This is not sounding good for the Wargame Franchise

[Pail]

 

https://www.reddit.com/r/wargame/comments/7yrlkv/strike_megathread/

 

It would be very sad.

[Royal_Flight]

No, it's not...

Although to be honest, Steel Division wasn't good for the Wargame franchise at all.

Not really a fan of the new direction it took, I was thrilled hen I thought it would be like 'Wargame WWII' but it was a disappointment. And it's underpopulated online as well, so it's presumably not just me who thinks that.

 

Sucks because if the company implodes, especially over shady business practices then the chance of seeing Wargame IV is basically zero.

[Pail]

There a lots of nice things about Steel Division....and some interesting features.

 

Steel Division seems much more unforgiving and engagements become 'more decisive' in the game (than WG:RD), coupled with the AI features of not having direct control of units (like perhaps MOWAS) and having to accept that your tank is going to put itself in the position to be side shot because the driver refuses to drive around a corner in a sensible way.....or your fleeing units flee straight towards the fire that they are receiving.....

 

I hate the way the canopy of the Mosquito is modeled....looks terrible to me...

 

 

I have 'bad hands' from a work injury so I have fairly much restricted myself to joystick games because I don't cope with the others that I used to like. That's how I ended up here...

Edited February 23, 2018 by Pail

[Royal_Flight]

I just never managed to get into Steel Division. Not really sure why, there were some things I thought were definite improvements and other things I hated but overall it just never clicked with me.

 

I think the way it was made was a weird choice though, focusing on just Normandy. Every map is some variation of hamlets and bocage, and most of the divisions end up feeling similar as there's only a relatively limited choice of units.

 

I would have much preferred a straight-up WWII version of Wargame, which would have probably made more sense.

Early, mid and late war like Wargame has the three eras, and Commonwealth, US, Soviet, German, Italian and Japanese as nations, three each side. And the coalitions could have been done as well, with US/Commonwealth (suits both Western Europe or the Far East) and Germany/Italy (for North Africa).

 

This lets basically any unit from WWII be used somewhere, and still allows competitive choices like whether to stack an early-war deck with millions of Panzer IIIs, or take a late war one with only a single card of four King Tigers.

 

Add a load of vaguely generic maps covering muddy fields, beaches, jungles, desert and snow ad you're all set.

The potentially ahistorical nature of some of the resulting encounters would only bother the purists, considering that in Wargame it's possible to have mad match-ups like Sweden fighting against North Korea in a jungle in the 1990s.

 

So, safe to say my expectations were high to begin with.

 

Steel Division did have a Wildcat/Martlet though, which BoX hasn't managed, so that's a plus in my book.

[Mitthrawnuruodo]

 

 

I would have much preferred a straight-up WWII version of Wargame

 

Agreed. I think they really botched Steel Division. The limited scope became tiring quite quickly. 

 

However, the Wargame style might be inherently unsuitable for WWII. Air assault, mechanization, and motorization aren't easy to implement in that era without sacrificing too much historical accuracy. 

[Royal_Flight]

Yeah, that's true. To make Wargame fit a WWII setting there needed to be compromises made, but I think they compromised on the wrong things.

 

Dividing the game into three phases is a good idea in theory, to stop the 1944 equivalent of helicopter rushes and similar, but it means that all games basically play the same.

I'm ambivalent about the 'frontline' thing too, it's a cool feature but it means it's impossible to ever have the element of surprise, or attack in a quiet sector without it becoming immediately obvious.

 

And then things like the disappearing trucks, which reduces tactical flexibility for no reason as well as looking like the devs aren't taking the game seriously, or the cartoon trails left by shells or mortars.

The whole of the visuals seem a bit too cartoonish, Wargame looked a lot more true-to-life somehow.

 

The whole thing comes across a bit like someone described Wargame to someone who hadn't played it, and they tried to make a WWII version based on that.

 

/whinge