Steel Division Normandy '44/Wargame WW2

We don't just fly

Moderator: Board of Directors

User avatar
Posts: 510
Joined: Sat May 14, 2016 12:55 am
Location: Ontario, Canada

Re: Steel Division Normandy '44/Wargame WW2

Post by Spectre » Fri Apr 28, 2017 7:46 pm

Not that I want to tackle what is a huge post, but I think by saying Wargame is more competitive because it has way more content and units is not really wrong, but not exactly right.

The most competitive games in E-Sports are actually the most simplistic, and I think by having units way easier to understand and having less confusion on stats, it makes it more competitive because it forces you to think much more critically and out of the box to take the enemy by surprise. If you're up against a deck in SD, you have a relatively firm idea on what they're going to do, and being able to have that information be divulged but still outpace your enemy makes it, in my own opinion, infinitely more competitive.

Regarding the front line system, the entirety of the maps are pretty flat and have tons of hedgerow. So most maps aren't really "Just fields" but are defensive positions in one way or another. This sort of ties into why I said infantry is much more viable of an option as they can go wherever but vehicles cant just smash throw think forests like in Wargame so you can use infantry much more liberally and Armour is forced into unfavourable positions more in SD and its refreshing to see a drop in tank spams. You can still do it in SD, but not to great effect usually.

Again, all just my own perspective.
"On the edge of destiny, you must test your strength"
- Air Marshal Billy Bishop

User avatar
Posts: 100
Joined: Sun Sep 06, 2015 8:59 pm

Re: Steel Division Normandy '44/Wargame WW2

Post by Hannibal » Sat Apr 29, 2017 9:53 pm

i understand your points, but i beg to differ.
i don't want to talk you into wargame, if you're more into SD than good for you mate ;)

i am just not convinced that SD is step forward compared to wargame when you want a hardcre RTS. it's not a bad game, but from a player perspective perspective that loves the diversity of tactics i can use and have to react to, my advice is to stick to wargame.

i'd say a game is competitive if it only relies on skill and players decisions and lucked based elements are eliminated from the game. limiting the players options and making a situation predictable are no features for competition. therefore for me, chess and go are competitive games, because the player has to chose one option out of hundreds and there is no luck involved, while settlers of catan, monopoly and so on are not competitive as they rely on luck and the options of a player to alter the game are limited. content alone does not do the trick, but in wargame you have more options to counter you enemy, and your enemy has more options to counter you (because many weapon systems have not been developed in WW2). SD still has a steep learning curve, but in my eyes won't reach wargame.

about the frontline system: i said it does not make a lot of sense to me, neither gameplay nor realism wise. The "random field" comment was to emphasize that it does not make sense holding a field will give you the same amount of victory points than a city.
the change to infantry combat is nice because it prevents suicide infantry to act as pseudo "recon".

ACG Staff
Posts: 699
Joined: Sun Jul 20, 2014 10:15 pm

Re: Steel Division Normandy '44/Wargame WW2

Post by IronJockel » Mon Nov 06, 2017 6:28 pm

So after more than 200 hours in this:
Their decision of making vehicles unable to enter forests or tree lines dumb down game play more than one would imagine. Fighting in woods it always won by arty or planes + the dominating close range infantry, mostly flame thrower squads or squads with bombs. Of course certain units should be better suited for certain areas, but in Wargame RD combined forces wins forests fights, not just a infantry blob or a nebelwerfer.
There are simply far more possible unit combinations for these type of fights in RD and not just because there are mor units in it.

The game is not enough of a sim to remove health-bars for tanks: This makes engagements between tanks that can pen each other pretty much random. More often that not it's like flipping a coin. Obviously you can effect that by distracting the enemy tank with arty or bombers, but this is often not really a reliable way to influence the fight. Flanking also isn't much of a thing, unless player a drives his king tiger all alone into the enemy spawn. So there is also no need for repairs, removing on game play aspect entirely. Trucks are pretty much only needed for arty and AAA ammo.
As much as i prefer realism in my games, here i definitely prefer RD again, as tanks fights are far more dynamic, also because there where much more different effects on then, that limited their combat abilities (mud in the chains, etc).

Infantry and planes have health but tanks don't?
This feels so odd. Really the number on your squad is not a representation of how strong the really is, but only how much of a beating it still can take. So a Grenadier squad of one man is still able to fire all guns uf a 10 men squad and then quickly switch to the Panzerfaust to kill a tank.
It is like i in RD. This would be fine by me if all units, meaning vehicles and inf would live by the same standards meaning health bar for tanks.

Deck building: Pretty much dumb down. The "battle group" is already specialized before you chose a single unit. Unlike in RD where countless deck types are possible.

As you can see, my critic is about elements that have been part of the older game and have been removed for i don't know what reason.
It would have been a much better game with this little bit more RD in it and the player base reflects that.
The reason why i spend more time with this game than with rd is because i prefer the setting and Red Dragon can be quite overwhelming. But i can't really blame the community for not moving onto SD.
I had been telling Hitler for over a year, since my first flight in an Me-262, that only Focke Wulf Fw-190 fighter production should continue in conventional aircraft, to discontinue the Me-109, which was outdated, and to focus on building a massive jet-fighter force. - Galland
Any idiot could fly a Spitfire, but it took a lot of training to fly a 109. - Gerald Stapleton

Post Reply