Wargame Sequel, Wargame 4, Next Wargame, Expansion Directory

User avatar
Partibrejker
Command Sergeant Major
Posts: 327
Joined: Sun 22 Feb 2015 22:14
Location: Elektronska Industrija, Yugoslavia
Contact:

Re: Wargame Sequel, Wargame 4, Next Wargame, Expansion Directory

Postby Partibrejker » Mon 6 Mar 2017 18:31

HrcAk47 wrote:I don't see a WW2 title as "detracting" from the engine capabilities - rather, I see it as growth opportunity if they decide to do a proper implementation of towed artillery - it would mean the world for a Cold War title!

So, WW2 is not a step back. It's rather a side step with a potential for a huge leap forward. Therefore I am quite okay with current situation and will likely play SD... until Eugen reveals the second secret project, that is :twisted:


the moment when you realise that towed arty could make it into wargame.

and suddenly I felt nothing.
Spoiler : :

DrRansom
Lieutenant Colonel
Posts: 2032
Joined: Sat 14 Jan 2012 18:22
Contact:

Re: Wargame Sequel, Wargame 4, Next Wargame, Expansion Directory

Postby DrRansom » Mon 6 Mar 2017 21:31

I'm sad that Eugen is leaving the cold war for now, but I wouldn't be surprised if they're just tired of that.

SD looks promising, the new mechanics would fix many of the problems in the average war game match. It looks like SD mechanically is very inspired by the weakness of the Wargame series.

For that reason, I'm excited by the game.

Comrade_Bane
First Sergeant
Posts: 222
Joined: Wed 16 Dec 2015 23:28
Contact:

Re: Wargame Sequel, Wargame 4, Next Wargame, Expansion Directory

Postby Comrade_Bane » Tue 7 Mar 2017 01:07

varis wrote:Sticky granted to thread.

With "WarGame 4 should be like..." threads popping up every other day, it makes sense to collect all (well, the good ones) into one place. Post below if any major ones are missing!


yay, about time

It might also make sense to unlock quite a few of the proposals on this list as well...

User avatar
Mike
More than 10 000 messages. Soldier you are the leader of all armies!
Posts: 11719
Joined: Thu 20 Feb 2014 01:09
Location: Virginia, United States of America
Contact:

Re: Wargame Sequel, Wargame 4, Next Wargame, Expansion Directory

Postby Mike » Wed 8 Mar 2017 20:04

Crowarior wrote:1980 is best for "modern" strategy game. In case of new ww2 game I think it looks really good. Only thing I dont like so far is vegetation.. lol I know, stupid thing to complain about but trees look really ugly, I hope it get's "fixed" when game launches.


Personally, I think 1985/6 is a good choice.
Image
Courtesy of KattiValk

Crowarior
Corporal
Posts: 41
Joined: Tue 24 May 2016 12:29
Contact:

Re: Wargame Sequel, Wargame 4, Next Wargame, Expansion Directory

Postby Crowarior » Thu 9 Mar 2017 01:21

Mike wrote:Personally, I think 1985/6 is a good choice.


Yea, I dont like these unicorn units like patriot, superheavies or longbow... It's suppose to be large scale battles not babysiting unicorns...

Oktoberfest
Second-Lieutenant
Posts: 939
Joined: Wed 23 Oct 2013 09:01
Contact:

Re: Wargame Sequel, Wargame 4, Next Wargame, Expansion Directory

Postby Oktoberfest » Thu 9 Mar 2017 17:20

Crowarior wrote:
Mike wrote:Personally, I think 1985/6 is a good choice.


Yea, I dont like these unicorn units like patriot, superheavies or longbow... It's suppose to be large scale battles not babysiting unicorns...


It's because you don't have access to enough unicorns. Somehow, in 1995, you have more chance to encounter old M60 or T-55 than M1A1 or modern T-72/T-80.

Just make every unit available without limit, price being the only deterrent for calling reinforcement, and watch how funny the game could become.

Crowarior
Corporal
Posts: 41
Joined: Tue 24 May 2016 12:29
Contact:

Re: Wargame Sequel, Wargame 4, Next Wargame, Expansion Directory

Postby Crowarior » Thu 9 Mar 2017 17:25

Oktoberfest wrote:It's because you don't have access to enough unicorns. Somehow, in 1995, you have more chance to encounter old M60 or T-55 than M1A1 or modern T-72/T-80.
Just make every unit available without limit, price being the only deterrent for calling reinforcement, and watch how funny the game could become.



Im just saying that there shouldn't be any unicorns in the game in the first place. Tanks like Leo 2A4 and m1a1 should be top tanks... And you can have more of them so no stupid babysiting.

Comrade_Bane
First Sergeant
Posts: 222
Joined: Wed 16 Dec 2015 23:28
Contact:

Re: Wargame Sequel, Wargame 4, Next Wargame, Expansion Directory

Postby Comrade_Bane » Sat 11 Mar 2017 18:09

Crowarior wrote:
Mike wrote:Personally, I think 1985/6 is a good choice.


Yea, I dont like these unicorn units like patriot, superheavies or longbow... It's suppose to be large scale battles not babysiting unicorns...


Agreed on the unicorn units... but i personally like the 1988/89 timeframe.

Oktoberfest
Second-Lieutenant
Posts: 939
Joined: Wed 23 Oct 2013 09:01
Contact:

Re: Wargame Sequel, Wargame 4, Next Wargame, Expansion Directory

Postby Oktoberfest » Mon 13 Mar 2017 12:36

Crowarior wrote:
Oktoberfest wrote:It's because you don't have access to enough unicorns. Somehow, in 1995, you have more chance to encounter old M60 or T-55 than M1A1 or modern T-72/T-80.
Just make every unit available without limit, price being the only deterrent for calling reinforcement, and watch how funny the game could become.



Im just saying that there shouldn't be any unicorns in the game in the first place. Tanks like Leo 2A4 and m1a1 should be top tanks... And you can have more of them so no stupid babysiting.


As I said, there would be no need to babysit your 2 top tanks if you had 20 of them at your disposal. Then a gun run from a MiG-27 wouldn't deplete your ability to attack for certain nations, and the balancing issues would be non-existent (example, why do France / UK gets 4 superheavies when my Redfor Nation has only 2....) This would be simply pointless. All of them get 20 SH, and lighter, older tanks are reserved for other operations.

I doubt the USSR would have sent T-55 against Challenger 2 or M-60 vs T-80BVs IRL. But in this game, somehow, you are stuck with plentiful of 50's and 60's equipment, then common 70's equipment, then rare 80's equipment and then Legendary 90's equipment. It's like the RPG rules but with military kits that were produced in the thousands IRL....

User avatar
Partibrejker
Command Sergeant Major
Posts: 327
Joined: Sun 22 Feb 2015 22:14
Location: Elektronska Industrija, Yugoslavia
Contact:

Re: Wargame Sequel, Wargame 4, Next Wargame, Expansion Directory

Postby Partibrejker » Mon 13 Mar 2017 16:07

Oktoberfest wrote:
Crowarior wrote:
Oktoberfest wrote:It's because you don't have access to enough unicorns. Somehow, in 1995, you have more chance to encounter old M60 or T-55 than M1A1 or modern T-72/T-80.
Just make every unit available without limit, price being the only deterrent for calling reinforcement, and watch how funny the game could become.



Im just saying that there shouldn't be any unicorns in the game in the first place. Tanks like Leo 2A4 and m1a1 should be top tanks... And you can have more of them so no stupid babysiting.


As I said, there would be no need to babysit your 2 top tanks if you had 20 of them at your disposal. Then a gun run from a MiG-27 wouldn't deplete your ability to attack for certain nations, and the balancing issues would be non-existent (example, why do France / UK gets 4 superheavies when my Redfor Nation has only 2....) This would be simply pointless. All of them get 20 SH, and lighter, older tanks are reserved for other operations.

I doubt the USSR would have sent T-55 against Challenger 2 or M-60 vs T-80BVs IRL. But in this game, somehow, you are stuck with plentiful of 50's and 60's equipment, then common 70's equipment, then rare 80's equipment and then Legendary 90's equipment. It's like the RPG rules but with military kits that were produced in the thousands IRL....


Even with availability huugeee for 90s ubertanks you would be mad not to babysit them since they are quite big investment point wise. And if you would make them cheap then you would just have uver tanks on all sides ann the field and it would be the same like getting totally rid of them, since it would be the same everywhere, so in the end this just revolves around which 3d model you prefer x)
Spoiler : :

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 13 guests