>>1596606
I traditionally disliked the multiplayer in both AS2 and GoH for similar reasons; the resource system just always results in an early lead or early mistake snowballing one way or another and meta restricted what units you could reasonably bother with because cost-effectiveness was everything.

I played the open beta for MoW2 and while it obviously had some issues to work out, its multiplayer system absolutely clicked for me. I don't think I can say enough good things about it--it feels really good seeing devs actually do some game design and come up with fresh and fun ideas instead of just endlessly following genre convention in lockstep. As long as they don't fuck it up I'll probably pick it up when it comes out.

For anyone that doesn't give a single shit about multiplayer GoH is the obvious choice, its dynamic campaign is one of the best.

>>1596606
I hate how stale this series is. Looks and plays almost the same that it did a decade ago.

>>1596659
What do you want from them? One game to be a TA/SupCom clone and the next an Age of Empires like?

>>1596659
To be serious for a second, what do you actually want?
These series are about autistically granular unit control. They borrow their mechanics heavily from top-down isometric RPGs like Diablo, but involve controlling multiple or even dozens of units instead of 1 hero.
How do you add to that formula without just stapling meaningless bloat to it? How do you streamline it without stealing away treasured features and valued granularity the players want? What do you actually change?

>>1596616
what does the mp do differently?

>>1596684
You build an army list from a selection of presets with different rules and modifiers. Your list is separated into 3 tiers.
At the start of the game, you can call in units from your first customized tier up to a unit cap
At a fixed time interval, the second tier unlocks and your unit cap increases
And after another interval your 3rd tier unlocks and the cap increases again.

There are no resources, but you have limited quantities of each unit type you included in your list to call in, so there's a tradeoff between having more variety/versatility or having more replacements of a specific key unit to bring in.

Matches are decided by a scoring system. There's a frontline in the middle of the map separating your team's territory from the enemy's and you gain points by pushing your front and expanding your territory, but lose points when the enemy takes your territory. Games have a 30m time limit or end when one team hits a specific score. Since the score itself doesn't matter until the end of the match to determine the winner, losing territory or having a bad fight early on doesn't screw you over and there's lots of time and oppourtunity to retake ground or push elsewhere. However, units aren't expendable and matches last just long enough to wear running out your key units can be a factor, so giving ground to avoid a bad fight, or taking a risk to snipe an important tank can make a huge difference.

I like it a lot both because the customization aspect is fun, and because matches aren't really snowbally and there are a lot of oppourtunities for comebacks--but at the same time actually winning fights and killing shit still matters and you can grind someone down via attrition if you play smart.

They still have a classic mode that works like AS2 but I didn't touch it during the last test so I can't comment on that.

>>1596606
Assault Squad 1 still had the best campaign missions, I was hoping AS2 would be good but they just made a bunch of shitty missions similar to the old Men of War games. I just wanted more missions where I could throw more men at the problem and eventually succeed. At least they kept the AS1 campaign missions and added bots for multiplayer, but still what a disappointment

>>1596739
Tbh i kinda surprised that they didn't remake campaign from other title (Red Tide, Condemned Heroes, etc.) given they did with OG Men of War Campaign.

>>1596739
>braindead forward charging
>good
lol

>>1596606
I've played both and MOW 2 was simply more fun. It ran better, the camouflage system was a great addition, the planes are well implemented, the emplacement/defenses building was better, the retreat system was cool and I really liked the new multiplayer mode with regiment building and frontlines to push. AI was much better as well. MoW 2 is also infinitely more forward with information and you can easily check what kind of gear/armor any given unit has during the game, unlike GOH.
The only issue with MoW 2 was that some of their ideas were obviously half-baked so I'm not surprised they delayed it. They decreased infantry speed at some point between betas and the result felt "off". Even the animations looked like the soldiers should have been going way faster than they did. The ambulance/field hospital were also pretty poorly implemented ideas that needed work.

>>1597481
Yeah I feel like MoW2 has a good foundation to build on and some great ideas but also some not so great ones. I'm glad it's getting more time to cook because some of the issues definitely had that stink of hastily implementing a WIP to hit a deadline.

Oh. Speaking of MoW2 they are doing another beta on steam right now.

>>1599343
There's literally an open beta on right now. You can just go play it if you like.
I'm kind of having fun with it. Artillery is easy and fun to play but half my games so far have been 5v5s with minimum 2 afks on each time

gates of hell single player is extremely difficult, i cant believe back then they had to slowly lug around all these field guns to get anything done, and the tanks dont do anything by themselves.

my favorite thing to do in MOW,2 multi is to park AA all over the place and AA all the enemy's planes. no better feeling.

>>1596606
Remember when Gates of Hell was coming out and everyone was hyped about it then they revealed a month out from release that it was going to be DLC for Call to Arms and they quickly rebranded everything accordingly. Fun times

>>1599516
That was due to some legal bullshit. They wouldn't be able to publish the game other way.

>>1596739
Didn't they port all previous campaigns to AS2 with the Origins DLC?

>>1599513
Plane spam is cancer, especially with the US airborne division that can bring like 6 fucking airstrikes all on separate cooldowns. But even when you bring a lot of AA it's liable to just all get sniped the instant it shoots if the other team has a competent artillery player.

>>1599701
yea artillery is the weakness of AA for sure. i hate taking a tank regiment and having no infantry to take territory with me because my team is all artillery.

>>1599730
This is I think an issue with the current multiplayer system. Every team wants at least 1 dedicated artillery player, but if you have too many artillery players then there's no map presence and you just get overrun. I hate bringing arty and then ending up being the 4th arty on a 5 man team, and I hate taking tanks or infantry and then being on the team with no arty and getting shelled to hell all game. I wish I had an oppourtunity to swap to fill what the team is missing.

>>1599580
Bump, I also didn't like AS2 campaign but I saw Origins DLC, did someone play it?

>>1599580
>>1599740
IIRC Origins DLC only had campaign from original Men of War, so no Red Tide or Condemned Heroes campaigns

>>1599756
Does it have desert campaign? That was my favotire.

>>1596659
I love the engine, but I hate how they're not doing anything interesting with it. The Conquest mode in Ostfront is a good concept, but in practice it's too simplistic.
I mean, imagine a game like this with a proper, dynamic campaign, where you make decisions on a strategic map between missions, like capturing cities or areas with specific resources, deciding on targets, and haggling over reinforcements. Something like Total War, but not quite on the same scale. I mean, you can't do a full front, considering the small scale of the battles, but you could certainly have scenarios, like a German or Allied strategic campaign in the aftermath of D-Day, on a map covering eastern France, or perhaps controlling one of the German Army Groups during Operation Barbarossa, or just choosing a sub-region within that.
Just any kind of freedom that allows you to keep your units between missions, and that also gives you meaningful control over the strategic map.

>take 501st Airborne
>put an airstrike in every slot that allows it (4 total)
>bring along a bunch of stealth saboteur units
>and then pack lategame with paratroopers
>spam air strikes, especially the overpowered US rocket barrage airstrike
>use saboteurs to snipe enemy AA guns
>enemy team quickly runs out of AA because nobody brings more than 2 or 3
>drown the map in neverending airstrike spam
>lategame, when enemy units are depleted from the constant attrition, start jamming paratroopers everywhere on the frontline and pushing like a monkey
>nobody has enough units left to oppose it, and when they do they just eat an airstrike the moment they pop out
>top the scoreboard with 100+ infantry kills every match despite spending 90% of it with a single saboteur squad as my only unit
Seems a little insane. It's absurdly oppressive everywhere on the map and braindead easy to play. Even better if you have a good artillery player on your team so you only have to spot for them with your saboteurs. It's way too easy to run the enemy team out of AA completely because they're big, expensive and easy targets and always reveal themselves. And then to top it all off you have good infantry to push with even if your planes get countered.

>>1599802
>Replaces Bofors with Whirlwind on the Germ Infantry Division
Your move now plane man

>>1599802
Skill issue. People are retarded right now and not bringing enough AA nor telling it to camo. They are not even moving their stationary shit when planes come in.
That's kinda the problem of trying to balance right now. A lot of players are intensely retarded.

>>1599881
Camo doesn't hide you from spotters and most AA decamos instantly when they shoot something because they're either huge cannons or big rapid-fire autocannons.
And since AA isn't really useful outside of countering planes, it's not a good idea to bring too many in the first place. They can do a lot of damage to infantry and light vehicles, but are so loud and fragile that they just get sniped instantly if you put them on the frontline, especially with tank divisions bringing mediums and heavies in t1

File: 15082597419.png (1.28 MB, 1273x717)

1.28 MB PNG

God damn, infantry feel like they just get melted by EVERYTHING now in the new MoW2 open beta. My dudes literally can't survive even the slightest fucking bit of damage coming their way even when they're dug in.

>>1599942
They kind of have to be. Infantry are the main source of vision and the main capping unit. Remember that 1 guy caps as well as 10, and that if you move slowly enough, you'll push the line without revealing yourself. You can apply a lot of pressure just inching forward with individual Recruits, forcing the other side to send whole squads or tanks to deal with it, and in turn exposing their position to your teammates.

Similarly, be sure to keep your fortifications small and spread out. Don't make your trenches all neat perpendicular lines, and don't stuff 5 bodies next to each other. Properly spread out, an artillery shell will never hit more than a single guy, and tank machineguns won't be able to actually suppress anything. Make sure to keep some bazookas around and keep them well hidden, so enemy vehicles need to respect them, and always try to pick off advancing enemy infantry to blind their tanks and arty. Infantry being fragile works both ways here.

Infantry is really impactful but also really taxing to play since their main advantages are being able to do lots of little things in different places at once. But as long as you keep your guys hidden, keep zooks on hand and don't throw bodies away you can get a lot done. Be sure to bring along something that can clear away the AI defenses, like a mortar or sniper and you can just relentlessly pressure anywhere on the map that doesn't have a dedicated babysitter. And remember that you can smoke your own trenches to protect them and buy time if a lot of tanks are on you.

>>1599942
Use the AI squads then. They are good at keeping to cover and require a lot less micro.

>>1599802
if your team isnt good enough to hold any ground this regiment cannot hold any ground at all.

MoW 2 is actually pretty cool so far, I hope it gets a big modding community.
How exactly does the supply system work? Do you perma unlock a unit when you spend supply on it or do you have to spend supply every match or something?

>>1600500
I hope Digitalmind buys them and make a good game out of it. Like they did with AS2.

>>1600500
Unlocks are permanent, yeah.
A lot of the unlocks are cosmetic but there are a couple really unique or useful ones worth focusing. Like the Spetznaz and Devils are unique stealth squads--the former has a silenced sniper (so it can fire in enemy territory without revealing itself) and the latter is airdropped and has AT grenades so they can kill SPGs without waiting for them to sit still.

There's also a few unlockable flamethrower tanks that feel basically mandatory to push infantry out of trenches or buildings.

>>1600523
i unlocked the zippo. it's really just one of a kind.

>US medium tank regiment
>literally all medium tanks
>face a heavy
>cant kill it
>no team helping
i hate this

>>1600610
From what I can tell the 'gimmick' behind the medium regiment is that you get a sherman in tier 1, when most other tank regiments can't field anything capable of dueling it. Basically a tank aggro div. In echelon 1 you can fit a sherman + LVT into the unit cap and the LVT can capture ground for you without needing infantry support. As the game drags on you should probably transition to support tanks like the Zippo, Calliope, 105 etc. and just try to avoid fighting enemy tanks while supporting your infantry players.

In echelon 3, sluggers are your best tool for killing other tanks but they're glass cannons and still need to get fairly close to pen the really big heavies. And this probably makes some sense. Heavies are big, slow targets and really vulnerable to artillery, airstrikes and infantry AT. They exist basically to fight and beat other tanks from a safe distance, while smaller tanks have a lot of good tools to push the line, dunk on trenches etc. that heavies lack.
You feel this if you play the soviet heavy tank division. You feel very strong when you're sitting back in the fog of war and picking off enemy tanks as they pop out, but when your allies aren't pushing and you feel like you've gotta get something done on the map you quickly realize you just can't--your tanks are blind, you're starved for capping units and the moment you approach the line an artillery shell blows your tracks.

>absolutely atriocious phase system in Steel Division
>Eugen gets rid of it it Warno
>MOW2 copies it
for fuck's sake

>play artillery
>it's strong but boring
>play tanks
>feel completely reliant on allies to provide vision and bait enemies
>play infantry
>autism push all the way to the backline and then hold against half the enemy team when they dogpile to bail out the poor player I've been bullying
I think I've found my main.

File: Screenshot 2023-11-18 125447.jpg (167 KB, 788x998)

167 KB JPG

>>1599802
I gave it a shot, this is the list I came up with
Pros:
>most of the advantages of a regular infantry list, easy to apply pressure, hold ground, control vision etc
>airstrikes give absurd map presence, especially defensively where they're less likely to get shot down
>lots of lategame aggression with Paratrooper spam
>snipers are surprisingly good
>if you manage to deplete enemy AA pool you just auto-win
Cons:
>wiping out enemy AA is surprisingly difficult, rely a lot on artillery ally killing them as you spot them
>the higher-tier Flak will snipe planes across the map from echelon 2 onwards, completely shutting down air support until you wipe them out
>no real anti-tank until Raiders, so you can't hold vs vehicles on your own
>hard to scout for newly called-in AA before it shoots down a plane, and every lost plane hurts your ability to rotate airstrikes
Overall it was solid. With a coordinated teammate it feels like it could be really strong, but even when you can't airstrike constantly you're still able to do most of the things an infantry list needs to do. I felt like this is probably the strongest way to play a 'special infantry' focused list in the current beta since airstrikes keep you relevant while a sabotage squad is eating half your unit cap.

MVP was definitely the snipers. Their game impact is absolutely wild.

>>1600669
>calls in a heavy tank at the start of the game
>absolutely SHITS on anon
>like shit all over his face, shit going into his mouth, shit going under his clothes
Nothing personnel

>>1599787
You know, there used to be a mod that used to do something very similar as you're describing, can't remember the name of it though.

>>1599787
Yes, conquest is just another case of "good idea, poor execution". It should be made similar to Steel Division, where the strategic phase it turn-based and allows you to control more than one unit on a proper map, not just choosing the direction of your attack.

>>1600910
I think you're talking about the mod that was the inspiration for the Conquest mode in Ostfront. I never played the mod, but from what I understand, the strategic map existed outside the game itself, and you'd load a mission based on the choices made on the map, and then you'd add the results to the mod after the mission was done, which in turn would generate new missions based on said data.
Anyway, I believe the Conquest mode added this into the game itself, but it's still way too simplistic. You alternate between attacking and defending, and choose the next place to attack, while using whatever resources you gain to unlock, buy and reinforce units between mission.

>>1600928
Yup.

Okay I've officially unlocked every division available in the Beta
Every country gets 1st Infantry, Artillery and Tank to start with
USSR can unlock 8th Assault (heavy infantry specialists), 712th Anti-tank artillery (Tank Destroyer specialist), 48th Heavy Tank and 88th Heavy Assault Tank (KV-2 specialist)
Nazis can unlock 4th Motorized (Light Vehicle spec), 1436th SPG, 12th Mechanized (Light Vehicle & Light/Med tank hybrid) and 29th Panzergrenadier (Light Vehicle and Heavy Tank hybrid)
US can unlock 5th Engineer (fortification spec), 502nd Airborne (paratrooper/airstrike spec), 21st Howitzer and 5th Medium Tank

No faction can unlock its Air Defense or Recon brigades. All of the brigades are unlocked linearly (ie play infantry to unlock a new infantry div) except for the USSR KV-2 division, which requires playing one of the US infantry divisions for some reason.

>>1600669
i prefer to take maxson. you get 4 as opposed to just 3 of the maxson truck. also the m2 mortar is actually much better than the sniper for value.

>>1601018
I like the M16, and in general all of the truck-mounted AA for earlygame because they move fast. You can bring them up to the front for fire support and retreat before the shells fall, and you can reposition them quickly when they actually shoot down a plane. Earlygame tends to be characterized by an oppressive presence of light indirect fire since artillery players are using the small calibre field guns and most infantry have a mortar, which means emplacements that can't reposition quickly will just die the moment it reveals itself.

After actually using the sniper, I swear by it. Having a sniper in t1 is the strongest thing about this list.

>>1601056
you can still tow the maxsons with your jeep
ok what do you do with the sniper

>>1601057
Put it in a good position and let it shoot. They have enough range that earlygame indirect fire will miss a half dozen times trying to hit it, so you don't really have to worry about keeping them concealed or repositioning.

When a worthwhile target presents itself, like the AI defensive units or something, you can manually control to make sure the sniper kills them fast. Unlike a mortar, it doesn't miss and doesn't care about being further away, so you can pick off a lot of the obstacles on the map quickly without much effort. You can snipe the crew out of weapon teams if they're too close to the front (and then steal them) and so on. The basic function of the sniper is to kill things that you or your allies' forward units spot. A single SMG recruit and sniper can steadily clear out the AI defenses in an empty part of the map somewhere to open it for pushes later while your main focus is elsewhere. And of course it will slowly kill off infantry garrisoning a building/trench/bunker for you.

And when it actually comes to fighting, a sniper will pick off several infantry basically every fight until it's killed, much more effective against player-controlled moving targets than a mortar.

I've played a couple games with this setup so far and twice the sniper dealt more total damage over the course of a match than the P-51D. They don't require any specific gimmick or anything, they're just surprisingly good at killing things.

somehow i dont really know how good the german mechanized and motorized selections are. i have just been playing USA for 90% of the playtest, and im truly not sure how strong these motorized units are when they cost so much, and i certainly dont want to take the super slow heavy tanks that my team wont support.

Why does this game look stylized?

>decide to try goh
>do the tutorial
>'take a helmet, gun, and ammo from the boxes'
>no indication of which fucking boxes
>takes 5 minutes of random clicking to find them
cool
>'go shoot some targets'
>I only have a melee attack
>takes 5 minutes of random clicking and key mashing to open my jarhead's inventory and realise he's just CARRYING his gun, it's not EQUIPPED
jesus fucking christ
>'try out these other guns that are just lying on these tables'
>they're equipped automatically, can use them right away
>shoot some targets
>wait
>wait some more
>voiceover tells me to equip the guns and shoot the targets
>again
>finally notice my shitheads can't hit one of the targets so they have to STAND UP and shoot it
>'good job now get in the truck and fuck off'
>have to walk halfway to fucking moscow
>pass through another firing range
>'try out the heavy weapons :)'
>cool sure
>mount up on the grenade launcher
>DOOK
>BOOM
>nice
>mount up on the MG tripod
>'no you have to take the MG out of the box and mount it'
>oh no
>find it right away, but have absolutely no clue how to mount it
>right click, regular click, mash hotkeys, check youtube tutorial, read comment section
>when mounted, press x to access soldier's inventory, then double click the gun in his backpack
yeah I'm fucking done
there's obtuse ui design, there's hostile ui design, and then there's fucking satanic rituals, and this is worse than all of them

>>1601226
>filtered by tutorial
lmao, you don't have to perform like half of those actions

>>1601177
Motorized units are generally really good, it's just a set of dudes plus a halftrack to carry them. The halftrack dies instantly to any firepower but has a heavy MG to mow down or suppress infantry so it usually gets some value before it dies. The infantry are slightly better than the basic equivalent of the same tier and the elite ones like Panzergrenadiers have AT rockets. Their cost can be deceptively high because it's the vehicle + squad, but in practice it's a 2 for 1 deal.

The mechanized list is really strong since it's essentially a medium tank list but with way more (mostly motorized) infantry, so you're able to push without help and screen for your own tanks. No teammates needed. There's also a special mechanized list unlockable for Germany that focuses on Heavy tanks. It's probably one of the best in the beta.

I just want a list that is pure AT fuckery.
Neither Arty nor Engies gives me the right amount of AT to bully tank decks.

>>1601406
somehow i really like spamming more mediums over heavies because from my experience fighting heavies are so slow and can just be bombed

and i did take the tank commando card. seems great for what it has. my favorite german unit has to be the flamethrower halftrack.

WHat's monetization in this game? I saw some bullshit progression graph like from WoT.

>>1601226
The in-game tutorial is notoriously bad. I don't know why they don't put some effort to fix it. It probably scared half of their buyers. Myself,I asked a refund after trying to finish it, but then seeing more gameplay and tutorials in YT I bought it again and I'm having a blast. It's still micro centric, but I love all the attention to detail and how visceral it is. I usually dislike RTS or RTT, but this game and Mius Front are the exception.

>>1601626
There is literally such a deck. Play a match as the soviet Artillery regiment and you'll unlock their specialist AT deck. It's all AT guns, Tank Destroyers and AA. The TD's in particular stand out since most of the soviet ones are basically just big tanks with insane armour and a really big gun, so you can play it like a heavy tank deck but you just shit on other tanks.

>>1601666
The devs keep claiming there will be no microtransactions or monetization beyond just buying the game. Multiplayer has a progression-based unlock system where you earn currency for completing missions and you can spend that currency to unlock units. Most missions give you 100-200 currency a pop but most of them are pretty trivial stuff like deal x amount of damage so they just kind of roll in as you play.
For the most part each category of units has around half a dozen unlockable options ranging from variants (ie a Sherman vs an amphibious Sherman vs a flamethrower Sherman, a KV-1 with Subcaliber munition vs a KV-1 with shrapnel shot), vanity skins, or meme units like Lendlease Churchills for the soviets. The decks for each faction offer a complete roster so there's no bullshit where you need to grind points to unlock Panzer IVs as Germany or anything.

After playing through the previous beta and this one (about 20 matches total), I have around 5500 of the in game currency. Most of the unit variants are like 200-500 to unlock, while the reskins and cosmetic variants are more like 1k+ and obvious point sinks for completionists.

The system isn't terrible. I don't really understand why it exists if they're not going to monetize it, but they insist there won't be any.

>>1601988
Because they have some sort of seasonal ranked leaderboard and fags at the top get credits or units as prize. It's their "keep playing, faggot!" mechanic.

>>1601988
playing pvp has become bad and unfun because the skill gap has become quite big and it becomes glaringly apparent who doesnt know what theyre doing and who does and when im stuck with like 3 others who wont even bother putting their infantry in cover i just leave

>>1602190
I think that may be less of an issue once the full game is out and people can start with singleplayer. The multiplayer is a little overwhelming to jump into because there's so much you can do and it takes a while just to learn all the hotkeys, let alone mechanics.

Singeplayer will give players some more time to sit down and mess around with game and figure shit out without the time pressure of a 4-day beta to grind as much mp as possible. The soviet mission in the test taught me a lot about controlling infantry just by throwing me into a bunch of difficult fights letting me fuck around.

>>1602206
after every match i always look at my personal score to see if i let myself or my team down. at some point i get very immersed in my regiment in that i dont want to lose anybody and i play extra carefully and retreat any even slightly damaged tanks and replace them immediately. it's a very non-aggressive playstyle that can surely get punished, i had a game where the other team pushed us in with tons of infantry and got 2500 in 8 minutes while i lost all my tanks and the other 3 people on my team im not sure what they did

>>1602190
>>1602211
You sound like a crybaby loser faggot that shits up multiplayer for everyone else. You should seriously entertain the idea of killing yourself

>>1602496
and you cant read

>>1601965
I just tried it out. I respecked it a bit since I found the SU-100 and ISU-152 superfluous so I put a ISU-122 and a Su-76 instead. And wierdly enough most of the work got done by the Zis-3 Arty/AT gun left on free fire and an AA gun. The enemy was forced to deal with my shit arty or suffer all the infantry dying but since I had decent AA they had to sacrifice tanks against my AT to get rid of them. I feel if I was paired with less aggressive Infantry player or against a higher IQ Arty player I would have been ass fucked.

File: file.png (3.79 MB, 2042x1137)

3.79 MB PNG

>>1596606
Gates of Hell has a really fucking nice dynamic campaign and a nice first person mode so that's my answer

>>1600991
>>1599787
I mean in the conquest mode you do need to sort of choose your objectives, otherwise if you just focus on purely getting research points for example you're in danger of running out of munitions or manpower.

>swear by USA infantry
>try german infantry
god damn these panzerfaust infantry are pretty cool. i can actually spam them.

File: 1684666672605129.png (52 KB, 242x195)

52 KB PNG

Based on what I've read so far in this thread, you mean you had to unlock and grind your units, and choosing some faggy faction that limits your unit selection, what the fuck?

>>1603393
most of the unlockable units don't matter, and you unlock a regiment after one game

>>1603402
So you can only play as a single specialized regiment? I'm concerned since I only play skirmish against bot in AS2

>>1603402
Why do they even make unlockables if you can unlock everything withing an evening?

>>1603408
you can choose between several in one game mode, or you can play the entire thing in combined arms mode.

>>1603433
i dont know. maybe it might make me play more if i could unlock stuff. but not using the in-game currency on anything is completely viable. i personally have to say the strongest unit in the game is the god damn german flamethrower halftrack.

>>1603393
you will play multiplayer
you will enjoy getting destroyed by no life autists
you will become a no life autist

>>1603463
The game has single player campaign and will have VS AI modes and also has custom lobbies right now.
Single player fags will cry all day but Warno has more concurrent players today than Regiments had on it's launch day.

>>1603328
>US get amazing National Guard, unique Paratroopers and Garands
>Germany get extremely spammable Panzerfausts and god-tier Panzergrens lategame
>USSR gets... AT Rifles
Feel bad for USSR honestly. Their vehicles are good but they feel fucked for infantry compared to the other 2.
>>1603393
Bro just look shit up we're not here to baby you

>>1603482
im not sure about the panzergrens. dont they have to come in a halftrack and so are super expensive?

>sniper dies
>rifleman (recruit) picks up his rifle
>aims extremely slowly and cant hit shit
i kinda expected it to be like this, its just a nice touch, i guess it was always supposed to be like this?

>>1603486
Yes. Units have traits like "rifle specialist" that indicate what weapons they're trained to use. Usually if you try to give a unit a weapon it doesn't have the training for, like giving a Rifleman a Bazooka, they just can't even use it. I guess Riflemen can use snipers because they're technically rifles.
>>1603484
Almost every squad that comes with a vehicle is very good. The population cost is just the two combined, so it's like getting a HMG halftrack and a squad for only 1 logistic cooldown. Any light vehicle with a machinegun is excellent against infantry, just keep it away from enemy tanks and keep it moving so it doesn't get popped by artillery.

Pgrens are the only t6 elite Motorized infantry, which means they have the same hp as US Rangers or elite Paratroopers. The main difference is that those elite quads only have 2 members who carry AT weapons, while every member of the pgren squad carries one, In addition, the driver and gunners of the halftrack are actually pgrens as well and not just "crew" so you can dismount them from the vehicle and just have 8 elite infantry instead of 5. Then just recrew the halftrack with cheap support infantry.

All elites infantry cost 2 pop per man instead of 1 like with basic infantry, but in exchange they have almost twice as much survivability, can use almost any looted weapon and carry a lot of useful equipment. They're useful for pushing difficult positions where you need to be able to focus and micro a small number of units rather than just pushing the front with a mass of cheap bodies. Keep the halftrack back a bit out of sight (or use cover to protect it) and poke forward with cheaper basic infantry, then follow through with the elites when you've spotted enemies and bring in the halftrack to suppress trenches/buildings or when you know there's no enemy tank with line of sight.

>>1603495
ive just been trying to maximize my deck and so far i cant fit in the panzergrens. its pretty tough. also im not sure about riflemen not being able to use a bazooka. if i remember, they still can, but probably not in a good way. like theyll probably be slow or miss.

>>1603482
>Bro just look shit up we're not here to baby you
Just passing by man, if you won't answer then cool.

>>1603503
When I tried last beta, they were unable to use them but that may have changed. I didn't try again this beta
>ive just been trying to maximize my deck
Which one? There are several german decks in this beta that have a 20% discount for "Armoured Vehicles" (which includes motorized infantry) and one has 25% discount for pgrens specifically.

>>1603482
AT rifles have a lot longer range than Zookas and Shreks and if you just want a half track gone it's a lot better to use.

>>1603529
My issue with AT rifles is that the vehicles they're good at killing are the ones that generally have short lifespans on the battlefield anyways and they get walled by most medium-or-larger tanks available in the 1sat echelon. It would be one thing if they were good at sniping the tracks of tanks like they were historically, but the game's penetration system is kind of funky about that. Same reason the low-tier AT guns suck.

In general if you're going to hold ground you need a way to kill medium and heavy tanks and it's not worth giving up a slot specifically to counter light vehicles when they die to so many things already. Odds are your 1st echelon already includes an AA gun or mortar that can kill a halftrack from a safe distance while also doing useful things.

>>1603528
1st infantry

>>1603539
That would be why. If you want to make more use of Motorized infantry, which seems to be one of Germany's major strengths, try the Motorized Infantry division, or the Mechanized and Panzergrenadier tank divisions.

>>1603557
im still raving about how great this regiment is despite not having panzergrens. im practically swimming in infantry. not the best infantry but good enough, frankly.

>>1603557
oh and to add, i did try those other divisions but i feel like im terrible at handling motorized units. the halftracks just mostly dont feel too good for me to use. the only halftrack i really like is the flamethrower one and for me i pop it in to roast trenches and then when its clear i retreat it

File: mpv-shot0002.jpg (114 KB, 1280x720)

114 KB JPG

mow2 sucks because it limits your unit selection and youre dependent on other retards to do their job
goh sucks because it requires getting scammed by DMS

>>1603632
You can just play Classic in MoW 2

File: 1700444387281808.png (234 KB, 400x400)

234 KB PNG

>>1603632
>team mode

>>1603632
There are actually quite a few divisions that are self-sufficient. Most infantry lists basically need no help. Bring mortars to blow out enemy defenses and drag along a tonne of AT infantry so tanks can't roll up on you and you can just autistically push all game and nobody can stop you. Just don't bunch up and don't leave infantry sitting still.

The mechanized tank lists also get enough infantry to fight like an infantry list, but with close armour support instead of mortars and air strikes.

Ostfront is on sale 75% off and I may pick it up just to scratch the itch for the time being.
Do I actually need to buy Call to Arms for it or is it standalone?

>>1604096
It's standalone now.

>>1604096
It's dogshit, I wouldn't recommend it.
>over 2 years since release and skirmish is still unplayable

>>1604096
there are mods to make it at least a bit more interesting but it is annoying to play conquest when attacking means you gotta have artillery and defending means you gotta hold off waves of stuff mindlessly walking toward the defense points while frankly, being outnumbered probably 5 to 1.

>>1604182
Why is it unplayable ?

>>1596689
wow that sounds pretty cool
I've always wanted the customization and different game modes from SD combined with MoW gameplay
It might be good, but I've heard tanks have health bars now, is that true?

>>1604698
They have just as many HP bars as they've always had. They are all hidden but MoW vehicles work of two sets of HP bars. One for individual components like tracks and one of the actual vehicle labeled hull. You can fix components if they break but take too much hull damage and the vehicle is toast.

>>1604617
Not only is the performance terrible, the AI is flat out broken. Very often units don't fire at enemies when they should and it's easy to lose your troops because they got retarded and did not defend themselves. It's been a recurring problem all throughout the game's life but every time someone posts about it on the steam forums some brokedick shills come screaming that it's fine, works for them, ok it's broken but it must be because of mods, etc... You can find a ton of reviews and forum posts about it. It's so bad that going back and playing Assault Squad 2 feels much better because soldiers actually do their thing.

File: retard.png (63 KB, 492x447)

63 KB PNG

>>1601226
so this is what it looks like when zoomer tries out any RTS games not developed for phones

>>1604096
I heartily recommend it, dynamic campaign is 7/10 but is getting updated and improved all the time

>>1604096
Picked it up. So far it looks very pretty but I'm not digging it as much as MoW2. The game weirdly divides keybinds into mutually exclusive RTS/Direct Control and doesn't let you bind the same key to both, so now I have to find room for and memorize two different keys for every type of grenade.

The game also seems to place a lot more emphasis on direct control, especially for infantry. Soldiers just won't fucking shoot in RTS mode unless you select them individually and give them an individual targeting orders every few seconds and can't hit anything unless you take direct control and play jank counterstrike for them, but it keeps throwing me dozens of infantry and telling me to babysit them all all simultaneously against human waves 4x the size. Just keeping troops shooting is demanding more APM than a starcraft 2 ladder match.

The korean APM babysitting of 30 individual infantrymen who won't engage enemies in open ground 10ft in front of them doesn't particularly appeal to meso far and neither does the prospect of rapidly popping into FPS mode on all 30 units several times a second to take proper shots because they can't hit anything unless they are me. I like direct control, but it makes a lot more sense when you're controlling a single high-value unit like a tank, emplacement or sniper while most of your forces can be managed from RTS mode by just positioning them well and telling them when and where to throw grenades. Ostfront seems to disagree with me there and so far it feels like trying to Direct Control everything is how it wants me to play.

I'll stick with it for a few more missions and see if it starts to click but so far it's just making me appreciate how much QoL has gone into making MoW2 play as smoothly as it does.

>>1605528
Told you, nigga >>1605288
GOH's fanbase has a serious case of "it plays like shit so it must be hardcore and good!"

>>1605528
I agree the APM can get crazy, but using direct control to make your troops fire is wrong. Check if they have fire at will active. Also be sure to not double click them because they'll ignore fire and run to the designated position. In the latter casepress X and they'll hold position and start firing

>>1605528
try using a jeep to flank an AT gun. you are going to laugh at what happens. (your MG gunner will miss every shot and the AT gun will slowly rotate toward your jeep and oneshot you)