[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vm / vmg / vr / vrpg / vst / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip / qa] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / pw / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / vt / wsg / wsr / x / xs] [Settings] [Search] [Mobile] [Home]
Board
Settings Mobile Home
/vst/ - Video Games/Strategy

[Advertise on 4chan]

Name
Spoiler?[]
Options
Comment
Verification
4chan Pass users can bypass this verification. [Learn More] [Login]
File[]
  • Please read the Rules and FAQ before posting.
  • There are 39 posters in this thread.

08/21/20New boards added: /vrpg/, /vmg/, /vst/ and /vm/
05/04/17New trial board added: /bant/ - International/Random
10/04/16New board for 4chan Pass users: /vip/ - Very Important Posts
[Hide] [Show All]


Janitor applications are now closed. Thank you to everyone who applied!


[Advertise on 4chan]


File: unknown.png (739 KB, 791x357)
739 KB
739 KB PNG
Is it worth buying? I have seen the battles and the way the game works, and it looks pretty fun, but im still unsure about it right now.

+ thread since none are active
>>
It's better than 1
Yeah, it's a fun game
>>
>>753673
>Is it worth buying?
Not when you can pirate it
>>
>>753673
Yes. There's a bit of a learning curve if you haven't played a Eugen game, but it's really fun once you figure it out.
>>
Just pirate it. Its not worth the current price tag.
>>
>>753673
It's a fun game, but the multiplayer scene is dead compared to Wargame's.
>>
>>754596

Why is wargame still popular vs. steel division? Do people not like the setting? Don't like how infantry are relatively weaker in SD?
>>
It's not very good. Scale is too big.
>>
>>757078
I can't explain it but I was really hyped for SD yet it just never felt the same as wargame. I bought both games and I regret both, they just don't have "soul" tm. I don't know what it is because I want to like them
>>
>>757078
Cause Shit Division brought back the stupid rout system from Ruse.
Cause what I want in an RTS is to lose control of my units cause a weapon that can't kill them is shooting at them.
>>
>>753673
Yep, it's the only RTS I play anymore, and I've been a fan of RTS games since the 90's.
>>
>>757100
What a fucking retarded post.
Go back to sim city you casual.
>>757109
You too.
>>
>>757100
This. You can't even really argue against it because the devs brought in robust delegation to AI options after the game released.

There's no time to enjoy the graphics, no time to micro anything well, just continuously spam units across the map. Wargame was the same, but felt more fun due to reasons I can't really describe. SD1 > SD2 in any case.
>>
>>757224
How is it possible to be this much of a pleb?
You want to enjoy graphics and immerse yourself? There is a campaign with slow motion for you.
>>
File: Et32Aa4XEAIOfuY.jpg (20 KB, 399x322)
20 KB
20 KB JPG
>>757230
ok zoom zoom
>>
>>757231
The fuck do you want? An RTS which is so slow paced you can enjoy the visuals instead of having to concentrate on the game?
Are you legitimately retarded, or do you not understand the difference between real time strategy and turn based strategy?
Like literally what the fuck are you even playing RTS games for with a criticism that you "have to play the game".
>>
>>753673
It has several campaigns with the base game, both as allied or axis, although if I'm brutally honest it does get kinda repetitive after a while, I have several playthroughs in each campaign. The Co op/versus aspects of the campaign make it way more fun, but this requires you to have autistic friends who also enjoy this niche game.

For me the real draw is the multiplayer, large scale eastern front warfare is simply not in any other RTS.
New players often get stomped pretty hard and end up leaving, which is understandable, but if you make it through the initial gauntlet, there is a lot of fun to be had.
Another drawback though is the player count, the game never really exploded like Wargame did, I guess it's too slow for that crowd, although imho unit variety and amount more than makes up for it.

tl;dr, if you want a new WW2 RTS game that isn't arcady bullshit but has some actual thought behind the mechanics, you should go for it. Remember you can always refund within two hours on steam.
>>
>>757236
Also there's a fucking cinematic replay mode that you can watch, pause, slow down, and speed up.
>>
Yeah, it's my favorite rts at the moment.
>>754596
Compared to Wargame's, but the MP is still decently active on its own.
>>757078
SD1 killed its own hype by going straight from a unique cold war setting to the most generic WW2 one: France in 1944. It also had several major teething issues involving their new vision, like the frontline system. SD2 went to the far more interesting Eastern Front and ironed out SD1's issues, but the damage had been done. A shame, but I'm still happy with the community it's sustained.
>>
>>753673
For me its a "wait until it's cheap" game. The campaign isn't very interesting/well implemented. It looks like an advance wars game but without soul.

The keypoints of this game are the skirmishes and the multi-player that I don't play because I don't want to make another account in another business to do that.

So, for all the game, only skirmishes are good. And they are always the same against ai. I don't find it interesting. Your troops come from one side, enemy troops come from other, move to capture points, put defensive units to defend those points, it doesn't matter the building because they will view and attack the enemy, etc...

It lacks interesting decisions. After a few skirmishes it gets boring. It could be more interesting when somebody takes the dawn of war models and makes a mod for this game.

It seems funnier to play against other humans and friends but again, not doing other account just for 1 game.
>>
>>758605
What the fuck are you even talking about you absolute sperg?
No shit skirmish gets tedious after a while, that's why the campaign exists, if you don't want to play multiplayer.

Secondly, why the fuck would you need a second account to play multiplayer?
>>
For anyone who wants to see the best the game can be, here is the final from last season

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJAt4HTyzCU
>>
https://steamcommunity.com/games/919640/announcements/detail/2942528520944118923

I use medium bombers quite a lot as it is, so I'm very curious to see what air changes they make.
>>758713
The mg duel was cute
>>
It's a crappy game about watching ants fight other ants. It has 0 impact, 0 visual appeal and all gameplay revolves around tiny little micro so that you can shoot the enemy ants but they can't shoot you.
>>
>>758797
>game about watching ants fight other ants.
>all gameplay revolves around tiny little micro so that you can shoot the enemy ants but they can't shoot you.
Kek, that can describe every RTS
>>
>>758797
based retard, stick to CoH if you're that much of a plebeian
>>
File: file.png (110 KB, 1334x185)
110 KB
110 KB PNG
I started playing polish armoured
I can FEEL myself starting to bongwank
this is a problem
>>
>>753673
Maybe I'm dumb but it just seems like: get a good heavy pen item in defense , get infected on the field. Swarm infantry to die in push to grab the next tree line
>>
Gameplay itself is fun.

The card system is an utter degeneracy and whoever came up with it should be burned on a stake with his belly ripped and his entrails falling out.
>>
>>758910
Why do you believe this? I mean I get that high level play will go towards a meta that is somewhat fixed, but there is still variety to be had.

>>758878
nice value

>>758887
>defending at all
lmao, just attack, make more fires for them to put out
>>
>>758941
Building armies is the most tedious feature of the game, that's why it's mostly autists playing it since they can minmax for hours until they have their perfect army.
>>
>>758946
nah, it's one of the more fun aspects tbqh.
If you don't like it you can just auto build a deck.
>>
>>758956
What's the point? The minmaxed autist's deck will prevail anyways, campaign is the only option.
>>
>>758959
there is a factor, called gameplay. But yes, why shouldn't the better deck win?
Also deck variety is needed so you can be competitive in different scenarios, from 1v1-10v10, as well as what decks you are up against (although I would simply change the entire deck to something else if I'm going up against IS2 spam)
>>
>>758981
My point is that in order to win in this game you either put unreasonable amount of time into just building an army deck (which isn't that much different from building Magic the Gathering deck, not to mention that some people like me want to actually get their hands on the game instead of preparing for a long time) or you play campaign.
>>
>>758997
lmao
I spent maybe 10 minutes making each of my decks
refine as I go along, takes maybe 20 seconds when I figure out what I need
then I press save (this part is important) as I won't ever have to do it again.
Really don't see how that is unreasonable.

And, I mean, if you don't really want to get into the game, why even play it? In any RTS if you want to win at a higher level than retarded tier, you will need to prep something, either strats or builds or both.
>>
>>759007
Of course it's easy if you know the current meta, a person that plays the game once in a while doesn't. You build around something that sounds good on paper but the metagods fuck you over.

It's not about not wanting to get into the game, on the contrary, it's about not wasting time minmaxing everything before you even get into the game. Honestly, I don't understand what's so incomprehensible about that.
>>
>>758959
It won't if you're actually good at the game. Also min-maxing really is more of a playstyle thing than an effectiveness thing. You make a deck that you're good with and comfortable playing with. If min-maxing was a just about which units are better, everyone would just use the same deck, but the variation is wild.
>>758797
It sounds like you just don't like strategy games, so why are you here?
>>
>>759041
The only people I've seen complaining about minmaxing, which isn't really that effective in-game, are people who use the units they have extremely sloppily and then don't understand why their (actually very good) units are getting destroyed easily by units that have things like fire support or infantry support, etc.
>>
>>759041
>it's about not wasting time minmaxing everything before you even get into the game.
Sure a lot of people are meta slaves (generally 1v1 spammers), but what do you expect? That people should not optimize their decks just because you're a lazy retard?

And as to what a person who plays once in a while knows or does not know, that's irrelevant, because of course they're going to be out of the loop if they only play once in a while.
>>
>4v4
>accept newbies, tell them to give info etc so we can help each other out
>some fucktard hits auto deploy
>other autist gets made that autist #1 auto deployed where he wanted to be
>tell him auto deploy is shit, he should redeploy manually
>no response
>autist #2 becomes increasingly irate, begins talking smack
>now autist #1 comes back with "well no I really feel like moving xD"
>begins to piss everyone else off
>tell him he's fucking retarded and auto deploy is dumb
>now autist #1 is saying he will throw because he's apparently butthurt
>ends up playing like absolute ass, not microing half his units, while we get steamrolled by players two stacking one side
Some people in this fucking game... Absolutely horrendous.
>>
>>759077
That's where you're wrong, a game shouldn't need you to research current meta trends just so you can win. There should be no meta trends at all but I blame how unbalanced some units are.
>>
File: 20210909192136_1.jpg (561 KB, 1920x1080)
561 KB
561 KB JPG
For me? 352. arty spam juggernaut.
The amount of seethe from people who hate arty is fantastic, and you got jagdpanthers to back it up.

DCROGlFiEJigkxdDAkxdCIdCLkKu4ADDBxKaCrgADAkyUaQuSLlIapByLCwADIwoAChCIACAY5B1BCIACIb4ADAogACBEwACpMZdSAVhByjBxBzBMhByouwwiIvBBygY5ByoaZByJJQE6JDhByhnAAChEJdCgogACiuaUaqhJByCqwACLDQACKvgACjCgACgX5dQ
>>
>>759101
but that doesn't make any sense whatsoever.
There is no game (IRL or virtual) where 0 prep allows the same success rate as someone prepping, with the exception of, I don't know, the fucking roulette wheel I guess.
Every single game has a trend, but that doesn't mean every match has to be the exact same (at least not if the game has any depth to it).
For example, current meta is vanguard focused, flamethrowers are good in early pushes and everyone is bringing off map.
That still leaves a lot to play with.
>>
>>758805
Don't be a disingenuous faggot, anon. Very few RTS games have this sort of scale.

>>758853
Does it upset you that COH is infinitely more popular? I didn't mention it at all.

>>759059
I love strategy games. Good ones.
>>
>>759103
I'm pretty new but have done reasonably well in the games I play. These are the two main battlegroups I use, are they any good? I was wary of taking mainly panthers in the German one, but I've tended to find that, by the end of Phase A, I have enough points to deploy them in pretty good numbers.

I use them for very different playstyles, with the German battlegroup, I tend to go for more breakthrough-style attacks (which makes sense since I initially made it to play as attacker in Breakthrough mode) and then try to start a battle of annihilation by surrounding large parts of an enemy line. The Soviet deck, I tend to do a series of small, limited offensives that, in the grand scheme of things, end up seeming like a long, continuous offensive. I like this playstyle because its reliance on artillery and infantry support leads to relatively few losses for my armored units.
>>
>>759119
>I love strategy games. Good ones.
>CoH
Top kek

I mean in all honesty I can enjoy CoH once in a while, but it pales in comparison to SD.
>>
>>759119
>very few RTS games have this sort of scale
Why is it bad to have a large scale in an RTS? Especially a WWII rts, since, you know, WWII was fought on a large scale.
>>
>>759120
Put more thought into your decks than I have lmao

>soviet deck
Maybe a little too much supply (maybe you can bring in some arty with supply transports, freeing up some points?), and you might get fucked by early pushes, especially if they have air, but it looks decent

>German deck
I sure hope you win the air battle, because if you don't, with that small amount of AA, you're gonna get fucked, but it looks fun though
>>
>>759122
Because he's clearly a CoH plebeian. Anything more than two tanks and 3 infantry squads is too complicated for him.
>>
>>759121
Obsessed, aren't you?
>>
>>759131
I mean seeing as there are only two RTS games set in WW2 that are active right now, it's hardly an obsession assuming that you're more into the other ones.
>>
>>759125
Since I'm so new, I am really bad at using Air power, so I kind of tend to hope that more experienced players can handle air superiority, but I bring some always just to be safe. Yeah, the first Soviet deck there is really weak in terms of AA and early on, I've found that, in phase A though, I can sometimes bluff my way into keeping a foothold by really aggressively attacking with those 6 light howitzers, T-34's, and some infantry very early in the game. More often than not, it makes the opposing player rethink an attack because he thinks my deck is stronger than it really is.
>>
>>759120
Do you mainly play 1v1, 4v4 or 10v10?
>>
>>759135
Well if you're not a confident air player you should definitely sack some fighters and get some AA instead. Also see if you can bring the 20 mil AA in with AA transports (sometimes it's possible).
Another thing is that fighter-bombers are more efficient pointwise than fighters/bombers (but I don't know if you can get those with 116.) And stukas are (imho) only good early or really late when you've killed all the AA, because they simply won't get their bombs off.
>>
>>759122
Because gameplay, simpleton. In real life a battle like the ones depicted in this game would be commanded by innumerable squad leaders and officers, not a single nerd on his computer. A scale like this works for slower games like Mius Front but Steel Division tries to be so fast that it doesn't work. It devolves into deploying units vaguely where they need to be and then focusing on small parts of the map while the AI handles the rest or fails and makes you lose ground.
Even in competitive play a large chunk of Steel Division gameplay consists of sniping the transports on unaware players or killing other, unattended vehicles and emplacements while the player is focused on a different group of ants.
It's even worse because the game is not balanced in any way at all so, if you are not playing the meta divisions and decks, you will have to put in way more effort into doing certain things like taking out heavy vehicles with smaller AT guns while the rest of the map does whatever.
It's a stupid franchise, plain and simple. It tries to be a big smart boy game of "realistic" combat but ends up playing like watered down shit.
>>
By far the worst WW2 RTS. MoW is better, COH is better, even Sudden Strike is better.
>>
>>759152
>game compromises as we can't fully simulate a real WW2 battle with all of its nuance, as that simply doesn't make sense from a gameplay perspective
No shit.

>while the AI handles the rest or fails and makes you lose ground.
>giving the AI command over any units
So you are a shitter.

>Even in competitive play a large chunk of Steel Division gameplay consists of sniping the transports on unaware players or killing other, unattended vehicles and emplacements while the player is focused on a different group of ants.
>what are ambushes
>what is artillery
How the fuck do you think real wars are fought? By attacking where the enemy is ready and waiting? Lmao

Also, higher tier players don't usually lose transports.

>f you are not playing the meta divisions and decks, you will have to put in way more effort into doing certain things
>completely ignores the fact that each division has its drawbacks
Also, the rest of the map does not just do "whatever". If you want to play a C tier division in a lobby of A tiers, that's your choice, but of course it's not going to be a walk in the park.

>It tries to be a big smart boy game of "realistic" combat but ends up playing like watered down shit.
>t. shitter

Funny how you complain the game isn't realistic enough, and then also display complete ineptitude for the large scale it already has lmao.
It's ok though, this game isn't for everyone, that's why CoH exists.
>>
>>759152
>a large chunk of Steel Division gameplay consists of sniping the transports on unaware players or killing other, unattended vehicles and emplacements while the player is focused on a different group of ants.
So like any other RTS game ever made?
You are legitimately retarded.
>>
>>759107
>with the exception of, I don't know, the fucking roulette wheel I guess.
And you'd be wrong.
>>
>>759136
I mainly play in a group of people I know on discord. On weekdays we tend to do either 1v1's, breakthrough matches vs the AI (alternating between attacking an defending), and on weekends, 10v10's when more people are online.
>>759137
I may do that, though the main reason I got fighters as opposed to more fighter-bombers was the reasoning that denial of air superiority would be more useful than ground support aircraft, because my armored arm is so strong.
>>759152
>it devolves into deploying units vaguely where they need to be and then focusing on small parts of the map while the AI handles the rest
Almost like that's what real generals do, substituting platoon leaders for AI
>Even in competitive play a large chunk of steel division gameplay consists of sniping the transports of unaware players or killing other, unattended vehicles and emplacements while the player is focused on a different engagement
This happens in real warfare much more often than you'd think, actual warfare isn't micromanaged on that scale, resources are focused on a few key engagements and sometimes whole units are lost simply because the military high command is too busy focusing on more important stuff to relay necessary information to formations outside of that sector.
>you will have to put in way more effort into doing certain things if not following meta
Getting better units is not metagaming, each division is built differently, this just seems to be a complaint that some divisions are generalist and others have specific niches that you have to be good with to play, but again, that's just a consequence of having variety and being based on real divisions on the Eastern Front. If you played matches in a smaller scale rts using only the worst units in the game, you would probably spend a lot more time microing
those units to make the most of them too.
>>
>>759168
>proceeds not to post a single example of any game or sport where preparation is not required for success
Why the fuck should you expect to win tour de france if you don't even know how to ride a bike you fucking imbecile?
>>
>>759170
>10v10
Really can't get into that gamemode, the lack of units just pisses me off
If you have a discord group you should be playing 4v4's, honestly the way the game should be played

And about denial of air superiority, you're completely right, which is why you should get more AA (88´s if possible).
Relying on fighters isn't great, when you lose them, it's a lot of points down the drain. The more AA the better from my experience. It's a great feeling seeing enemy heavy bombers being plucked out of the sky before they can even get in range to fire.
>>
File: brenlet.jpg (18 KB, 558x614)
18 KB
18 KB JPG
Graviteam for brainlets
>>
>>759171
Nigger what the fuck?
I'm saying that yes, the roulette wheel has a metal.
Calm down, I'm not that retard Italian you were arguing with.
>>
>>759178
>metal
meta.
>>
>>759178
so now it's my fault you made a short, ambiguous post?
But if even the roulette wheel has a meta, then I guess I'm just even more correct.
>>
>>759176
>no multiplayer
nice "game" you got there
>>
>>759182
>ambiguous
Maybe if you lack reading comprehension.
And yes, it is your fault for getting pissy at someone because you can't read.
>>
>>759188
>There is no game (IRL or virtual) where 0 prep allows the same success rate as someone prepping, with the exception of, I don't know, the fucking roulette wheel I guess.

>you're wrong

Your post is misleading. I stand by what I said.
>>
>>759188
>>759194
Guys, you agree with each other, please don't derail by arguing over choice of wording.
>>
>>759170
Which of those are those decks for? For 1v1 you need lots of infantry mainly, with solid air support and only a few tanks at key chokepoints covered by AA. For 4v4 you need a lot more AA. 10v10 you can do whatever you want desu, go full arty if that's what you want, or full tanks if you prefer that. But you also need a ton of AA, since the winner is whoever retains Air superiority. For either mode, however, you will need AT. Especially in the A phase.
>>
>>759194
I specifically took the excerpt of the roulette wheel so you'd know what I'm talking about.
I'll concede that my post wasn't 100% unambiguous, but if you weren't an ass about it this wouldn't have been a big issue.
>>
>>759204
>I'll concede
Thank you. Choose your wording more carefully next time.
>>
File: 1571988927572.jpg (80 KB, 600x534)
80 KB
80 KB JPG
>>759119
>Don't be a disingenuous faggot, anon. Very few RTS games have this sort of scale.
What does scale have to do with it? Every RTS game boils down to watching units from afar while microing for position. You're being ridiculous if you think it's some fatal flaw of SD or Wargame. If you want to slow down and fully enjoy the spectacle, then watch the replay like you do for every other strategy game. It doesn't matter if I'm playing Starcraft or CoH, I'm not wasting time zooming in on a single engagement unless it's absolutely critical.
>>759120
Yup, both look solid for team games. Not sure about having zero AA of any kind for phase A with the Soviet deck, but it's fine if you can count on your team to provide protection there.
>>759152
Unironically, git gud. Most players never touch AI control because they don't need it. It's really not hard to keep track of your frontline once you get experience under your belt.
>Even in competitive play a large chunk of Steel Division gameplay consists of sniping the transports on unaware players or killing other, unattended vehicles and emplacements while the player is focused on a different group of ants
Name a strategy game where exploiting your enemy's lack of attention doesn't play a role. Again, everything from Starcraft to CoH has even pros losing games because they simply weren't paying attention to a certain area of the map. Competitive strategy games have always had the limitation of a single commander in mind. It's not something that Wargame or SD invented.
>>
>>759107
>For example, current meta is vanguard focused
I've been seeing a lot more mavericks ever since vanguard got nerfed as far as 1v1s go. I like building my decks to grind out rushers, so it's been a nice change of pace to have a breather at the start before things go to hell. There's also a healthy amount of balanced now.
>>
>>757078
Steel Division is just too slow compared to Wargame, don't have to care about radios and commanders either.
The phase system falls apart in 2 simply because you can bring in heavy units in A phase. Sure you don't get many but they're capable of working well all the way into B.
>>
yeah I only play 2v2s or 3v3s with friends with a bunch of house rules
>>
>>759225
I guess so, vanguard spam was really fucking cancer, especially after waiting 10 min for a lobby to fill up, only to have the game end in 5 minutes.
Or the other way around, when their early game sweaty rush fails, they just leave.
>>
>>758549
>eastern front
>more interdasting
at least they put in some American divisions, or i would've never bought the game.
>>
>>759176
Graviteam plays itself once you deploy and attack move
>>
So many bad takes itt.

Anyway, get SD only if you intend to play MP which is the real core of the game. There are campaigns but honestly he AI is not a particularly good experience.

Problem with MP is that the playerbase is pretty small and nobody plays the actual ranked mode so you have to go to lobbies where you will get stomped by stacks and assholes picking their fights to get muh winrate. This on top of pretty high barrier to entry to begin with makes it so only diehard fans play it at this point making the skill disparity even worse. Unfortunately it's kinda a self reinforcing problem.
>>
>>759251

The eastern front was 2000 miles wide, had 150 axis divisions vs over 300 Russians.
The western front was 300 miles wide at most, had 40 German divisions vs 80 Allied divisions.
Yes, the eastern front was way more interesting.
>>
>>753673
Yes, but don't expect a good campaign.
It's one of the most tedious and repetitive campaigns ever designed.
>>
>>759276
Yeah, army general mode is mind-numbing. Play the exact same battle 60 times in a row.
>>
>>759198
Sorry for late reply, was doing something.

I haven't really specialized decks for specific player numbers, I just tend to try to find a playstyle that is comfortable and then do that. I do have other decks that are more AT-heavy, especially for the Germans, but I've tended to find that if tanks with decent AT capacity are an option, that it's better to use them because of greater versatility. I tend to go heavy on AT (like you said, especially phase A) on decks which lack good armor support
>>
>>759283
it's about cost efficiency, which you desperately need as axis.
Sure you can send in a 120 point panther, but it will need to kill several things to pay for itself.
Send in a 20 point AT gun, if it kills a single tank it's paid for itself several times over.
>>
>>759287
That's very true, that deck I posted earlier for the Axis is very much geared towards an aggressive strategy (like I said, I built it for breakthrough games with friends in a discord group), and I haven't really used it too much besides that and friendly 2v2's and 1v1's with friends in the same group. For 10v10's, I tend to be more conscious of playing conservatively and not making big gambles (the Soviet deck in that screenshot is mainly what I use in 10v10's), here's a deck I've used a couple times in 10v10's for the Axis, but I've only been on the Axis side a couple times in those because the group I play with has a guy in it who only has Soviet battlegroups built because he's really new.
>>
>>759294
I'm not that familiar with 10v10, as I stated earlier, I can't get around not being able to control that many units, I feel asphyxiated.
But I'd recommend having volks deutche in a later phase too, because they increase a lot more in availability than the others, also bring in your A infantry in the fastest vehicle, you just want them on roads rushing forwards after all.
Later phases you'll still be using roads, but might be pushing across a plain where halftracks make more sense.

Don't bother with feldgenderarmie, their radius isn't enough to make them worth it, disheartened troops shouldn't be relied on anyway, get some more command if you want better infantry.

Also that's quite a lot of supply for not a lot of arty.

Your AT doesn't really make sense to me, why so many cards in A, especially in 10v10? You're just going to be holding a very small section, and on top of that surely if you're spending 500 points on AT alone in A, you're doing something wrong (and in 10v10 I don't think you can get too many points unless I'm mistaken).

BMW scouts I don't personally like, but I can respect a personal choice in that regard, I just find it hard to actually hide them somewhere good where infantry wouldn't just be 100 times better.

Also, get off map arty with that deck, it's really good to bail you out of trouble/set up an attack.
>>
>>759294
I think you have too much stuff in A, especially if this is meant to be used for 10v10. Can you even call in that much stuff? Even if you get rekt yourself it's probably going to get balanced out and you have to plan for longterm. With your income curve what are you going to spend it on in C. Leaving option open is one thing but if you have too many troops not called that's just leaving availability/veterancy on the table.

This is not much artillery for that kind of division and no air at all? You should probably have some of your own unless you are playing with people on comms and are well coordinated. Doing combined arms with someone is hard.

Scout motorcycles are kinda not good, they have all the drawbacks for no advantage over infantry or actual armoured vehicles.
>>
>>759272
it wasn't more interesting since it didn't have Americans. i don't care about assorted slavs. (You) can't change my mind.
>>
>>757078
Wargame is faster, requires less micro to play but allows you to micro better if you want to, has a much better UI and is much simpler to understand and and build your own decks because of the superior UI and because Wargame has a really simple Armour vs Armour Piercing basis rather than SD's penetration, reflection, ammo types for soft and hard targets etc etc. Also the maps in SD are absolutely enormous, which just compounds the "issue" of slow units.
There's a lot of QoL improvements that Wargame would benefit from like the range finder, but on the whole it's just as lot harder to get into.
>>
It's a poorly designed game and unplayable at low player counts because the maps don't scale down. They are like twice as big as they should be.
You'd think they would have learned after the first game flopped and no one liked it but here we are.
>>
File: kerch.jpg (88 KB, 314x1099)
88 KB
88 KB JPG
>>759251
The Eastern Front is concentrated kino. It's a travesty to mankind that we have a million Normandy movies and barely any Eastern ones besides meme shit like Enemy at the Gates.
>>
>>759512
>and unplayable at low player counts because the maps don't scale down. They are like twice as big as they should be.
Disagree. Again, it really isn't hard to keep track of your frontline.
>>
>>759512
but anon, you being shit at the game doesn't mean the game is shit.
>>
>>759528
Just watch Slav movies. They make a dozen war movies every year.
>>
>>753673
Does the AI still cheat and know where your forces are at all times like it has xray sight?
>>
>>759573
They are all worse than Private Ryan when it comes to realism and bias.
They make like 1 decent war movie every 5 years.
>>
>>759575
It's a strategy game, so yes. If you want a fair fight against a mostly intelligent opponent then play multiplayer.
>>
>>759585
Beggars can't be choosers, you either get soviet tainted propaganda or depressing german kino once every 20 years
>>
>>759702
I never play multiplayer.
So basically the game is fucked, dont buy - gotcha.
I will go back to graviteam. Thanks anon
>>
>>760548
>I'm a massive pussy
No worries, enjoy your meaningless simulation
>>
>>760572
>I'm a degenerate tranny
Enjoy your 'deck' card game trying to pass itself off as strategy
>>
>>760576
cope post lmao
it's OK buddy, multiplayer isn't for everyone, some autists enjoy just doing the same thing over and over against an AI they know they can always beat.
>>
File: max.png (139 KB, 398x435)
139 KB
139 KB PNG
>>759575
Why is it a thing?
>>
>>760754
making intelligent AI is probably very difficult to code.
I hope one day smart AI becomes a thing.
>>
>>760548
What is it about Graviteam that makes its fans so annoying? Also,
>complaining about AI
>going back to Graviteam
Lol
>>
File: avtomachiki.jpg (93 KB, 691x406)
93 KB
93 KB JPG
Ok SD2 bros. Post the following.

>Favorite recon unit
Sissi - seven man recon squad with a semi auto rifle, a decent machine gun, and a radio.
>Favorite infantry unit
Avtomachiki (or any SMG squad with AT grenades) - I really enjoy setting up a smoke screen and rushing in close quarters infantry. My 2nd pick would probably be the Romanian Pionieri Asalt squad (10 man squad with 8 SMGs and 2 flamethrowers is extremely effective).
>Favorite tank unit
Tiger E - a classic heavy tank that sounds great with the sound mod.
>Favorite support unit
OT-34 - solid medium tank with a flamethrower. Can one ask for more? These things are very fun to use for clearing out villages and towns.
>Favorite anti-tank unit
Pak 40 - just a really solid anti tank gun.
>Favorite anti-air unit
Nimrod - excellent Hungarian AA unit, wish there were more of them.
>Favorite artillery unit
M1A1 Long Tom - it's a heavy-hitting field gun with a high rate of fire and the M4 HST allows you to quickly relocate your artillery from counter-battery fire.
>Favorite air unit
IL-2M3 napalm bomber. Napalm is extremely effective against all targets and the lingering effect of the napalm can be useful.
>>
>>762699
>recon
The anti-tank BMW in Lovas, since it lets you snipe transports at the start without wasting an anti-tank slot.
>infantry
Fallschirms are the easy pick, though Morskaya Avtos are absolute murder with their thompsons and Huszarok are the best infantry backbone for their div.
>tank
41M Turan. It perfectly fits its role as an infantry support tank in a div that has plenty of ways to deal with medium/heavy enemy armor.
>support
Breda AC 47mm. I like stuff that can put HE on infantry while still having enough AP to keep halftracks and light tanks at bay.
>anti-tank
Armata 37mm. It's almost an infantry support gun instead of an AT, and it can pose a threat to mediums in addition to halftracks/lights.
>anti-air
88/85/80mm, any of the flak guns that can double as emergency AT.
>artillery
Bakhtina's rocket offmap is an absolute meme. It's guaranteed to blow open a flank or stop a push in its tracks, the latter of which being the most important considering that the div takes a long time to get chugging with its air power.
>air
The Yer-2s in Fedyunkina are fat and slow, but they kill everything in the general area. I like taking them in Phase C to give my pushes that last bit of oompth after spending the previous twenty minutes knocking down enemy fighters and AA.
>>
>>762699
Also,
>IL-2M3 napalm bomber. Napalm is extremely effective against all targets and the lingering effect of the napalm can be useful.
I haven't used napalm or played against it in ages, but I don't remember it being that good. Does it insta-kill infantry squads now? Is it any use against armor?
>>
>>753673
>slower than Wargame
>less players than Wargame
>artillery suppression makes it even slower
>more luck with armour cracking etc.
Apart from a few quality of life features (terrain mapmode, automatic counter artillery, hold fire until they get closer, etc.) it's way worse than Wargame RD. The playercounts tell you everything you need to know. The singleplayer in these games isn't very good because the AI cheats and just spams shit. The multiplayer is dead so what's the point
>>
>>763364
>slower
What differences led to that conclusion? The tankier infantry and less threating AT options make SD games much more mobile than RD games in my experience.
>>
File: supertard.jpg (8 KB, 241x209)
8 KB
8 KB JPG
It's like CoH and Graviteam had a child, sadly it inherited CoH's brains and it turns out that Graviteam wasn't the father at all Graviteam and was cucked by a ginger with downes syndrome
>>
>>763383
The vehicles are slower, the airplanes are slower, the infantry is slower. Suppression makes pushes slower cause you just stop moving and then retreat. Artillery fires too fast so it's pretty easy to blanket-suppress a push with offmap cancer.
>>
>>763477
if it's so slow and easy why aren't you good at it?
>>
File: 1442896974126.png (206 KB, 1233x957)
206 KB
206 KB PNG
>>763478
>>
>>763586
>no response
typical brainlet.
>>
>>763364
Ok, but not everyone wants to play a game with guided missiles and Ch*nks.
>>
>>763477
>Artillery fires too fast so it's pretty easy to blanket-suppress a push
He says as he plays the game where you get constantly bombarded with cluster munitions and there's gorrlilion guided missiles the second you leave cover.
>>
>>763690
Learning how to defeat ATGMs is the first thing you learn while playing Wargame.
>>
>>763734
not blobbing your entire army in an off map is also something you learn pretty fast in SD
>>
I don't know how people can enjoy Shit Division 2, and jugding by the steam numbers neither can most people.

It has all the lack of impact, dumb morale and strange scale of RUSE combined with the one hit pain and deck build specialization of Wargame.
They took the worst parts of both games and made 10 DLCs for it.
>>
>>763477
>The vehicles are slower, the airplanes are slower, the infantry is slower.
True, and the maps are smaller to compensate. If you're just talking about the actual speed of units, then no disagreement. However,
>Suppression makes pushes slower cause you just stop moving and then retreat
Pushes are much faster and SD in general is more mobile. In RD, infantry just die instead of getting suppressed. The tankier inf in SD let you probe more safely. Same goes for aircraft, and while tanks ironically aren't tankier, the worse AT options give the same effect.
>>
>>763794
>In RD, infantry just die instead of getting suppressed.
Since I worded this poorly, I mean that a situation in SD where infantry get completely suppressed trying to push would see them just die if in the same situation in RD.
>>
>>763786
Because not everyone is an 80 IQ simpleton who enjoys micro intensive spamfests
>>
>>763895
>RUSE
>Micro
>Shit Division 2
>Not spam fest
>>
>>763901
Spamming is an easy way to lose
>>
>>763786
SD2 is basically Wargame WW2, SD1 was somewhat different and smaller scale but they went back into wargame direction.
I don't get the RUSE comparisons at all beyond it's a WW2 game. RUSE was still a base building RTS and it wasn't even small scale. It was super abstract, way more than traditional RTS or even SD/Wargame.
>>
File: ruse trailer table.jpg (59 KB, 1406x744)
59 KB
59 KB JPG
>>763919
Yeah, RUSE was very much its own thing. A part of me still wishes they'd made a sequel since the concept was interesting but poorly executed (the camouflage and fanatical/demoralize ruses were the only ones worth using 99% of the time).

And I still have no idea what these guys were playing.
>>
>>763912
You have to spam in this game. They give you so many reinforcement points that you need to be bringing in new units every 10 seconds or you will be extremely behind fast. You're not responding to the needs of the front line, you're just spamming out whatever you think will help you most in that sector and help counter whatever he's spamming on the other side.

Yes I could just play like a faggot with slow mode on and points turned down but that feels scuffed and I'd rather play on normal mode.
>>
>>764021
>you need to be bringing in new units every 10 seconds or you will be extremely behind fast. You're not responding to the needs of the front line
What you're describing is making the frontline. Like the other anon said, trying to spam on a portion of that frontline to push or defend is an easy way to lose all your stuff or trade so badly that your opponent will recover long before you do.
>>
>>764021
>I'm shit
I knew that already, why do you keep posting?
>>
File: Untitled.png (92 KB, 709x265)
92 KB
92 KB PNG
>>764050
The game isn't hard man, it just isn't fun. You think its not easy as fuck to stomp all the wehraboos with their shitty armored decks? I'm sorry you need to resort to coping and seething when people have legitimate critiques about the game.

I'm not an expert level player by any means, which is fine, but I'm proficient and above average and even got legitimately good at RD. To date I have 200 hours in RD, 120 hours in SD1, 20 hours in the SD2 beta and 15 hours in SD2. I've had a few good matches in SD2 but overall its just an unfun letdown that results in 30 straight minutes of spamming across a front line that's way too big.

Proceed to complain about how I don't have 1000 hours in SD2 so I'm not allowed to make an opinion in the comments below. The numbers don't lie anon-kun.
>>
File: chad.png (115 KB, 696x287)
115 KB
115 KB PNG
>>764066
>spamming across an entire frontline
>n-no I'm not just dogshit and unwilling to learn how the game works
This game is too much for you to handle, it's ok to admit that.
>even mentioning a combined 340 hours in RTS games
Just move on and accept you're a casual.
>>
>>764074
You have done exactly as I asked, and you even posted a picture that proves you have shit taste. Bravo.
>>
>>764080
>Why am I so bad at the game, I don't even understand the basic mechanics of an RTS?
>maybe you should play some more and learn how it works if you're bad at it?
>n-no the game is just trash
Every time with casuals.
>>
>>763919
The movement, the scale and the constant reinforcement are very RUSE like.
>>
>>759131
silence whelp *teleports behind you and slits your throat and sprays your blood all over the thread*
*everyone stands back in shock*
never cross me.
>>
>>764081
Literally has nothing to do with being good or bad kiddo.
>>
>>764173
>the frontline is too big, I can't possibly watch it all!
>I have way too many points to know what to do with!
>how am I meant to control more than two units at once!?
>this game sucks!
Many such cases.
>>
>>763958
>the camouflage and fanatical/demoralize ruses were the only ones worth using 99% of the time
You're forgetting Blitz, also Demoralize is worthless because Fanatical is going to get used in all big fights anyway. The rest can be pretty situationally useful.
>>
I swear to god there is a Romanian developer or two who works for Eugen. Romanian units are some of the strongest in the game.
>>
That game sucks. The AI bots are bad and multiplayer is always a spamfest of whatever unit is in the meta that month because devs are too retarded to balance. So far over the last year and a half we've had infantry spam then machinegun spam then half track spam then flamethrower spam. 99% of matches are played with high early income too and using juggernaut is suicide either because the enemy will cap everything and entrench OR one of the sweaty armchair commanders that make up the tiny playerbase will rage about it and throw. Don't even get me started on the diarrhea of DLC they make for this game, adding a shitload of divisions that no one cares about, are seldom used unless they have meme shit like king tigers, and bloat the install size of the game instead of making things people actually want like a map editor or more western front locations.
I hope they pulled the plug on this thing already. Playerbase hasn't grown at all no matter what they try and in fact keeps shrinking and shrinking and shrinking...
>>
>>764394
>yet another edition of mad because bad
lmao
>>
File: 1597924132232.jpg (17 KB, 495x619)
17 KB
17 KB JPG
>>764535
>my game is flawless, stop criticizing it
>>
>>764574
>criticism
>sperging out about how it's too complicated for you
Try again, buddy.

I'll agree that a map editor and more western front locations would be neat, but let's not kid ourselves, like fuck you would come back to a game you're shit at just because they added some new maps.
>>
>>764581
Don't you think that something may be wrong with the game when:
a) game gets only "mostly positive" score on Steam
b) 73/100 score on metacritic
c) 69/100 score on opencritic
Do they count as "sperging out" as well?
>>
>>764591
>online reviews
>reviews by plebeian retards
Don't mean shit lmao
>>
>>764591
wargame RD literally had a negative review by a guy that was mad because "the trailer made it look like you could pilot an airplane" so I wouldn't consider them as any kind of proof.
>>
>>764635
So what? That's just one review. Scores on meta- and open critic are an average of all reviews posted there. Apart from that, you also have Steam where everybody who bought the game can post a review.
Moreover, you can't deny the fact that Wargame and Steel Division share the same community, almost all people that played Steel Division, had played Wargame as well. So the majority of those review come from more or less experienced players and for some reason, they like Wargame more, 78% vs 88% of positive reviews.
>>
>>757101
>>757109
>>758549
>>759232
>>759470
>>763364

I like the Wargame / Steel Division series but I always felt like it was always just on the cusp of being truly great and having a breakout hit, but never quite does. Why does Eugen simply not get their act together, take their time, and release a huge new Wargame sequel (even call it like Wargame 2 or something to imply that RD was a mere stand-alone expansion in comparison) with a thorough singleplayer campaign to help strategy-curious normies get into it, and incorporate all the lessons learned from previous Wargames and the Steel Division series?

They need to give Wargame the World in Conflict treatment and go for broke IMO, and then just release lots of DLC and updates for Wargame 2.
>>
>>764860

actually you know what fuck it, fuck those faggot frogs they arent ever gonna make shit, they need to just make World In Conflict 2 with the deck system, more units, and larger scale. Basically have the WiC guys take a step towards Wargame rather than the other way around. That shit would S L A P
>>
I feel steel division 2 is technically and gameplay-wise superior to red dragon. Off-map artillery, bigger maps, game modes that aren't just meeting engagements, a deeper damage model and towed guns seem like such obvious inclusions they should have put into wargame. SD still has issues though obviously
>>
>>764021
In my experience, spamming recklessly is a good way to lose a large formation quickly. You have to draw a distinction between having a large formation and spamming. Imo, spamming implies a lack of concern for how the units you have a large number of are used, which limits their effectiveness in this game. If you just spam tanks and throw them in, or something like that, they'll be destroyed by anti-tank fire or be hit by rocket artillery.
>>
>>765062
I guess you could have cruise missiles as offmap in Wargame since that is not represented for now. Others probably don't make sense. Wargame maps aren't really smaller. I think they feel smaller because you have onmap units with 15km range and I think they have generally different proportions. SD maps are probably wider but have less space in between deployment points. It's the difference of the frontline system vs fitting in capture zones on the map.
For gamemodes there is assault but does anyone even play it?

One other feature from SD I actually like is the phase system with battle escalating over time and limiting to some extent what kind of stuff you can bring. They kinda gutted it for SD2 though with very few units being phase limited and it's mostly just about availability. Though admittedly there has been some power creep and OP divisions were able to bring heavy units early while others had to make do with infantry and scout cars.
I still like the idea of having to hold out with paratroopers until armoured reinforcements come though.
>>
>>765066
two well placed AT guns can decimate any tank spam.

Same goes for support weapons against infantry.

I tried one game a while back some fuckers were jugger but we had taken map control, their solution was to spam around 50 squads at once over an open plain, praying it would work.

Needless to say, it didn't thanks to our air and arty superiority.
>>
>>765076
you could still have off-map artillery in wargame, sure cruise missiles (as well as scuds and the like) is also an option but division and corp level heavy artillery was still a thing during the cold war.
Same with towed artillery, still very much a thing. You could even have ATGMs and recoilless rifles as specific dismounted non-infantry units.
Map maker, scenario maker and more objective-based matches would also be high on the priority list.
I agree that the phase system is a pretty good idea in theory. It needs a specific balancing but it does represent how large formations enter the battlefield and deploys from column formation. See pic, literally made for a phase mechanic
>>
>>765124
Could also have things like towed long-range SAM missiles like the S-75 or S-200.
>>
Posted way back earlier in the thread a couple of battlegroups, this is one I made last night and used in a 10v10 last night, I did reasonably well, but I was a pretty minor player in the battle all things considered. What do you guys think?
>>
>>765134
No leaders or command. You don't have anyone to radio your 150mm guns.
Other minor nitpicks I'd take one cards of stugs in B instead and one fighters in A in case you need it. I'd rather 120mm mortars. Veterancy on nebels might not be worth it. Squeeze in command somewhere for same effect.
>>
File: Churchill Mark IV.jpg (336 KB, 1024x768)
336 KB
336 KB JPG
I started playing a few days ago and I'm really enjoying it so far. Pretty crap at micro though and I'm too much of a coward to dip into the online part of things.

Also how on Earth are you supposed to use slow tanks like the Churchill? By the time they manage to drag themselves to the front the battle is halfway over.
>>
>>765180
when I plan an attack, I buy them first, then off map, then AA, then the infantry.
And then I still end up waiting at the front for the churchills lmao
>>
>>765134
Bring in your inf with 0 vet, you need as much as you can get
doubt you'll need that many spähtruppen
quite a lot of rocket arty, not a huge amount of supply (unless they come with it I can't tell)
Shit ton of AT guns, but I guess you'll need those
No IG´s or MG´s available in support?
>>
>>765134
What are you using the Spahtrupp for? If it's for sneaky shenanigans behind enemy lines like picking off AA/AT/Arty or the like, then that many is understandable I suppose. Otherwise, you can cut the third card as long as you keep the other ones alive for recon.
>>764860
>and release a huge new Wargame sequel (even call it like Wargame 2 or something to imply that RD was a mere stand-alone expansion in comparison)
With how rough the launches for SD1 and SD2 were, they likely don't have the resources. Who knows, though. It'd be great to see.
>>
>>764860
Hon hon hon, we will go on strike if ze make us, how you say, "sing for your roast beef!"
>>
File: souless.jpg (175 KB, 1119x384)
175 KB
175 KB JPG
Finally decided to try it because of this thread and it sucks. This has to be one of the most soulless games I have ever played.
>>
>>765529
SOUL SOULLESS SOUL SOULLESS SOUL SOULLESS SOUL SOULLESS SOUL SOULLESS SOUL SOULLESS SOUL SOULLESS SOUL SOULLESS SOUL SOULLESS SOUL SOULLESS SOUL SOULLESS SOUL SOULLESS SOUL SOULLESS SOUL SOULLESS SOUL SOULLESS SOUL SOULLESS SOUL SOULLESS SOUL SOULLESS SOUL SOULLESS SOUL SOULLESS SOUL SOULLESS SOUL SOULLESS SOUL SOULLESS SOUL SOULLESS SOUL SOULLESS SOUL SOULLESS SOUL SOULLESS SOUL SOULLESS SOUL SOULLESS SOUL SOULLESS
>>
>>765062
>ruler tool and placing orders before the match starts
how hard could this shit possibly be to add in an update to RD
>>
>>765559
There must be an engine limitation because it'd be a no-brainer to port it over to RD otherwise. It's painful switching between the two and losing all the QoL features.
>>
>>765529
I tried to tell ya, its a big stinking pile of poo. I learnt my mistake from the first one... never again
>>
>>765529
>and I suck at it, this means the game is flawed and not myself
gotcha
>>
man the campaigns in SD2 with unique, persistent maps for each portion of the overworld map would be one of the best WW2 RTS games. Would probably require a ton of work from a topographic autogenerated map to fine-adjusting and adding historical terrain but it would be extremely cool
>>
>>765754
Eugen thinks it's more important to have divisions from other theaters than new maps.
>>
>>765754
I wish that bunkers were persistent, so that when the AI (inevitably) destroys them, next time they attack (in game a few hours later) you don't have to spend 5 minutes setting them all up again.
>>
>>765855
Is making maps really so difficult? SD2 already has fuck ton of maps from the eastern front, so I guess it wouldn't hurt to make one or two per DLC.
The way it works now is simply retarded. What is the point of adding Battle of Rimini without fucking Rimini?
>>
>>764885
>>764860

we have a better chance of a world in conflict 2 that cribs from wargame then a wargame 2 that cribs from world in conflict, eugen is basically a dead studio after a lot of people quit following a strike
>>
>>766015
massive is never going to make world in conflict 2. They're stuck making MMOs for ubisoft.
I'm looking at regiments as an upcoming game similar in feel to wargame, and there's always a bit more advanced options like armored brigade and SPMBT
>>
I know this isn't a wargame thread. But rate my deck
>>
>>767160
Why would you take a naval deck with no ships? How are you going to land your troops with no way to contest the sea?
>>
>>767172
I generally pretend ships don't exist in wargame because they're so poorly implemented. Usually I just leave the naval portion blank, but I did fill it out here to sort of mirror the overall deck as an afterthought
>>
>>767203
I might be biased about the subject because naval is pretty boring to actually play, but I once won a losing land fight thanks to a naval landing so it stuck to my memory as an example of how in certain maps it can make the difference.

>4v4 with randoms
>play armored
>one plays naval
>want to push mid but retards leave the left flank with a city empty
>try and hold it anyway because what can you do?
>get pushed out, start falling back, line is folding
>allies in the center don't do much, see that we're losing ground and leave
>meanwhile naval guy was storming the beaches and takes one of their spawn sectors
>see that they leave and he leaves too
>I use the spawn point to call in armor with recon and AA support to attack the other enemy spawn
>they try to panic call bombers but AA is right under their nose when they appear
>destroy their CVs
>win

That's why I don't get people leaving after the first minutes, anything can happen during a game and the match was won the moment naval dude managed to land, but they still left like retards. Then again, if they weren't retards they wouldn't have deployed like that to begin with.
>>
>>767672
>That's why I don't get people leaving after the first minutes
My back is spineless, my belly is yellow. I am the average Wargame player.
>>
>>767160
>I know this isn't a wargame thread.
Doesn't matter. That's the nice thing about slow boards like /vst/: there's never a race to the bump limit.





Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.