What this game really needs... - Page 2

DelroyMonjo · 06-03-2012, 06:25 AM

Urban warfare is beyond the scope of this game IMHO. There are tons of games out there which address that. Are you thinking of Stalingrad type battles? Maybe something like that would be interesting if people could be encouraged to play a game longer than 20 minutes! But the type of warfare depicted in WEE is not about the WWII model of war but of a more modern war where cities are to be avoided and wars are attempted to be resolved in days, not weeks or months of slogging thru the mud and holding out in cities to wait for the next 'campaign season' in which clear weather would again allow the troops to move and be supplied. Nor does WEE intend to depict a guerilla type war in which partisans hide in forests and or suicide bombers try to intimidate the opposing factions with explosive vests on their bodies or cars filled with explosives. That type of scenario would be impossible to game. As for nukes, once a nuke is used in modern warfare it's END GAME. All the cities would be turned to molten metal and charred concrete and both the winner and loser would be set back to using rocks and spears as depicted in the opening moves of CIV V.
So I guess I'm saying, play WEE for the game it is or find an FPS like BF3 or COD or a Turn-Based-System like Civ V or Shogun 2 and play them.

roydzayas · 06-03-2012, 06:47 AM

the only thing this game needs a faster and more accurate chaporral. lol

DelroyMonjo · 06-03-2012, 10:26 AM

What good is a 3500m range on a chapparel which couldn't hit a flying battleship when you can get perfectly good Rolands with less range but can hit a helo most of the time. 70km/hr on the road as opposed to 40km for the weak Chapparels. I always use flak guns to back up the missiles as well.

evansjason88 · 06-04-2012, 09:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DelroyMonjo

Urban warfare is beyond the scope of this game IMHO. There are tons of games out there which address that. Are you thinking of Stalingrad type battles? Maybe something like that would be interesting if people could be encouraged to play a game longer than 20 minutes! But the type of warfare depicted in WEE is not about the WWII model of war but of a more modern war where cities are to be avoided and wars are attempted to be resolved in days, not weeks or months of slogging thru the mud and holding out in cities to wait for the next 'campaign season' in which clear weather would again allow the troops to move and be supplied. Nor does WEE intend to depict a guerilla type war in which partisans hide in forests and or suicide bombers try to intimidate the opposing factions with explosive vests on their bodies or cars filled with explosives. That type of scenario would be impossible to game. As for nukes, once a nuke is used in modern warfare it's END GAME. All the cities would be turned to molten metal and charred concrete and both the winner and loser would be set back to using rocks and spears as depicted in the opening moves of CIV V.
So I guess I'm saying, play WEE for the game it is or find an FPS like BF3 or COD or a Turn-Based-System like Civ V or Shogun 2 and play them.

Stalingrad battles no currently when you "garrison" in buildings they moreless garrison around it and when bullets fly they run out into the streets and get killed. and while cities are avoided adding some maps which make some urban sprawling larger as opposed to these tiny villages would make the tactics within the game change.

i also am against nuclear weapons as this would defeat the purpose of the cold war backdrop.

Also napalm wouldn't be a bad idea and not outside of the scope of the cold war if used in good taste and balanced. The US used it in quite often in Vietnam for defoilage and the Soviets have commonly practiced slash and burn

This would could change tactics as holding all of your support forces in forests would be exposed. The defoilage wouldnt necessarily take away the armor bonus but would give forces on the outside looking in a spotting bonus and panic and confuse forces in forests temporarily

DelroyMonjo · 06-04-2012, 09:52 PM

The words 'napalm' and 'good taste' are mutually exclusive, an oxymoron. Beside that, how do you deliver the napalm? I'm not sending a helo over the trees to flush out a few infantry who might have AA missiles or AAA which could drop me out of the sky before I reached the target. Airplanes are out of the scope of the game. That is what Artillery and mortars are for, clearing the woods. As for urban areas, there are always tactics to avod them or defeat them. If the cities are too large, again, out of the scope of the game. A player only has a limited amount of resources at hand. Do you spend 1/2 on infantry to cover the city(s) and the other 1/2 on helos to fly past it? Or do you just sit back and blast the city with art'y until the infantry has scattered like cockroaches and then bring in the helos? The Name of the Game is Fire and Movement, not get bogged down in some sideshow while the enemy is blowing you to pieces somewhere else. I personally find it difficult enough to keep track of the units on the map as it is without having to worry about micromanaging every infantry unit in a city and keeping track of vehicles on roads and fields while juggling recon and resupply.

evansjason88 · 06-05-2012, 12:03 AM

A useful tool would be a convoy button where a selected group of units move together instead of all units travelling at max speeds creating an accordian affect where some AA are travelling ahead of armor supports etc.

Another useful tool would be weapons cold or weapons hot button where moving strike forces when trying to close in with more than one unit and firing right away would give away your position you could have a button that would universally turn all weapon systems off until fired upon and switch them all on when ready to ambush eliminating some of the micro from doing so.

Also about the napalm there are flame tanks but because there is no terrain degragation torching a forest outside of killing infantry doesn't defoil the terrain i mean if a camp fire can start forest fires and have a devestating effect on forest why don't flame tanks do the same what if you were to burn unoccupied forests just to take them away from enemy units.

DelroyMonjo · 06-07-2012, 09:32 AM

Convoy control and hot button for a group would be OK, I suppose, but how far do you need to take these relatively minor additions? Those factors are just a part of what it takes to manage a game. Again, the opposition is playing by the same rules.
Interesting point on the flame tanks that they don't burn the forests but WHY??? are so many people concerned with torching entire forests in Europe??? Besides, simulating the smoke and huge flames caused by such conflagration would probably overwhelm all but the $500+ video cards!

evansjason88 · 06-08-2012, 12:58 AM

I'm not asking for graphically intense flames and smoke but something that would affect the spotting range of friendly forces looking into those now defoiled forests.

defoilage was very popular tactic during the cold war it was done by the Americans in Vietnam and by the Soviets in Afghanistan. That was just against guerillas. It denies concealed movement and makes it easier to spot enemies from the air and from the ground

FericJaggar · 06-09-2012, 01:57 AM

Even in WiC, you destroyed efficiently woods and it was not resource-consuming for your computer. It left a big black mark and dead trees, it was impressive (aargh, losing a veteran AT squad with a napalm strike !)

Synrac · 06-10-2012, 11:37 AM

I've basically just played the campaign in this game (trying to max award points) but I find the game enjoyable. similar to some of the early training programs they used to run when I was in the army.

Judging what some people want. I belive you could easily add these by just changing the type of scenerios.

I.E. Currently the play is all based around Meeting Engagements that develop into Hasty attack/defense areas.

They could quite easily make some Deliberate Attack/defense scenerios were defender has access to mines, entrenchments and such. Attacker could be given mine clearers, preperatory barrages/airstrikes, more points etc. (I served in Germany during this games time period and our whole training was to delay until Stateside Divisions arrived and set up deliberate defense areas behind us).

Both sides could be given one shots that may be recalled do to point differential. (You're doing so good Higher reallocates the assists somewhere else

)

This way the players have an opption of what they would like to do/try. BTW, it seems like a tank spam against a hard defense would just get shredded in this case.

DelroyMonjo · 06-11-2012, 10:09 AM

Ummmm...Synrac? Just how many of the campaign scenarios have you played? Not all of them are 'meeting engagements'.

roydzayas · 06-12-2012, 08:40 AM

they might want to try engineers with river crossing equipment

Synrac · 06-14-2012, 12:01 AM

Actually I've palyed them all. I got 3 in wasteland that I'm having issues with. I was talking about the multiplay tho about the type of engagements. Sorry for the confusion. And even in the campaign the Attacks are more similar to a hasty attack as the defender has no prepared defense other then being in position at start.

I was just trying to say that the assets (mines/airstrikes and such) would be easier to apply in multiplayer scenerios defined as Deliberate attack/defense.

DelroyMonjo · 06-14-2012, 08:23 AM

I guess the game developers didn't want to create a game called,,,,,,,,, 'WAR EUROPEAN SIEGE'

ya' think?

cheese2134 · 06-14-2012, 10:29 AM

well, if they made mines expenisive and slow then they would be acceptable, if you could have cheapish mine clearers or if normal inf could do it.
also i think that the player should be able to make limited defenses, like trenches, and definately there should be river crossing/ amphbious units to open the batlefield up a bit.

06-03-2012, 06:25 AM	#16
DelroyMonjo Join Date: Mar 2012 Reputation: 6 Posts: 169	Urban warfare is beyond the scope of this game IMHO. There are tons of games out there which address that. Are you thinking of Stalingrad type battles? Maybe something like that would be interesting if people could be encouraged to play a game longer than 20 minutes! But the type of warfare depicted in WEE is not about the WWII model of war but of a more modern war where cities are to be avoided and wars are attempted to be resolved in days, not weeks or months of slogging thru the mud and holding out in cities to wait for the next 'campaign season' in which clear weather would again allow the troops to move and be supplied. Nor does WEE intend to depict a guerilla type war in which partisans hide in forests and or suicide bombers try to intimidate the opposing factions with explosive vests on their bodies or cars filled with explosives. That type of scenario would be impossible to game. As for nukes, once a nuke is used in modern warfare it's END GAME. All the cities would be turned to molten metal and charred concrete and both the winner and loser would be set back to using rocks and spears as depicted in the opening moves of CIV V. So I guess I'm saying, play WEE for the game it is or find an FPS like BF3 or COD or a Turn-Based-System like Civ V or Shogun 2 and play them. Last edited by DelroyMonjo: 06-03-2012 at 06:28 AM.

06-08-2012, 12:58 AM	#23
evansjason88 Join Date: Jul 2011 Reputation: 0 Posts: 42	I'm not asking for graphically intense flames and smoke but something that would affect the spotting range of friendly forces looking into those now defoiled forests. defoilage was very popular tactic during the cold war it was done by the Americans in Vietnam and by the Soviets in Afghanistan. That was just against guerillas. It denies concealed movement and makes it easier to spot enemies from the air and from the ground Last edited by evansjason88: 06-08-2012 at 01:04 AM.

06-14-2012, 12:01 AM	#28
Synrac Join Date: Apr 2012 Reputation: 0 Posts: 3	Campaign Actually I've palyed them all. I got 3 in wasteland that I'm having issues with. I was talking about the multiplay tho about the type of engagements. Sorry for the confusion. And even in the campaign the Attacks are more similar to a hasty attack as the defender has no prepared defense other then being in position at start. I was just trying to say that the assets (mines/airstrikes and such) would be easier to apply in multiplayer scenerios defined as Deliberate attack/defense.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

06-03-2012, 06:47 AM	#17
roydzayas Join Date: May 2012 Reputation: 0 Posts: 13	the only thing this game needs a faster and more accurate chaporral. lol

06-03-2012, 10:26 AM	#18
DelroyMonjo Join Date: Mar 2012 Reputation: 6 Posts: 169	What good is a 3500m range on a chapparel which couldn't hit a flying battleship when you can get perfectly good Rolands with less range but can hit a helo most of the time. 70km/hr on the road as opposed to 40km for the weak Chapparels. I always use flak guns to back up the missiles as well.

06-04-2012, 09:52 PM	#20
DelroyMonjo Join Date: Mar 2012 Reputation: 6 Posts: 169	The words 'napalm' and 'good taste' are mutually exclusive, an oxymoron. Beside that, how do you deliver the napalm? I'm not sending a helo over the trees to flush out a few infantry who might have AA missiles or AAA which could drop me out of the sky before I reached the target. Airplanes are out of the scope of the game. That is what Artillery and mortars are for, clearing the woods. As for urban areas, there are always tactics to avod them or defeat them. If the cities are too large, again, out of the scope of the game. A player only has a limited amount of resources at hand. Do you spend 1/2 on infantry to cover the city(s) and the other 1/2 on helos to fly past it? Or do you just sit back and blast the city with art'y until the infantry has scattered like cockroaches and then bring in the helos? The Name of the Game is Fire and Movement, not get bogged down in some sideshow while the enemy is blowing you to pieces somewhere else. I personally find it difficult enough to keep track of the units on the map as it is without having to worry about micromanaging every infantry unit in a city and keeping track of vehicles on roads and fields while juggling recon and resupply.

06-05-2012, 12:03 AM	#21
evansjason88 Join Date: Jul 2011 Reputation: 0 Posts: 42	A useful tool would be a convoy button where a selected group of units move together instead of all units travelling at max speeds creating an accordian affect where some AA are travelling ahead of armor supports etc. Another useful tool would be weapons cold or weapons hot button where moving strike forces when trying to close in with more than one unit and firing right away would give away your position you could have a button that would universally turn all weapon systems off until fired upon and switch them all on when ready to ambush eliminating some of the micro from doing so. Also about the napalm there are flame tanks but because there is no terrain degragation torching a forest outside of killing infantry doesn't defoil the terrain i mean if a camp fire can start forest fires and have a devestating effect on forest why don't flame tanks do the same what if you were to burn unoccupied forests just to take them away from enemy units.

06-07-2012, 09:32 AM	#22
DelroyMonjo Join Date: Mar 2012 Reputation: 6 Posts: 169	Convoy control and hot button for a group would be OK, I suppose, but how far do you need to take these relatively minor additions? Those factors are just a part of what it takes to manage a game. Again, the opposition is playing by the same rules. Interesting point on the flame tanks that they don't burn the forests but WHY??? are so many people concerned with torching entire forests in Europe??? Besides, simulating the smoke and huge flames caused by such conflagration would probably overwhelm all but the $500+ video cards!

06-09-2012, 01:57 AM	#24
FericJaggar Join Date: Jan 2012 Reputation: 11 Posts: 137	Even in WiC, you destroyed efficiently woods and it was not resource-consuming for your computer. It left a big black mark and dead trees, it was impressive (aargh, losing a veteran AT squad with a napalm strike !)

06-10-2012, 11:37 AM	#25
Synrac Join Date: Apr 2012 Reputation: 0 Posts: 3	I've basically just played the campaign in this game (trying to max award points) but I find the game enjoyable. similar to some of the early training programs they used to run when I was in the army. Judging what some people want. I belive you could easily add these by just changing the type of scenerios. I.E. Currently the play is all based around Meeting Engagements that develop into Hasty attack/defense areas. They could quite easily make some Deliberate Attack/defense scenerios were defender has access to mines, entrenchments and such. Attacker could be given mine clearers, preperatory barrages/airstrikes, more points etc. (I served in Germany during this games time period and our whole training was to delay until Stateside Divisions arrived and set up deliberate defense areas behind us). Both sides could be given one shots that may be recalled do to point differential. (You're doing so good Higher reallocates the assists somewhere else ) This way the players have an opption of what they would like to do/try. BTW, it seems like a tank spam against a hard defense would just get shredded in this case.

06-11-2012, 10:09 AM	#26
DelroyMonjo Join Date: Mar 2012 Reputation: 6 Posts: 169	Ummmm...Synrac? Just how many of the campaign scenarios have you played? Not all of them are 'meeting engagements'.

06-12-2012, 08:40 AM	#27
roydzayas Join Date: May 2012 Reputation: 0 Posts: 13	they might want to try engineers with river crossing equipment

06-14-2012, 08:23 AM	#29
DelroyMonjo Join Date: Mar 2012 Reputation: 6 Posts: 169	I guess the game developers didn't want to create a game called,,,,,,,,, 'WAR EUROPEAN SIEGE' ya' think?

06-14-2012, 10:29 AM	#30
cheese2134 Join Date: Apr 2012 Reputation: 0 Posts: 25	well, if they made mines expenisive and slow then they would be acceptable, if you could have cheapish mine clearers or if normal inf could do it. also i think that the player should be able to make limited defenses, like trenches, and definately there should be river crossing/ amphbious units to open the batlefield up a bit.