Question about a far future [NO DERAIL]

User avatar
Dennos
Sergeant Major
Posts: 274
Joined: Wed 19 Jun 2013 21:07
Contact:

Re: Question about a far future [NO DERAIL]

Postby Dennos » Tue 31 Mar 2015 17:51

1) Setting 1986, German-German border. EE nations. No prototypes, no OOTF units, no units that were extremely rare.
2) You have to choose a battalion from a specific nation (US Infantry Battalion, Soviet BTR-Battalion, etc.) and use exactly the units that such a battalion had, plus some extra attachments that you can choose, including recon, SF, artillery, engineers, anti-tank vehicles and such. You can use points to upgrade your battalion's units, but with tough choices (do I want to take the newer RPG for my Motostreki, or do I replace T-55 tanks with T-72 tanks?)
3) Very few but effective airplanes, they have to be used with much thought.
4) Slow gameplay, it should be more about decisions than being fast with the mouse: Realistic unit speeds, low weapon accuracy (abstraction of microterrain, LOS-issues, human factor) especially when suppressed. Everything responds slowly, especially artillery. You have to plan ahead, you can't save yourselves if your plan was bad just by being fast. You need to THINK.
5) Gameplay should be based around suppression, shock and other psychological factors. Firepower alone should not lead to victory, against entrenched infantry (trenches or city blocks) you have to suppress them first and then flank or (if necessary) charge them with your own infantry to defeat them. This leads to interesting choices (do I close assault the enemy infantry or do I just suppress them and drive through with my tanks?).
6) Attacker and defender roles. The attacker has access to a greater number of attachments and planes (more "slots" for attachments) while the defender has trenches, concealed positions for recon inf, and bunkers. The attacker has to attack, the defender has to defend.
7) All the units can be deployed at the start of the match.
8) Smallest unit should be the platoon. You should not be able to move around individual squads. Exceptions are recon and SF.

User avatar
Bougnas
Major-General
Posts: 3699
Joined: Sat 26 Apr 2014 18:24
Contact:

Re: Question about a far future [NO DERAIL]

Postby Bougnas » Tue 31 Mar 2015 19:50

I dreamed again Oo
Image

Crackerswifcheese
Specialist
Posts: 13
Joined: Thu 2 Apr 2015 16:45
Contact:

Re: Question about a far future [NO DERAIL]

Postby Crackerswifcheese » Thu 2 Apr 2015 22:00

Pretty much if they added most of the things on the "suggestion" part of the forums it would be a great game. I also wish it were a bit more realistic even if the battlefield would have to be huge

TwojaStara
First Sergeant
Posts: 209
Joined: Wed 29 May 2013 14:54
Contact:

Re: Question about a far future [NO DERAIL]

Postby TwojaStara » Thu 2 Apr 2015 23:26

A big list with some ideas viewtopic.php?f=160&t=46947&p=623825

Wargame#4 could be just much bigger scale simulation with better AI (mainly for some independence; that could be turned off if needed) and user interface prepared of scale of managing up to divisions (something more like Total Annihilation/Spring Commander. Given IRISZOOM capabilities (excellent zoom in), you could do even more micro if you ever wanted to.
Image

User avatar
Mako
General
Posts: 7352
Joined: Sun 5 May 2013 20:00
Location: Cascadia
Contact:

Re: Question about a far future.

Postby Mako » Thu 2 Apr 2015 23:53

orcbuster wrote:
Red Army wrote:Eugen really stumbled into a set of good games with Wargame, thanks partly to aggressive prodding by the community. That being said, I don't expect them to survive into the "far future" to make another one.



Yes, this happened purely by accident.....



Honestly...

Well, we'll see with AoA won't we.
If there's two kinds of players, those that like challenges and those that want a fair game, pubstomps should make everyone happy.

User avatar
varis
Brigadier
Posts: 3351
Joined: Mon 20 Feb 2012 16:52
Location: Finland
Contact:

Re: Question about a far future [NO DERAIL]

Postby varis » Fri 3 Apr 2015 11:02

I agree there'd be good opportunity for Wargame 4. In the meanwhile a little break is perfectly understandable, let them improve the engine and the UI as well as other dimensions of polish with a little different title, then return back. IMO they could/should start the development of the next WG in the next 6-12 months.

RD is a good base to work from. It's easily the most impressive title in the series - EE was pretty basic and its charm was the novelty, ALB was a bit lackluster in a number of respects though it added new stuff to the franchise, in RD we saw a great maturing of many concepts and the scope is quite staggering. Granted the naval part was mostly a fiasco - possibly it could be reworked by adding some new mechanics and leaving out the bigger ships and so on. I agree that further expansion of scope from RD is not needed at all.

They could still expand the map size and concentrate on say 6v6 games - would bring out good aspects of the concept that I was expecting already in ALB but that didn't really materialize. Air assets could be made more focused on the occasional critical strikes rather than constant harrassment and picking off high-value units. AA and recon spotting ranges could be higher, just to allow them to cover the larger areas. Pace could be slower due to the longer distances on the map and more planning/teamwork would be required.

Clan support and competitive play should be definitely addressed better, WiC showed a good example and RD was underperforming in this area. Map balance was a factor here too, from what I gather.

Dennos wrote:5) Gameplay should be based around suppression, shock and other psychological factors. Firepower alone should not lead to victory, against entrenched infantry (trenches or city blocks) you have to suppress them first and then flank or (if necessary) charge them with your own infantry to defeat them. This leads to interesting choices (do I close assault the enemy infantry or do I just suppress them and drive through with my tanks?).


I recall it was a bit like this in early RD? There was no assaulting cities without tons of support.

I'd like some more authenticy too. But I think we at least won't get a slower pace due to game mechanics, the current one has been there for a long time and while it may be a clickfest at times it's proven to work and it gives an additional dimension of skill for competitive RTS players. (You can set the speed in AI skirmish, anyway.)
Image

User avatar
Bougnas
Major-General
Posts: 3699
Joined: Sat 26 Apr 2014 18:24
Contact:

Re: Question about a far future [NO DERAIL]

Postby Bougnas » Fri 3 Apr 2015 15:10

varis wrote:I agree there'd be good opportunity for Wargame 4. In the meanwhile a little break is perfectly understandable, let them improve the engine and the UI as well as other dimensions of polish with a little different title, then return back. IMO they could/should start the development of the next WG in the next 6-12 months.

RD is a good base to work from. It's easily the most impressive title in the series - EE was pretty basic and its charm was the novelty, ALB was a bit lackluster in a number of respects though it added new stuff to the franchise, in RD we saw a great maturing of many concepts and the scope is quite staggering. Granted the naval part was mostly a fiasco - possibly it could be reworked by adding some new mechanics and leaving out the bigger ships and so on. I agree that further expansion of scope from RD is not needed at all.

They could still expand the map size and concentrate on say 6v6 games - would bring out good aspects of the concept that I was expecting already in ALB but that didn't really materialize. Air assets could be made more focused on the occasional critical strikes rather than constant harrassment and picking off high-value units. AA and recon spotting ranges could be higher, just to allow them to cover the larger areas. Pace could be slower due to the longer distances on the map and more planning/teamwork would be required.

Clan support and competitive play should be definitely addressed better, WiC showed a good example and RD was underperforming in this area. Map balance was a factor here too, from what I gather.

Dennos wrote:5) Gameplay should be based around suppression, shock and other psychological factors. Firepower alone should not lead to victory, against entrenched infantry (trenches or city blocks) you have to suppress them first and then flank or (if necessary) charge them with your own infantry to defeat them. This leads to interesting choices (do I close assault the enemy infantry or do I just suppress them and drive through with my tanks?).


I recall it was a bit like this in early RD? There was no assaulting cities without tons of support.

I'd like some more authenticy too. But I think we at least won't get a slower pace due to game mechanics, the current one has been there for a long time and while it may be a clickfest at times it's proven to work and it gives an additional dimension of skill for competitive RTS players. (You can set the speed in AI skirmish, anyway.)


This. If we wait for a few years at least the game will be well done.
Image

User avatar
SpeisCheese
Captain
Posts: 1709
Joined: Thu 3 Apr 2014 18:18
Location: Somewhere in space...
Contact:

Re: Question about a far future [NO DERAIL]

Postby SpeisCheese » Sat 4 Apr 2015 16:55

Bougnas wrote:
varis wrote:I agree there'd be good opportunity for Wargame 4. In the meanwhile a little break is perfectly understandable, let them improve the engine and the UI as well as other dimensions of polish with a little different title, then return back. IMO they could/should start the development of the next WG in the next 6-12 months.

RD is a good base to work from. It's easily the most impressive title in the series - EE was pretty basic and its charm was the novelty, ALB was a bit lackluster in a number of respects though it added new stuff to the franchise, in RD we saw a great maturing of many concepts and the scope is quite staggering. Granted the naval part was mostly a fiasco - possibly it could be reworked by adding some new mechanics and leaving out the bigger ships and so on. I agree that further expansion of scope from RD is not needed at all.

They could still expand the map size and concentrate on say 6v6 games - would bring out good aspects of the concept that I was expecting already in ALB but that didn't really materialize. Air assets could be made more focused on the occasional critical strikes rather than constant harrassment and picking off high-value units. AA and recon spotting ranges could be higher, just to allow them to cover the larger areas. Pace could be slower due to the longer distances on the map and more planning/teamwork would be required.

Clan support and competitive play should be definitely addressed better, WiC showed a good example and RD was underperforming in this area. Map balance was a factor here too, from what I gather.

Dennos wrote:5) Gameplay should be based around suppression, shock and other psychological factors. Firepower alone should not lead to victory, against entrenched infantry (trenches or city blocks) you have to suppress them first and then flank or (if necessary) charge them with your own infantry to defeat them. This leads to interesting choices (do I close assault the enemy infantry or do I just suppress them and drive through with my tanks?).


I recall it was a bit like this in early RD? There was no assaulting cities without tons of support.

I'd like some more authenticy too. But I think we at least won't get a slower pace due to game mechanics, the current one has been there for a long time and while it may be a clickfest at times it's proven to work and it gives an additional dimension of skill for competitive RTS players. (You can set the speed in AI skirmish, anyway.)


This. If we wait for a few years at least the game will be well done.

That’s not the case for BF nor CoD(compare Black Ops 1 and Ghost, Ghost is nothing compared to BO)

chriscooke
Private First-Class
Posts: 8
Joined: Mon 16 Jun 2014 12:51
Contact:

Will there be another game in the Wargame series?

Postby chriscooke » Tue 7 Apr 2015 10:19

Will there be another game in the Wargame series?

Speaking for myself I am not a great fan of the base building style game such as Act of Aggression, but I appreciate this has more of a mass appeal.

I am much more of a fan of the Wargame series, especially WEE which is a superb game.

Are there any plans for another one in the series?
Last edited by [EUG]MadMat on Tue 7 Apr 2015 10:52, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: Merging with identical thread.

User avatar
[EUG]MadMat
More than 10 000 messages. Soldier you are the leader of all armies!
Posts: 15486
Joined: Thu 30 Jun 2011 13:31
Location: Paris, France.
Contact:

Re: Question about a far future [NO DERAIL]

Postby [EUG]MadMat » Tue 7 Apr 2015 10:54

As I've stated many times already, we haven't put the nails in the coffin on Wargame.
We're just moving on something else for the time being.

Return to “Wargame : Red Dragon”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 61 guests