Not the "Ruse" style infantry

[UltimateIdiot]

Admittedly it's a bit cheap, but I guess this is the point where a bit of ability to compromise comes into play. I'm able to get past disappearing trucks because I understand the reasons behind them, and to be honest I don't spend a lot of time zoomed in looking at units anyway so it really doesn't matter to me. YMMV.

I'd just like to add that so far what we've seen is footage of a closed beta, there's been neither confirmation nor denial that trucks won't evac to base when the game is released. If we're going to see trucks towing field guns instead of transporting them, there's a chance that they're working on trucks returning to base, too.

 

[Bennyy]

Guys chill out its just truck lol

 

[Baane]

Guys chill out its just truck lol

You think I'm posting this because I want the game to fail? No. I want the game to be good. Not just a cheap-o cash grab, which is what it's starting to look like.

 

[Graphic]

You are incapable of quoting me stating that.

I'm incapable of quoting you as not taking something into consideration? Uh yeah, if you were neglecting something it would stand to reason that you haven't said anything about it in order for it to be quoted.

I would ask you to give me an example of my arguments being inconsistent. But I doubt you can.

I just did. You think it's fine for a weapon to disappear but an empty vessel to not. You're wrestling me and others to the mat to defend disappearing MGs just so the disappearing truck issue looks more weighty, and then suddenly disappearing MGs is bad too now that your inconsistency was pointed out.

Why? I've already said it multiple times, as have others.

The thing is it's all you got. You think it looks stupid. I can see that. I agree to an extent. But yet you feel to need to challenge people on every single point just because you disagree with their conclusion, that it's okay for the trucks to disappear. So instead of saying "yeah I can see that, but I think it looks so stupid that it's immersion breaking, I really can't get past it" which is an argument pretty much anyone can sympathize with, you produce a bunch of gobbledygook that breaks down from one post to the next in order to challenge every single point.

Because it doesn't require much of a stretch to assume that a gun is destroyed, or otherwise put out of action. It does require a huge stretch to assume that a multi-ton vehicle just vanishes expectantly.

Does it require much of a stretch to assume the truck turned around and drove off the map? No, it doesn't. But the truck disappearing looks stupid, which is the one argument you've got. And again, you came up with this "stretch" device to add another layer onto the issue so it doesn't look like it simply boils down to it looking stupid.

Oh noes, you called me a name. Look who the toxic one is, now.

See what I did?

TL;DR - you have no argument. Just admit you're a fanboy and leave it at that.

It's someone else's turn to go around in circles with you for another 100 posts. Maybe if you insult enough people they'll come around to your point of view.

 

[pras]

That's a really bad copout and you should probably feel bad.

He got you though.

You think I'm posting this because I want the game to fail? No. I want the game to be good.

By grabbing first obscure mechanic that will be a gimmick more or less and demanding to be implemented.

Also, aren't you rather disturbed by the yellow aura supply jeeps emit in which soldiers get magically cloned, vehicles repaired and bullets appear out of no where. This advanced nanotechnology doesn't fit WW2 at all and in your words it is a lazy thing to do when developing a game.

 

[Baane]

I'm incapable of quoting you as not taking something into consideration? Uh yeah, if you were neglecting something it would stand to reason that you haven't said anything about it in order for it to be quoted.

You stated that I was neglecting something. Give me an example. If you could, you would have done it.

I just did. You think it's fine for a weapon to disappear but an empty vessel to not. You're wrestling me and others to the mat to defend disappearing MGs just so the disappearing truck issue looks more weighty, and then suddenly disappearing MGs is bad too now that your inconsistency was pointed out.

No, you didn't. In fact, I just got done saying that I would prefer it if crewed weapons stuck around. I never said that it was favorable. You are incapable of quoting me saying that.

What I did say, however, is that eight thousand pound trucks are visually more apparent and that them disappearing is markedly ugly.

The thing is it's all you got. You think it looks stupid.

Nah, that's not all I got. It only might appear that way if you go out of your way to ignore everything I've been saying.

But yet you feel to need to challenge people on every single point just because you disagree with their conclusion, that it's okay for the trucks to disappear.

I challenge people who praise laziness and consider it acceptable. Games have had the technology to model personnel carriers for a long time.

So instead of saying "yeah I can see that, but I think it looks so stupid that it's immersion breaking, I really can't get past it" which is an argument pretty much anyone can sympathize with, you produce a bunch of gobbledygook that breaks down from one post to the next in order to challenge every single point.

I have said that I think it looks weird. Multiple times. I have also said that it's lazy. Multiple times. I've also indicated the difference between a small personal weapon system and a large logistics truck with inordinately more mass and volume, multiple times.

You know what else I've done multiple times? Offered alternatives.

Does it require much of a stretch to assume the truck turned around and drove off the map?

When it just vanishes out of thin air? Yes. As evidenced by the fact that I am not the only one who has had an issue with it.

It's someone else's turn to go around in circles with you for another 100 posts. Maybe if you insult enough people they'll come around to your point of view.

Spitting dank memes is a good way to eject yourself from a failed argument.

By grabbing first obscure mechanic that will be a gimmick more or less and demanding to be implemented.

Quote where I issued a demand for anything to be implimented. I won't hold my breath. You will not, because you cannot.

Also, aren't you rather disturbed by the yellow aura supply jeeps emit in which soldiers get magically cloned, vehicles repaired and bullets appear out of no where. This advanced nanotechnology doesn't fit WW2 at all and in your words it is a lazy thing to do when developing a game.

It would be favorable if such things could be avoided. Alas, they cannot be. However, video games have been modeling the relationship between human beings and vehicles for upwards of forty years or more.

There is no comparison to be made.

He got you though.

No, he didn't. He systematically failed to produce a half-way intelligible argument, and instead resorted to posting 4chan memes after ignoring my posts didn't work.

 

[Harle]

Imagine you mamanged to insert a recon element behind enemy line, and because they aren't careful enough you even manage to drive the squad there. Then you unload them and AI takes the truck through enemy squads. Now even if we take the idea of trucks being just "ghosts" that no one attacks, they will definitely see them. And there goes you sneaky infiltration. Enemy knows that there is something behind his line.

That is a fair point, but I'd argue that this is a reasonable consequence to using this sort of tactic. Driving an unarmed transport well behind enemy lines without support is kind of dumb. I feel like the moment your unarmed transport is stuck behind enemy lines (whether it is because they drove there deliberately or whether they were cut off from supply) they should immediately disembark and the trucks should withdraw.

Mobile infantry, as far as I'm aware, was rarely if ever used in such a way. If you want to push infantry fast into enemy territory they should be mechanized, IMO.

Anyway, I don't want to get too far away from the original point; I'd rather the occasional chance of a withdrawing truck being spotted, than vanishing trucks that can't possibly ever be spotted. Realistically, trucks should give away your infantry. It's just that in Wargame you could kinda hide them. But they're still a big give-away. Consider you are a player trying to defend against this tactic - isn't it kind of annoying that someone could drive a bunch of trucks into your territory and have the evidence just vanish in a disembark? Shouldn't you be able to spot those trucks post-disembark with a recon plane? Isn't it weird that in one moment the infantry are super obvious in their big trucks and the next moment they are super stealthy because they disembarked?

So it's problematic either way.

I think it's less problematic my way, and encourages less exploitative play.

 

[Admiral Piett]

I don't mind the disappearing trucks. There was really no truly realistic way of handling them, just two sub-optimal ones. Eugen chose the one that couldn't be exploited.

 

[Harle]

I don't mind the disappearing trucks. There was really no truly realistic way of handling them, just two sub-optimal ones. Eugen chose the one that couldn't be exploited.

Vanishing trucks kind of are an exploit, though. If you can just throw a pile of trucks up into enemy territory and have their big bulky frames just disappear while your recon vanishes into a forest without a trace, that is totally an exploit of Eugen's current system. The trucks themselves should absolutely be 'spottable' after disembarking, whether they remain on the field or they drive back. But disappearing trucks? That's an advantage.

It's just a different exploit from transport recon.

 

[keynes2.0]

Spitting dank memes is a good way to eject yourself from a failed argument.

Hey! That's the insult you used on me. I thought we had something special, man. Did the hatred you threw at me mean nothing to you?

Vanishing trucks kind of are an exploit, though. If you can just throw a pile of trucks up into enemy territory and have their big bulky frames just disappear while your recon vanishes into a forest without a trace, that is totally an exploit of Eugen's current system. The trucks themselves should absolutely be 'spottable' after disembarking, whether they remain on the field or they drive back. But disappearing trucks? That's an advantage.

It's just a different exploit from transport recon.

This is a good point but are you sure it's possible under the mechanics? IIRC truck infantry wont do well with being cut off because of the front line system. Intentionally cutting your truck infantry off doesn't give you commandos.

 

[Karbinder]

Guys, as some have mentioned before, make players pay extra for the transport trucks that deliver units onto the field and give them a full refund once they deliver them back to the deployment zone. If you don't want to pay extra, allow players to pay for a squad w/o a transport (which would probably be a stupid decision in most cases, but oh well). It not only removes the ability for trucks to use their cloaking devices, but also makes perfect sense. I don't know about you guys, but I cannot simply pull an Opel Blitz truck out of my ass (or at least not for free). If you must add some more regulation to prevent it from becoming a suicide vehicle, make an empty transport not change the front line, give it a major penalty when behind enemy lines, and have next to none if any any sight.

That's just what seemed like the best overall solution to me, but I'm still open to any ideas that remove this disappearing nonsense.

 

[safe-keeper]

Guys, as some have mentioned before, make players pay extra for the transport trucks that deliver units onto the field and give them a full refund once they deliver them back to the deployment zone. If you don't want to pay extra, allow players to pay for a squad w/o a transport (which would probably be a stupid decision in most cases, but oh well). It not only removes the ability for trucks to use their cloaking devices, but also makes perfect sense. I don't know about you guys, but I cannot simply pull an Opel Blitz truck out of my ass (or at least not for free). If you must add some more regulation to prevent it from becoming a suicide vehicle, make an empty transport not change the front line, give it a major penalty when behind enemy lines, and have next to none if any any sight.

That's just what seemed like the best overall solution to me, but I'm still open to any ideas that remove this disappearing nonsense.

Yeah, I still think this is the best possible solution, and when there's an actual decent price tag on the truck, you have far less of an incentive to use it as a "redshirt scout".

I don't mind the disappearing trucks. There was really no truly realistic way of handling them, just two sub-optimal ones. Eugen chose the one that couldn't be exploited.

As @Admiral Piett pointed out, just having the trucks vanish without penalty the second they become obsolete is in itself pretty exploit-y. Kinda like how you could delete surrounded divisions in Hearts of Iron 4 and get their manpower back if you realised you couldn't save them. As the frontline commander, it's your job to keep assets such as transport trucks safe, simple as that. Same way you have to cover mortar teams, supply trucks, command vehicles, and what have you.

 

[UltimateIdiot]

Yeah, I still think this is the best possible solution, and when there's an actual decent price tag on the truck, you have far less of an incentive to use it as a "redshirt scout".


As @Admiral Piett pointed out, just having the trucks vanish without penalty the second they become obsolete is in itself pretty exploit-y. Kinda like how you could delete surrounded divisions in Hearts of Iron 4 and get their manpower back if you realised you couldn't save them. As the frontline commander, it's your job to keep assets such as transport trucks safe, simple as that. Same way you have to cover mortar teams, supply trucks, command vehicles, and what have you.

It's not really exploit-y, though, is it? If you've recon spotting the trucks, they'll spot whatever they were transporting as well. If not, well, it's your own fault for not having some Mk. 1 Eyeballs put in place there.

People are acting like the trucks can fast-move to the other side of a map and drop a horde of infantry there, when the truth is they're restricted to road networks and are so slow off-road you're better off dismounting the infantry. Not to mention that committing points to a maneuver like that would mean that you've less troops on the frontline, and is mostly pointless anyway as you can't really cut off reinforcements the same way you could in RD.

 

[Baane]

Hey! That's the insult you used on me. I thought we had something special, man. Did the hatred you threw at me mean nothing to you?

A dank meme is a dank meme. It's not a substitute for an argument, regardless of who posts it.

Disappearing trucks is lazy. It's a cop-out, and people here have posted many alternatives. The arguments against disappearing trucks is that it is not authentic, looks ugly, is lazy, and doesn't really address the issues of earlier games in a satisfying way.

The arguments for disappearing trucks is "but machine guns disappear, too."

 

[keynes2.0]

A dank meme is a dank meme. It's not a substitute for an argument, regardless of who posts it.

:'(

Let this be a warning, dont open yourself up to this guy. You have a fantasy of a white hot flamewar but he doesn't care who you are, he is just going to use you and then go say the exact same thing to someone else.

 

[UltimateIdiot]

The arguments for disappearing trucks is "but machine guns disappear, too."

No, not really. Not all of them, anyway. If you want people to take your argument seriously, try not to belittle the other side.

Admittedly it's a bit cheap, but I guess this is the point where a bit of ability to compromise comes into play. I'm able to get past disappearing trucks because I understand the reasons behind them, and to be honest I don't spend a lot of time zoomed in looking at units anyway so it really doesn't matter to me. YMMV.

I'd just like to add that so far what we've seen is footage of a closed beta, there's been neither confirmation nor denial that trucks won't evac to base when the game is released. If we're going to see trucks towing field guns instead of transporting them, there's a chance that they're working on trucks returning to base, too.

 

[ScottSlater]

On the argument of a gun being 100% useful and a truck being 99% useless is 100% incorrect. There is times where that truck is going be far more important to a battle then 100 guns ever could be, period. These transport vehicles should be one of the most important aspects to winning any scale battle because if you are unable to get your reinforcements to the front lines in time you lose ground, which in this game means you lose the match. Giving every unit a one time use transport not only feels and looks lazy, but doesn't give you a true feel for combat. Truly the best solution is to give your battle group a certain amount of transports and you use them as you deem fit.

Maybe you could set it up to where your deployment zone is filled with all the transports you have available to your battlegroup. During deployment you get to decide which infantry come in which transports. Then once the battle starts if you have a transport available in your deployment zone the infantry card you select will come already in it and it will move to the front line. If you have no transports there, then your troops will have to walk there.

The other thing I dislike about the one time use transports is it makes it appear that you "unlimited" transports which is a whole different topic.

 

[Graphic]

Giving every unit a one time use transport not only feels and looks lazy, but doesn't give you a true feel for combat..

This is actually 100% wrong. 1944 is not 1985. Very few divisions were motorized, and when they were the troops weren't darting around 500m from the front line redeploying to intercept every enemy attack. Battles were fought largely on foot by the vast majority of divisions.

 

[UltimateIdiot]

On the argument of a gun being 100% useful and a truck being 99% useless is 100% incorrect. There is times where that truck is going be far more important to a battle then 100 guns ever could be, period. These transport vehicles should be one of the most important aspects to winning any scale battle because if you are unable to get your reinforcements to the front lines in time you lose ground, which in this game means you lose the match. Giving every unit a one time use transport not only feels and looks lazy, but doesn't give you a true feel for combat. Truly the best solution is to give your battle group a certain amount of transports and you use them as you deem fit.

Most WW2 divisions were far from being fully motorised. However, that would pose massive balance-issues. How do you make a foot infantry division as viable to play as a motorised one? A motorised unit will reach battle much quicker, which for the majority of cases, is more important than numbers, firepower, or any other factor. But as I said, motorisation was far from the norm in this time.

The scale of the maps doesn't really give a chance for deploying troops on foot (takes too long), nor does the scale of the game itself lend itself to portraying the industrial price of motorisation/mechanization well.

As pointed out earlier. Giving everybody a transport is a compromise to make the initial deployment of a unit as speedy for all divisions, thus giving them an equal chance to get troops into the fight.

Maybe you could set it up to where your deployment zone is filled with all the transports you have available to your battlegroup. During deployment you get to decide which infantry come in which transports. Then once the battle starts if you have a transport available in your deployment zone the infantry card you select will come already in it and it will move to the front line. If you have no transports there, then your troops will have to walk there.

The other thing I dislike about the one time use transports is it makes it appear that you "unlimited" transports which is a whole different topic.

That would be fine for singleplayer. However, at the heart of WG and by that extension, SD will be multiplayer. I don't think anybody wants to play a match where the first 15 minutes is spent deciding what transports is used by whom, before you get to the actual battle. Not to mention that it'd be totally unauthentic, as transport trucks weren't just "lying around" in the rear, and would lend itself to cheesy tactics where the enemy can just mass bombers and cripple your transport fleet.

 

[Baane]

No, not really. Not all of them, anyway. If you want people to take your argument seriously, try not to belittle the other side.

Then what are the other arguments? I see none. Seems like it's either that, or "laziness is okay" which I find to be even worse.

This is actually 100% wrong. 1944 is not 1985. Very few divisions were motorized, and when they were the troops weren't darting around 500m from the front line redeploying to intercept every enemy attack. Battles were fought largely on foot by the vast majority of divisions.

The divisions selected largely had some level of motorization, or were motorized at some point. I would personally have rather had foot sluggers be foot sluggers, and allow them to field more to allow them to assault defensive points on the map that they would be late to.

Sadly, that's not in the cards. But that doesn't excuse laziness in modeling the critical vehicles of the war.

Don't want them to be player controlled after dropping infantry? Have the ai drive them off map. Don't want them to give away recon teams? Don't let them across the front line in the first place, force them to deploy in friendly territory.

Just some of the things that have been suggested over and over.