Future Wargame sequel request.

Kangamangus
Corporal
Posts: 34
Joined: Thu 26 Jun 2014 17:36
Contact:

Re: Future Wargame sequel request.

Postby Kangamangus » Sat 8 Oct 2016 05:51

Killertomato wrote:
Kangamangus wrote:
Provide evidence that Iran helped us.

The fact that these actions happened well into the campaigns in either nation, it shows that the Iranians aren't the biggest fans of American presence in the Middle East. Hamas and Hezbollah, long known to be arms of Iranian influence, have the removal of U.S. bases from the Middle East in their mission statements.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karbala_p ... rters_raid



http://www.cbsnews.com/news/iran-gave-u ... fter-9-11/

http://foreignpolicy.com/2014/07/10/the ... ghanistan/

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/wor ... iban_x.htm

http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/st ... ally-2002/


Ok, first, I'm going to use your lame argument:

CHECK THE DATES!

Again, I have sourced information that shows Iran has acted against U.S. interests after the first article you posted suggested Iran wants to help us.

Iran has more interest in helping the Shiites against the Sunnis, nothing more. If you think they are wanting to help our foreign policy objectives in the Middle East, you need to put down the crack pipe.

User avatar
Killertomato
More than 10 000 messages. Soldier you are the leader of all armies!
Posts: 13286
Joined: Mon 9 Jul 2012 02:46
Contact:

Re: Future Wargame sequel request.

Postby Killertomato » Sat 8 Oct 2016 05:54

Kangamangus wrote:
Ok, first, I'm going to use your lame argument:

CHECK THE DATES!


You see, your whole deal is

What if Iran decided to oppose U.S. occupation of Afghanistan or Iraq with conventional forces...or even the Chinese?


I think we can see that they wouldn't have.

Kangamangus wrote:Again, I have sourced information that shows Iran has acted against U.S. interests after the first article you posted suggested Iran wants to help us.

Iran has more interest in helping the Shiites against the Sunnis, nothing more. If you think they are wanting to help our foreign policy objectives in the Middle East, you need to put down the crack pipe.


Arming Shiite militias =/=
What if Iran decided to oppose U.S. occupation of Afghanistan or Iraq with conventional forces...or even the Chinese?
orcbuster wrote:USSR gets prototype marsupials, why would you need moose when you got stuff with kickers like that AND transport capability? And I'm not even gonna START on the french Marsupilami, I don't even think thats a real animal! Why no trolls for Norway?

Kangamangus
Corporal
Posts: 34
Joined: Thu 26 Jun 2014 17:36
Contact:

Re: Future Wargame sequel request.

Postby Kangamangus » Sat 8 Oct 2016 06:10

Killertomato wrote:
Kangamangus wrote:
Ok, first, I'm going to use your lame argument:

CHECK THE DATES!


You see, your whole deal is

What if Iran decided to oppose U.S. occupation of Afghanistan or Iraq with conventional forces...or even the Chinese?


I think we can see that they wouldn't have.

Kangamangus wrote:Again, I have sourced information that shows Iran has acted against U.S. interests after the first article you posted suggested Iran wants to help us.

Iran has more interest in helping the Shiites against the Sunnis, nothing more. If you think they are wanting to help our foreign policy objectives in the Middle East, you need to put down the crack pipe.


Arming Shiite militias =/=
What if Iran decided to oppose U.S. occupation of Afghanistan or Iraq with conventional forces...or even the Chinese?


http://www.newshub.co.nz/world/ahmadine ... 2010022523

...and real history says the hypothetical conflicts in Red Dragon wouldn't have happened...

http://english.alarabiya.net/en/views/n ... East-.html

There has been talk and speculation. Iran still holds military parades, and produces propaganda of their armies defeating conventional U.S. forces. They recently captured U.S. sailors. There are plenty of scenarios to 'what if' a full boil to war.

edthebeast
Chief Warrant Officer
Posts: 530
Joined: Tue 31 Dec 2013 21:40
Contact:

Re: Future Wargame sequel request.

Postby edthebeast » Wed 26 Oct 2016 23:26

Kangamangus wrote:
steppewolf wrote:
Kangamangus wrote:...if you read above, you'd see scenarios involving potential conventional conflicts. Do you forget that Chechen rebels were appealing to the U.S. government for assistance pre-9/11? What if Iran decided to oppose U.S. occupation of Afghanistan or Iraq with conventional forces...or even the Chinese?

What if Latin America goes hot, and local countries start asking for assistance from Russia, China, or America?

The only laughable thing here is the dogma, and demand to keep things 'black and white.' It would be way better with more tech options, encompassing all of the old tech, to a new age range, and the ability to mix and match East and West tech. A NATO deck with Poland, Ukraine, the Czech Republic, etc. would be neat.

But please, keep insisting your opinions are facts, and limiting the potential of this game.


So you are basically saying when refering to War on terror that it would develop in a high intensity conflict with highly mechanized forces & stuff and not that ; than why to have Chechens in game if it will be still an US vs USSR which is anyway a better playground years back due to better balance, bigger investments in weapons etc? ; problem is the recent times when after Cold War many nations chose to avoid investing in their armies; you'll basically have like 5 - 6 nations up to date, the rest will be heavily outdated in most areas due to heavy spending cuts; weapons race is resumed only recently, few years back...I get that you'd like an Raptor in the game but where's the fun if it'd only shot to 80s - 90s planes, well, most of them?

There isn't any dogma here but the fact that this is a niche game about a scarcely modeled period in PC games which features a rich environment due to weapons race compared with other eras and some sort of balance in conventional war that was never attained since than. Mix East and West (except some obvious situations) is again boring, you won't be able to differentiate between playing styles and such; What it would be neat in a NATO deck featuring Ukraine and Poland? It would be an unrecognizable mix not to speak that Ukraine and Czech Rep are nowhere near the level of Polish armed forces after the 2000s...it'd be one OP nation in a coalition. Of course you can model a lot of stuff but really, what'd bring new to Wargame, just more Bluefor factions with lots of Soviet stuff?

You mentioned if I recall corectly (tl;dr) South America...did you look at what they have there? I think the best tank is a Leopard 1 , maybe an early version of Leopard 2. Argentina still have Skyhawks as main ASF :lol: they're trying to replace them for a decade... problem is if WG goes too far in timeline we will discover how low was the investment in military forces after the end of Cold War and in asymetricall stuff (Iran, War on terror, Afghanistan etc) there's no point to go since the engine is made for another type of warfare.

This is as tedious as a WWII Wargame because you'd lose a lot of features (guided weapons, all of them, precision arty, helos, AA missiles...)



Actually, you wouldn't be losing any features with my suggestion. It would allow greater customization in coalitions, and would allow a blend of BLUFOR and REDFOR tech in a deck. Not to mention the addition of counter-mortar systems, APS systems on tanks to supplement reactive armor, tandem charge anti-tank infantry weapons, thermobaric bombs from planes and warheads for infantry platforms...

To suggest technology or features would be lost is idiocy. Even right now, there is talk and speculation of armored warfare in Eastern Europe, as was during the setting of Red Dragon. The next engine should naturally include advances in technology. Your dogma (which it is, you exclude any other ideas or thoughts except the rigid belief that Wargame or conventional battles could only happen in the time frame you insist upon) is the only thing that says these things shouldn't happen.


The problem with moving the timeline forward is balance: We know the actual armour and penetration stats for most stuff up to 1985, and only the stuff at the top end of wargame is difficult to get specifics on. Now, if you could find the penetration value, in RHA, of the Armata's gun at 2000m, a modern day wargame would be a lot easier.
The only (probably) sane player to take a card of Akulas voluntarily..... UNTIL RED DRAGON!

Image

User avatar
Equinox
Private First-Class
Posts: 9
Joined: Fri 9 May 2014 00:47
Contact:

Re: Future Wargame sequel request.

Postby Equinox » Mon 19 Dec 2016 11:16

Eugen and their Wargame series are, as I believe most people on this forum think, the best and most competent developers of realistic military rts-games today. Kudos to all of them for making good games (and a game system/model) that I really think will stand the test of time.

It would be really cool to have a 2005-2025 period game, a contemporary one.
I know this is what many players want, because many are gamers who follow current events and developments in the weapons field.

I also understand this eventually could be seen as politically incorrect, you'll tread on dangerous ground when using current possible events as a background for a game.
Even so, it is what many other games, both strategy and fps (mostly fps) is doing.
I guess the difficulty for the Wargame series could be it is the most realistic multiplayer RTS out there in terms of units, statistics etc. You cannot really compare it to f.e "Command Modern Air Naval Operations WOTY" (Wargame is better!), but it could be created with a similar outset; you don't have to put nations in "alliances or Red/Blue" anymore, but simply make it like a universal military simulator/rts.

If Eugen were to keep it on a tactical multiplayer level and maybe avoid sensitive conflict scenarios (made up or otherwise), it could be what it is supposed to be - a game which pitches current military systems/infantry against each others.
It seems to me it would not be more (rather less!) controversial than certain games where the player robs banks, affiliates with gangs, steal cars and run down pedestrians...

It could be like an "Arma"-style outset, with realistic armies from different nations today pitched against each other at a tactical, and maybe also a strategical level, most preferrably dynamic.

So - out with the old, in with the new, maybe? And, keep up the good work you as developers do, it keeps us happy!!
Swedish player, always looking for qualified teammates from around the globe, same username in the game and on Steam...
Svensk spelare? Hör av dig, behöver fler svenskar i teamplay. Samma username på Steam och RD.

StephanieM
Private
Posts: 1
Joined: Mon 9 Jan 2017 21:27
Contact:

Re: Future Wargame sequel request.

Postby StephanieM » Mon 9 Jan 2017 21:42

As a lover of the tabletop RPGs 'Twilight:200' and it's sequel '2300AD' I'd like to see a future game but as Twilight2000 could be seen as essentially roleplaying in the desolate winter 5 years after the events in AirLand Battle it'd be easier to make than a wargame between an alien race and French/British/US/Ukranian/German/Mexican units with starships andortillery in the year 2300AD. It'd be nice to see battles on colony worlds though ;)

In terms of Twilight2000 I'd like to see a ravaged poland with city states like krakow, nuclear strike sites, bandits, militia, mixed national units just trying to survive, and where air units, nukes, even working vehicles are expensive and rare. Your primary concern in taking territory is finding fields to farm for food and to distill into alcohol for running that aged LAV you trundle round in. While it might be better suited to the squad tactics in 'Call To Arms', with clever plot, dedicated missions (protect civilians from bandits, evacuate civilians from incoming nuke strike, take out enemy HQ, destroy bridges, find boats home to UK/US/Elsewhere, raid enemy supplies, capture city-states, discover and seize one of the few remaining nuclear weapons (and use it!), and 'the last battle of Twilight'), and improvised vehicles and troops I think it'd be a winner.

In that setting there's a war with Iran in 2010, a war with Manchuria over the Central Asian Republic (Kaz, Tadj, UZbek, etc) and Japanese forces capturing the Philluipines and Taiwan (as China is basically ash).

Just a thought.

User avatar
Partibrejker
Command Sergeant Major
Posts: 322
Joined: Sun 22 Feb 2015 22:14
Location: Elektronska Industrija, Yugoslavia
Contact:

Re: Future Wargame sequel request.

Postby Partibrejker » Fri 3 Mar 2017 21:32

Speaking of a scenario, I remember there was an idea for the 2nd game to be in the Adriatic region instead of Scandinavia.
That way you could finally bring the rest of European countries into the game, plus the scenario could be easy to write, they would just need to pour bonus chili onto some events that already happened. (hello Prague spring, continue your push)

Besides that, the terrain would be great, since you would get everything but the deserts(but nothing stops EUG from keeping the maps we already have or using sand on one map instead of the grass :) )
Mountains checked.
Plains checked.
Hills checked.
Forests checked.
Rivers.
Sea checked.
Canyons and ridges checked.

On the other hand it is natural that players from America and Middle East would prefer Middle East and that Europeans would prefer Europe :)

As for the era, either the one that we have or the one that has 1990 as the limit or the one that does 1955 - 1980.
Spoiler : :

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest