be one or the other. A more sophisticated scoring mechanic would know how to combine the two factors together so it's not just about hiding behind a hedge a long way from a land entry point after a rush to get there.

 

[vonLuck]

He's just howling at the moon. I could invent things I consider cheesy when I lose a game instead of figuring out how to overcome them. Complaining is easy - in his entire rant he failed to ask how he could do better and simultaneously chastised people who did know how to play efficiently. Stop pretending learning something new is impossibly difficult - watch replays on YouTube to see how others manage similar challenges and don't whine about strategy games being difficult or time consuming because you knew that before you started.

von Luck

 

[steve1]

He's just howling at the moon. I could invent things I consider cheesy when I lose a game instead of figuring out how to overcome them. Complaining is easy - in his entire rant he failed to ask how he could do better and simultaneously chastised people who did know how to play efficiently. Stop pretending learning something new is impossibly difficult - watch replays on YouTube to see how others manage similar challenges and don't whine about strategy games being difficult or time consuming because you knew that before you started.

von Luck

This isn't effing strategy! Hearts of Iron is strategy. This is game is just rush and tactics. Or wait to build but usually it's the rushers who get the better of me.

By the way, I've heard it before - can you just save yourself the trouble and say "just get better"?

There's no need to ask how to do better - it's been said all before and everything has an answer until the game starts and those first 10 mins are played. After that, the game is pretty much set. That's the whole point to the start of the thread - come backs are almost impossible and rushes often win the day. I've seen good combined arms during the games - but rushing is an effective tactic.

And as for learning about the game - people who have time on their hands can perfect their paths.

No one, not even you, can convincingly say that the game isn't broken and that a matching system is sorely needed. Nor can you say the scoring system isn't broken. It's just fan boys in a small community who think they have the answer which "get betta dude". Most people I play against have win rates little better than tossing a coin. Let's just toss a coin instead to see who wins a game and save half an hour.

BROKEN.

 

[hellfish6]

This isn't effing strategy! Hearts of Iron is strategy. This is game is just rush and tactics. Or wait to build but usually it's the rushers who get the better of me.

By the way, I've heard it before - can you just save yourself the trouble and say "just get better"?

There's no need to ask how to do better - it's been said all before and everything has an answer until the game starts and those first 10 mins are played. After that, the game is pretty much set. That's the whole point to the start of the thread - come backs are almost impossible and rushes often win the day. I've seen good combined arms during the games - but rushing is an effective tactic.

And as for learning about the game - people who have time on their hands can perfect their paths.

No one, not even you, can convincingly say that the game isn't broken and that a matching system is sorely needed. Nor can you say the scoring system isn't broken. It's just fan boys in a small community who think they have the answer which "get betta dude". Most people I play against have win rates little better than tossing a coin. Let's just toss a coin instead to see who wins a game and save half an hour.

BROKEN.

What is this mythical matching system people talk about? I've never seen one in a game, except in something like War Thunder (and it is often derided as being so broken it may as well not even exist). You think there's anything out there that'll meet you with your ideal opponent, and that you'll both be online at the same time and this one thing will save the game for you?

You strike me as an entirely unreasonable person, to be honest. You're trying to make the game what you think it should be, not improve on what it is. Howling at the moon indeed.