Garensterz wargame games have never had expansions. Always been separate games. Usually bringing the whole previous forces into the new games.
Steel Division 2 - Announcement trailer
- Thread starter Hosebei
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Yeah, it's odd. When Eugen did annual releases for Wargame, it seemed somewhat palatable, because Eugen were growing a franchise and an audience. However, an annual release model seems unhealthy at this point. For existing players, the franchise has an unstable foundation: it's constantly shifting and unreliable. Meanwhile, newcomers can be easily confused by the pile of titles (European Escalation, AirLAnd Battle, Red Dragon, Steel Division 44, Steel Division 2), and put off by the scattered and often unhappy and divisive community.
It's great that Eugen wants to innovate and make new content. However, I don't think the annual release modal is healthy for the franchise. Instead, I think the franchise could establish a much stronger foundation were it to focus on one game for the foreseeable future. Eugen could still introduce new time periods and gameplay, just through other means. For instance, it could use expansion packs (similar to Bad Company 2 Vietnam). Or, better yet, it could provide free updates, and instead rely on an alternative revenue source, such as long-term game sales, Paradox-style host-centred DLC, or cosmetics. It could also embrace the modding scene, which would afford dividends in enhancing the game. Importantly, this would allow the franchise to develop a consistent reputation and player base, offering a simple and accessible entry point to newcomers.
It all depends I guess on the nature of the game and what you play it for. I play it coop vs AI with mates. Generally at least 4 of us on discord.
Thus we choose which game to play on a given night. Although it has been SD44 for the last year and very occasionally red dragon. Red Dragon kept the population together by having all units from the previous games. Although ship implementation was not done well?
Thus we choose which game to play on a given night. Although it has been SD44 for the last year and very occasionally red dragon. Red Dragon kept the population together by having all units from the previous games. Although ship implementation was not done well?
We didn't wait for your post ... but I've appreciated your research with a (therefore) connoisseur's eye ...
You're gonna make me blush.
Just remember me when you're looking for testers. I need a regiment of ISU-152s in my life.
Wargame already has a big enough player base to start with. And they sell new games containing content of the old ones. Steel Division's restriction of regions is a failed strategy and will only result in splitting up the community. What they can do is merge all SD1 to SD 2 content so they can at least cater both demographic who likes to play the western and the eastern front.
Last edited:
Yeah ... and 24 posts confirm this ...
Look how many PAGES appeared in 'Hearts of Iron IV' sections then they (developers) mention just one of new incoming patches ... about 48 pages for same period (since posted)
I agree with this and it mainly has to do with cross content play. I would much rather have something like DCS world has where you buy modules that go into a main product. You have the modules play as is but you can create different matches/setups without having to necessarily split where you content is sourced and where your players are as well. The folks over at Relic did the same with CoH2 even though originally it was no where like it is today like it was on launch. I did enjoy my custom match playing the US vs USSR with my buds, was a titanic struggle but fun.
So, +1 for me if Eugen has the time/money/resources to implement a modular system that unifies their content across different releases. I do feel the same way about the WarGame series as I've had to make my own 70s decks in Red Dragon without the benefit of 60s era units previous titles had in E-ESC/ALB.
Sigh... I'm so torn on this.
Will the vehicle/AT balance be closer to what we had last year?
Will we finally get modern quickplay with *gasp* filter options?
Will the vehicle/AT balance be closer to what we had last year?
Will we finally get modern quickplay with *gasp* filter options?
Can't wait to get into the eastern front! Should be all kinds of new toys to play with.
I agree with the comments here about what Eugen should have done, but why would you boycott? That's the last thing they need right now. And what's wrong with the way they've supported SD? There isn't any content missing from SD, none of the balance problems are major and its got decent DLC, none of which was pay-to-win. There's nothing left to do with SD except some balance tweaks. They don't deserve a boycott, that's crazy talk.
This is what Eugen should have done when they were working on AirLand Battle. But for this to work, it needs a very good MP conquest mode that rewards attacking and fluid gameplay. The score keeping system also needs to give battles a 'natural' flow to them. Racking up kills until reaching a certain number and then winning regardless of what the battlefield actually looks like feels non-intuitive, non-immersive and artificial.
If you compare the Total War series for example, you can tell when a battle is ending because one side is obviously crumbling and routing/dying. There is a less obvious sense of who's winning in gameplay terms in Eugen's games.
Flawed multiplayer modes I think are what stopped Eugen's games from really taking off.
Last edited:
Why should I boycott? Because making a new title based on the eastern front wont solve anything for SD's low multiplayer population, but rather worsen it. This is their huge problem on the first SD, and now they are abandoning it? They should have prioritized this problem on their second year, but they didn't. They didn't even fix the achilles bug yet which it acts like a Stug.
Ok to be honest I admire how eugen balances their games especially with paid DLC's, but separating customers for a new content makes think that it's utterly useless to even buy it. What's the point of playing a good multiplayer game when there's no one to play with? I've got my SD here just sitting on a shelf these days, because there's just no players around. If eugen decides to merge SD1's content to SD2 then It's worth it. But making every title for every different fronts for every year on a multiplayer centric game (I know lots of triple A devs does this but at least there's players in it) is a desperate way to profit, and a business strategy failure.
I mean really?
Then why 4th Armored was nerfed multiple times and still is the 1st/2nd most effective allied 1vs1 deck? And it's now fighting for the 1st place only because second DLC introduced 7th Armored, which, I guess, won't be nerfed now, because they abandoned this game and it's probably is for the best, otherwise we would see even more pay to win content.
The lesson I've learned from SD and the WG series is that people who only play MP will never, ever be happy about anything.
This is the reason Eugen need to allow AI into the 10v10 servers. Then at least we can have a large game when the population dies.
I really think though that part of the reason people stop playing multi is that the map variety is lacking. That is because the terrain is rather 2 dimensional. Red Dragon had the best terrain and even that was mainly flat and when their were mountains or hills... they were hugely exaggerated like the alps.
I really think though that part of the reason people stop playing multi is that the map variety is lacking. That is because the terrain is rather 2 dimensional. Red Dragon had the best terrain and even that was mainly flat and when their were mountains or hills... they were hugely exaggerated like the alps.
(Forgetting the fact that I do no like that SD2 will divide the player base)
Playing Devil's advocate,
In a way SD2 does offer some hope in it's name; it's 2, not just Bagration. If Eugen does offer expansions, it technically does not have to be set in the eastern front. Like Destraex said, Normandy is pretty bland in terms of map design with nothing but hedgerows and cropfields. Assuming when Eugen offer DLCs, we can have the Italian Campaign, alongside the previous Normandy Campaign(i'd be annoyed if I had to pay for this after buying SD44). I can forgive some mistakes that Eugen did with Normandy 44. I just hope that they can be fixed in SD2. I'l keep an eye on SD2 as it just gives me mixed feelings about.
Playing Devil's advocate,
In a way SD2 does offer some hope in it's name; it's 2, not just Bagration. If Eugen does offer expansions, it technically does not have to be set in the eastern front. Like Destraex said, Normandy is pretty bland in terms of map design with nothing but hedgerows and cropfields. Assuming when Eugen offer DLCs, we can have the Italian Campaign, alongside the previous Normandy Campaign(i'd be annoyed if I had to pay for this after buying SD44). I can forgive some mistakes that Eugen did with Normandy 44. I just hope that they can be fixed in SD2. I'l keep an eye on SD2 as it just gives me mixed feelings about.
The majority of a game's sales occur in the first month, with minor sales spikes occurring later during steam sales. SD1 is not going to get a dramatically higher MP player base, even if they don't abandon it. That's the reality. If they want a MP phenomenon they have to release new content, an old game isn't going to take off a year after release.
And new content/expansions for SD1 isn't going to fix the things you complain about. A steady stream of content and expansions will keep regular customers happy and may build/strengthen a small MP community but the franchise will still be on life support.
A properly designed MP system and default game mode that people find addictive and intuitive is what this really needs to be successful.
I too hope that SD1 and SD2 have cross-over MP.
Implying not only that there has been pay-to-win content but that there has been a lot of it. 4th Armoured was initially OP. But Eugen never repeated that mistake and subsequently, DLC divisions were either balanced or weak so this is blatantly wrong.
Last edited:
I think the facts are simple, Paradox are done with Steel Division. Steel Division 2 was most likely pitched to Paradox as an Expansion and declined. Steel Division 2 gives eugen an opportunity to move forward. If they are lucky Paradox throws them a bone closer to release but I doubt it.
It is pay to win, but I don't think it's intentional. LSSAH which was added for free is also overpowered.
You have no facts. You've said nothing factual - you do not know if Paradox or Eugen ended the partnership and you have no idea if anything was pitched or declined.
Thank you for bringing absolutely nothing at all to this discussion.