What worked and what didn't of Steel Division's innovations?

Pinhook
Private
Posts: 1
Joined: Tue 15 Aug 2017 23:57
Contact:

What worked and what didn't of Steel Division's innovations?

Postby Pinhook » Wed 30 Aug 2017 16:11

Here is my opinion:

What didn't work:
[*]The game being about a single battle. That's boring compared to a whole war and I think this is why so few copies were sold.
[*]The phase system. I think it made battles too formulaic, but I doubt it had the same impact on sales as my first point.
[*]The division system. I think a deck system with no support decks would be best, with other deck types getting access to all the high-end support units.

What did work:
[*]New RNG system for vehicles instead of health.
[*]Repairing removed (though maybe fuel could return?).
[*]Realistic infantry squad size + many weapons.
[*]The smaller scale was appropriate for WW2.

User avatar
Shifu
Lieutenant General
Posts: 4083
Joined: Wed 13 Jul 2011 16:06
Location: :noitacoL
Contact:

Re: What worked and what didn't of Steel Division's innovations?

Postby Shifu » Mon 4 Sep 2017 19:47

Moved the topic here.
I'm currently running short on time. Hence, it takes some time until I respond. In urgent cases, consider contacting another mod.
Forum rules | A Forum's guide. | Tech Support Posting instructions & Tech FAQ

User avatar
HaryPL
Lieutenant
Posts: 1370
Joined: Mon 3 Dec 2012 01:41
Contact:

Re: What worked and what didn't of Steel Division's innovations?

Postby HaryPL » Tue 5 Sep 2017 21:59

Off-map cancer didn't..

Also the divisions ain't bad in themselves but they lack refinement, there's basically just one (proper) way to build them as well as they provide irrational thinks like being able to field more Panthers than enemy can field Shermans and so on..

3 Phase combat, suppression and vehicle DMG model is neat though. So is general idea of splitting economy and pricing on per deck basis.

matrin
Command Sergeant Major
Posts: 327
Joined: Sun 11 Dec 2011 07:55
Contact:

Re: What worked and what didn't of Steel Division's innovations?

Postby matrin » Wed 6 Sep 2017 01:14

I would disagree with there being only one way to build a division, it may limit the overall options, but I've seen far more variety than I did in Red Dragon or Airland battle, the phase system definitely supports this being the case as one doesn't need to be ready for everything right off the bat. The phase system also significantly cuts down on the cheese imo and off-maps are way less of an issue than I think most people give it or at least relatively minor compared to issues we had in Red Dragon. On the issue of panthers, it's just the nature of the beast, it was very common in Normandy and is limited by their enormous price so it balances out.

User avatar
Aikmofobi
Lieutenant
Posts: 1363
Joined: Thu 12 Jul 2012 23:04
Location: Northern Sweden
Contact:

Re: What worked and what didn't of Steel Division's innovations?

Postby Aikmofobi » Wed 6 Sep 2017 12:58

I disagree with you on every "didn't work" point.

[*]The game being about a single battle.
It provides for a much better and more focused experience in my opinion. Less gimmicky gameplay without out of place units, unicorns or compromises everywhere. Also a +1 for the immersion or history freaks. madmat

[*]The phase system.
It did make the battles a lot more formulaic, but this does not refute it being a boon for gameplay overall. A bit of progression in games is fun. For example, look at every other RTS ever. Having said that, it does feel a bit too restrictive at times.

[*]The division system.
Couldn't disagree more. Several unique factions on each side is great. Mixed decks were literally gimmick and unicorn cancer in the Wargame series.

[*]Repairing removed (though maybe fuel could return?).
Fuel was one of the poorest implemented gameplay mechanics of previous games. Units with the lowest amounts of fuel were still in the hundreds of kilometers, and they ran out of fuel half way across the map. Balancing around the lowest range units would make fuel utterly meaningless for units with actually good fuel efficiency. Besides that, we shouldn't have to worry about vehicles running completely dry in a battle that lasts half an hour to an hour. Frankly it was shit.

There is a lack of variety within each deck and I feel Eugen already knows this and is looking at it. Having the Wargame experience though, where Soviet 1945 prototype tanks fighting a vichy france airforce in Tunisia isn't an unusual game, just isn't appealing. Even less so if a game makes even the slightest effort in trying to be authentic or period accurate.

User avatar
Razzmann
General
Posts: 7408
Joined: Fri 7 Mar 2014 15:29
Location: The land of flowing beer and Sauerkraut.
Contact:

Re: What worked and what didn't of Steel Division's innovations?

Postby Razzmann » Wed 6 Sep 2017 13:28

Aikmofobi wrote:[*]The phase system.
For example, look at every other RTS ever.

In other RTS the player decides when they want to get into the next tech level, not the game.

User avatar
molnibalage
General
Posts: 6545
Joined: Thu 1 Aug 2013 22:54
Location: Hungary
Contact:

Re: What worked and what didn't of Steel Division's innovations?

Postby molnibalage » Thu 7 Sep 2017 11:15

Pinhook wrote:Here is my opinion:

What didn't work:
[*]The phase system. I think it made battles too formulaic, but I doubt it had the same impact on sales as my first point.

I do not like the phase system.

[*]The division system. I think a deck system with no support decks would be best, with other deck types getting access to all the high-end support units.

I played only 10h total in game before release but regardless what I division checked only 1-2 card difference seemed to me viable. Comparing to ALB or even RD the only option is divsion, nothing else. You have only as many decks as division. Game is not as diverse as ALB or RD were.

What did work:
[*]New RNG system for vehicles instead of health.

I totally disagree, it makes more fucking gamble the whole game especially combined with low CTH. I ambushed from side with two Pz IV tanks and sinlge US tank during the beta and both of my tank missed the US tank...
...which instakilled with first hit one of my tank then retreated.

With WG's system such a result bertween similar tanks and XP never could happen. I executed a perfect flank with 2:1 power ratio and it was worth NOTHING... What a fantastic system...

[*]Repairing removed (though maybe fuel could return?).

Which is also fucking stupid. Also with a lucky hit you tank can loose all of its mobility and its comat value becomes 0 as the frontline passes...
Last edited by molnibalage on Thu 7 Sep 2017 14:45, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Aikmofobi
Lieutenant
Posts: 1363
Joined: Thu 12 Jul 2012 23:04
Location: Northern Sweden
Contact:

Re: What worked and what didn't of Steel Division's innovations?

Postby Aikmofobi » Thu 7 Sep 2017 11:21

Razzmann wrote:In other RTS the player decides when they want to get into the next tech level, not the game.

Fair enough, though you could argue that the enemy player decides when I have to tech up.

User avatar
Saavedra
Warrant Officer
Posts: 499
Joined: Thu 10 Apr 2014 21:53
Contact:

Re: What worked and what didn't of Steel Division's innovations?

Postby Saavedra » Thu 7 Sep 2017 14:46

Razzmann wrote:
Aikmofobi wrote:[*]The phase system.
For example, look at every other RTS ever.

In other RTS the player decides when they want to get into the next tech level, not the game.


At which point the game stops being about tactics and becomes all about who can choose the correct army composition to win against the enemy first.

User avatar
Tiera
Lieutenant Colonel
Posts: 2342
Joined: Tue 28 Aug 2012 00:08
Contact:

Re: What worked and what didn't of Steel Division's innovations?

Postby Tiera » Sat 9 Sep 2017 19:03

Setting: Normandy and WW2 Western Front are understandable from a marketing point of view. Personally I prefer Cold War, but here we are.

Phases: If set amount of casualties and/or terrain captured would switch the phases and both sides had their own phase counter, the system could easily be expanded further, giving more options and gameplay variety.

Divisions: I like the general idea, but viable card choises are rather limited. Phases further limit the options, and so the player soon knows that there will be only one unit of a certain type around. Giving the players the ability to buy different phase units with cost and availability penalty for all cards is something worth to consider.

AA and plane interaction: Severely damaged planes no longer return to battlefield, and planes have a limited amount of sorties in any case.
There, no more endless plane trains.

Frontline: All areas should give a bit of Conquest points, while certain zones (villages, crossroads) should be worth a bit more.

Hitpoints: Focus on improving the crit system to reduce the RNG factor.

Allow damaged infantry units to merge with one another.
Image

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests