Can we cut the phase A elite AT bull please? Like can we have tanks as axis please please?

[Gilmund]

That's exactly why there are twice as many players and 5 times as many active games in WGRD than there are in SD.

Yeah ou maybe these players come from WGRD, just get rolled over instead trying again another gameplay and just quit cause it's not WGRD enough for them.
Self-explanations of the reasons why SD has a few players you know...

 

[Karlburg]

I found the tank play a lot less interesting/dynamic in WGRD, despite being able to go through forests with them.

But then, you have to understand Nerdfish plays destruction, the most static game mode of all.

 

[Nerdfish]

well, enjoy your dead game and continue to perpetuate the myth that destruction is static.
for now I am just thankful Eugen found a way to remove all the obnoxious arrogant conquest fanboys from WG.
Since Bocage is a geological feature unique to northern France, the next SD game will have working tanks, if there is a next SD game.
Until then.

 

[Lomak]

I would call it a bug when sometimes AT guns shoot at your tank from treeline but can't be shot from your tank because tank has no line of sight.

If you are running out of Inf, try to take fussiliere from recon tab, not sure if 716. had them.

 

[Gilmund]

well, enjoy your dead game and continue to perpetuate the myth that destruction is static.
for now I am just thankful Eugen found a way to remove all the obnoxious arrogant conquest fanboys from WG.
Since Bocage is a geological feature unique to northern France, the next SD game will have working tanks, if there is a next SD game.
Until then.

I do play destruction from time to time and indeed it is way more static. It allows more arty war, more sitting behind treelines to avoid losing points without the need to advance.
In fact, to push enemy lines just creates risks of losing more units.
Destruction demands definitely less skill imo and german are definitely op in that mode cause they may wait to get the better armor in the game.

It is not obnoxious to say conquest do demand the players to move way much and take more risks.

Yes SD is hard with players, it's a demanding game with no place to mistakes. It goes both ways, it is very rewarding when your moves work as intended.

 

[KattiValk]

@Max_Damage I really have to ask, in what universe do you consider the premier AT option for a deck being a coin flip 50/50 to be uncounterable?

I wish AT tools were more reliable as a whole, myself. Trying to secure that sideshot on a Firefly or Churchill with a rookie Pak 38 or 6 lber is infuriating to no end. Even the big guns are sometimes stupidly inaccurate. I've failed to kill a Beute Firefly with an elite 76mm with two shots at rear armor at 1000m.

well, enjoy your dead game and continue to perpetuate the myth that destruction is static.
for now I am just thankful Eugen found a way to remove all the obnoxious arrogant conquest fanboys from WG.
Since Bocage is a geological feature unique to northern France, the next SD game will have working tanks, if there is a next SD game.
Until then.

Destruction is more static though. It promotes much more cautious gameplay because losses directly affect the score rather than just the general flow of the game.

 

[IS-2]

well, enjoy your dead game and continue to perpetuate the myth that destruction is static.
for now I am just thankful Eugen found a way to remove all the obnoxious arrogant conquest fanboys from WG.
Since Bocage is a geological feature unique to northern France, the next SD game will have working tanks, if there is a next SD game.
Until then.

destruction noobs still exist ?

 

[Nerdfish]

I do play destruction from time to time and indeed it is way more static. It allows more arty war, more sitting behind treelines to avoid losing points without the need to advance.
In fact, to push enemy lines just creates risks of losing more units.
Destruction demands definitely less skill imo and german are definitely op in that mode cause they may wait to get the better armor in the game.

It is not obnoxious to say conquest do demand the players to move way much and take more risks.

Yes SD is hard with players, it's a demanding game with no place to mistakes. It goes both ways, it is very rewarding when your moves work as intended.

Have you seen an Smerch recently ? have you seen what it does to things that "hide behind treeline to avoid losing points" ?
In a destruction game, sectors don't change hands often, but things are constantly moving, scouting for targets, dodging arty, infiltrating, ect.
Arty are so lethal that you can't keep your units stationary, so saying that it's both more static and more arty war is self contradictory.
Dest promotes more cautious gameplay, not static ones, sometimes the least cautious thing you can do is sitting there getting shot at.

 

[Nerdfish]

destruction noobs still exist ?

Have fun in your dead game probro.
Paradox, please listen to these people, you will be bankrupt before you know it.

 

[Gilmund]

Have you seen an Smerch recently ? have you seen what it does to things that "hide behind treeline to avoid losing points" ?
In a destruction game, sectors don't change hands often, but things are constantly moving, scouting for targets, dodging arty, infiltrating, ect.
Arty are so lethal that you can't keep your units stationary, so saying that it's both more static and more arty war is self contradictory.
Conquest promotes more cautious gameplay, not static ones, sometimes the least cautious thing you can do is sitting there getting shot at.

Conquest does not promote cautious gameplay as you have to constantly make ground to make points. Quite the opposite, conquest forces to move.The leading man is indeed at some point more able to sit and wait but he is really able to be cautious when leading if he has a +3 or something from some time... +3 he's gained after he has already pushed before. He just sits on his previous successfull moves, it is way different.
Listen i have played both modes in a lot of games, i do very well know the way i play myself and see players play both modes. In destruction, they have no obligation to push from the beginning, they tend to wait and build to get armor pushes, plane trains, big arty fire. Don't get me wrong it does not mean all the players are doing it in destruction but it does mean this kind of gameplay is reenforced or simply made possible by the mode itself. The mode creates the ability to wait and build without losing the game. Destruction mode is consequently the mode where you may see allied players take 3 quarters of the map and still loose cause people does not understand this doesn't play like conquest but with cautiousness for any troop.
I do not know what you call static but static doesn't mean you keep all your troops not moving, static does mean the point of the game is not to make more ground but instead kill more units. And you may well do it waiting for the opposite players to push and kill his units. That is a static way to play.

 

[Nerdfish]

Conquest does not promote cautious gameplay as you have to constantly make ground to make points. Quite the opposite, conquest forces to move.The leading man is indeed at some point more able to sit and wait but he is really able to be cautious when leading if he has a +3 or something from some time... +3 he's gained after he has already pushed before. He just sits on his previous successfull moves, it is way different.
Listen i have played both modes in a lot of games, i do very well know the way i play myself and see players play both modes. In destruction, they have no obligation to push from the beginning, they tend to wait and build to get armor pushes, plane trains, big arty fire. Don't get me wrong it does not mean all the players are doing it in destruction but it does mean this kind of gameplay is reenforced or simply made possible by the mode itself. The mode creates the ability to wait and build without losing the game. Destruction mode is consequently the mode where you may see allied players take 3 quarters of the map and still loose cause people does not understand this doesn't play like conquest but with cautiousness for any troop.
I do not know what you call static but static doesn't mean you keep all your troops not moving, static does mean the point of the game is not to make more ground but instead kill more units. And you may well do it waiting for the opposite players to push and kill his units. That is a static way to play.

You can ignore the fact that things have to keep moving destruction or get hammered. and call it static.
That's just what you decide to call static.
Conquest is win by 51%. And ofc I meant to say dest is more cautious not more static, but made a typo.

 

[Nerdfish]

In ALB, Eugen added Conquest, nobody cared.
In RD, Eugen made Conquest the ranked mode, so nobody played ranked
In SD, Eugen made Conquest the default made and built the game around it, the game died after beta.
Does anyone see a pattern here ?

The issue isn't elite AT gun or a few unbalanced units here and there.
The issue is putting a timer to force an attack in a game about careful planning and deliberate strategy is a stupid idea.

You can downvote me all you want, but until Eugen deal with the elephant in the room, the game will stay dead.

 

[KattiValk]

@Nerdfish Moving in Destruction is more shuffling back and forth laterally, ultimately not really going anywhere. While you can call it movement, I wouldn't really go so far as to say it's actually a fluid game mode because of it. Conquest promotes pushing the envelope in ways Destruction doesn't, making it better suited to the game as a whole. If Eugen wanted defined frontlines where units flow around behind it and poke at each other all game then fixed emplacements would exist, mortars would be faaaaaaaaar less powerful, etc.

Conquest asks more out of players game knowledge wise, which I understand can be stressful and not fun, which explains why Destruction is favored among the low end. However, a lot of people don't find the reliance on arty that Destruction has to be particularly fun. A match that is won by clicking on forest patches and shift queuing move orders is not particularly inspiring to many, including me.

 

[Razzmann]

You can downvote me all you want, but until Eugen deal with the elephant in the room, the game will stay dead.

I 100% agree with you. Destruction should be removed.

 

[Jonnydodger]

Well, now we know the reason for SD's low playerbase. Too hard on Wargame's Destruction community, Conquest's too difficult for some (both W:RD players and new ones) and that (in my experience on the Steam forums) the 'obvious allie(sic) bias' and 'fantasy stats' that pushed away the Wehraboo community. They were some of the worst people I've ever seen on the Steam forum.

 

[Nerdfish]

@Nerdfish Moving in Destruction is more shuffling back and forth laterally, ultimately not really going anywhere. While you can call it movement, I wouldn't really go so far as to say it's actually a fluid game mode because of it. Conquest promotes pushing the envelope in ways Destruction doesn't, making it better suited to the game as a whole. If Eugen wanted defined frontlines where units flow around behind it and poke at each other all game then fixed emplacements would exist, mortars would be faaaaaaaaar less powerful, etc.

Conquest asks more out of players game knowledge wise, which I understand can be stressful and not fun, which explains why Destruction is favored among the low end. However, a lot of people don't find the reliance on arty that Destruction has to be particularly fun. A match that is won by clicking on forest patches and shift queuing move orders is not particularly inspiring to many, including me.

Destruction is won by being able to sneak units where enemies don't expect and not putting things in obvious places. It's a different game.There is no "low end".
If nobody is playing conquest despite all the effort put into pushing it, it's your problem not mine.

I 100% agree with you. Destruction should be removed.

Now you got your private game, so why not go play it. maybe being the wonderful human beings you are, you'd rather complain the poor taste of other players ? or that a unit have too many stars, or that the game isn't dead enough ?

 

[Hidden Gunman]

It's not very good, it makes everyone play infantry division and have a static battle.
As they are I will just wait for the next game taking place somewhere trees don't stop tanks XD.

That reflects most of the Normandy fighting pretty well. You're welcome to the broad sweeping plains and german tanks with twice the effective range of allied tanks...no thanks to that.

It might bring the Wehraboo back though....

 

[KattiValk]

Destruction is won by being able to sneak units where enemies don't expect and not putting things in obvious places. It's a different game.There is no "low end".
If nobody is playing conquest despite all the effort put into pushing it, it's your problem not mine.

In other words, dodging the enemy's point and click and enhancing your own point and click arty game. The "low end" is players with little skill/game knowledge, and it obviously exists because every spectrum has two ends to it.
The thing is, arty is somewhat simplistic and dull as a concept, and Destruction is overly dependent on it. People play Wargame for the maneuver warfare, not the arty, and Destruction actively discourages the kind of thing Wargame is known for. Moving left and right along a front is not as satisfying as pushing out a sector. Not that you can't win by being aggressive and (intelligently) taking ground in Destruction, but the fact that being utterly passive at least somewhat near the 50/50 mark is a viable strategy is what makes Destruction worse than Conquest IMO.

I think I still have at least 40% Destruction games on my RD account as I play pubs a lot (and pubs love Destruction), and I still think Conquest is better. Sure, Conquest can prove to be more frustrating, especially against good players, but Conquest is less inherently unfun as the arty party Destruction usually dissolves into.

Plenty of people play Conquest, I don't have issues finding people willing to play it. I merely accepted that Destruction is more noob friendly as it were, which is a positive aspect design wise as that helps player retention and reduces the learning curve.

 

[Nerdfish]

You don't even need to point and click in Conquest. Just make a meta ball and throw them at the enemy. You either get one more sector than the enemy after the first five minutes and win, or you don't. No need to make decisions, no need to persevere, and absolutely impossible to recover from a mistake. Conquest basically turn into another five minute GG game that plagues the market.

Pushing out of a sector might be more satisfying for you, but rest of us couldn't care less. I find the most fun thing in the game to be sneaking recon into enemy base sector and I am sure you couldn't care less neither. Arty part can be fun, just not for you. We can agree to disagree, or we can make these posts forever.

It's the arrogant assumption that conquest mode (and therefore conquest players) are somehow superior that lead to this point. So don't complain if you can't find a game between the five of you. If you can, good for you and knock yourself out.

That reflects most of the Normandy fighting pretty well. You're welcome to the broad sweeping plains and german tanks with twice the effective range of allied tanks...no thanks to that.

Jackson and Pershing also have 90mm Guns. The modified 90mm on the super Pershing prototype is superior to the German 88mm. (oh yeah, and the T95 had 105mm gun)
122mm Gun on the IS series also allow them to go head to head against German armor.
A game set in another time and place does not need trees that block tanks and asymmetrical balance. Germans did not have magically better tanks.

 

[Ktonos]

Have fun in your dead game probro.
Paradox, please listen to these people, you will be bankrupt before you know it.

W-h-a-t r u d-o-i-n-g in a dead game's forum? Why aren't you in Wargame's forums?
Are they dead?

I sense u are a bit more interested in SD than u are willing to let on.