• 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.
I really hope Eugen stops at this game and start expansions and DLCs with other theaters on Western Europe (France / Italy). I think spring - autumn of 1944 is a perfect setup timeline wise because there are not major equipment differences and Axis wasn't collapsing yet therefore it is appropriate to build diversity in terms of Divisions/Decks and maps.

So after Bagration few others operations can be added:

- reworked SD 1: Normandy with Divisions and maps for the new game and this should be free because it is annoying to change the game from year to year, make a platform and than develop it otherwise the community will shrink and the players' base will stay narrow.
- Jassy Khishinev Offensive featuring some German Division and Romanian Army with its Mountain/Cavalry/Armored/Guard vs Soviet mechanized and airborne divisions and varied terrain consisting in open, very broken with many ravines, hollows, foothills crossed by small rivers with steep slopes
- Gothic Line first months (August September) with Indian (famous 4th Indian anyone? Gurkhas?), South African, ANZAC units against a mix of Fallschirmjaeger, Gerbirgsjager and Panzer Grenadier with Italian units on both sides.
- Karelian Offensive in June August which would add 1-2 Finnish divisions
- Operation Dragoon in August which may bring more French units (1er Blindee with its mounted Zouavs) or 3rd Algerian

All these happened in a period of 2-3 months can add a lot of content on few years and diversity both in military units involved and terrain features to MP while may give some SP experience as well. Changing the game year after year won't help creating a community which stays with the game and a narrow content.

MP should be seriously reviewed, mainly a matchmaker feature.
 
Last edited:
Checking Steam charts it appears clear that Steel Division is a flop in terms of player retention and nothing you could build a perpetual DLC machine off. My guess is that SD2 will be a lot more in line with the previous series, so more of a Red Dragon successor than SD in terms of gameplay. Personally, I never came around enjoying SD as much as the previous installments and am happy to see Eugene doing something different although we don't know what it is yet largely, the art style is already better.
 
Bad move for eugen. This is the problem with having different fronts for a different game. They're splitting player base to an already small community.

Might boycott this one. It's like they made this for just a quick cash grab, and abandoned the first SD for only a year of support. Very disappointed at eugen right now.

I love SD, but I think releasing a new game rather than focusing on patches and DLCs is a better way to get some new blood into it.
 
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.

The main reason people stopped playing is the lack of players to play with. And the severe inability to fix multiplayer issues when they popped. The number of posts speaking about possible improvements in multiplayer was huge and nothing really changed since the release. I bet you have to expect exactly the same with SD2 now when you know the game will clearly be solo centered with the great campaign.
It's a perfect multiplayer game with great ideas and ambitions and very poor multiplayer tools. I agree with Garensterz it's a dead end if they continue to divide their playerbase.
The fact that you create a 10vs10 mode (what no wargame/rts has never made) but give only 4 maps to your players and let them rot is a perfect example and is seriously laughable if you think about it.
 
1. Mines included in the game, please.
2. If tanks are going in to forrest or something, then all infantry should have AT-capacity at like 50m (improvised AT-solutions was common). In fact, all infantry should be able to knock out a tank at 50m either way.
3. Finnish divisions with som units representing Swedish voluntaries would probably make me buy it. If there is no finnish divisions, then it will be less likely to buy for me at least.
 
Jeff minefield take a long time to deploy and troops do not generally carry them unless they are engineers specifically intending to build a minefield.

As for all infantry being able to kill tanks. No thanks. Their may have been a lot of improvised at weapons but in general infantry were defenceless against tanks which is the whole reason why they had to take whatever they could improvise. You cannot assume especially for the Russians that infantry have AT at all.
 
Jeff minefield take a long time to deploy and troops do not generally carry them unless they are engineers specifically intending to build a minefield.

As for all infantry being able to kill tanks. No thanks. Their may have been a lot of improvised at weapons but in general infantry were defenceless against tanks which is the whole reason why they had to take whatever they could improvise. You cannot assume especially for the Russians that infantry have AT at all.

I am platoon commander for a infantry unit, we have mines at each fire squad. Yeah, minefield take some time to deploy, but like fixing tanks with engine destroyed it can be abstracted into the game with lesser time than it should IRL it does not have to be huge minefileds and it should not be hard to detect for infantry or recon units. Engineer squads should have mine capability. Direct fire, indirect fire and mines. If tanks is limited from going into forrests I can accept that there are no mine capibility.

If tanks are supposed to be in forrests then infantry should have AT capability at 50 meters, they dont need to have good accuracy but tanks in forrests were a bad idea in Steel Division Normandy but rumours says that it might bee different in Steel Division 2. If that is the case it should be a possibility.
 
As for all infantry being able to kill tanks. No thanks. Their may have been a lot of improvised at weapons but in general infantry were defenceless against tanks which is the whole reason why they had to take whatever they could improvise. You cannot assume especially for the Russians that infantry have AT at all.

Must agree with the previous poster, AT should be plentiful if tanks are returning to forests. The Soviets might've lacked PIATs and Bazookas (by this stage anyway) but they still had AT rifles, AT grenades and (not least) large supplies of captured panzerfausts by '44.

Mines would be interesting, but we've not had those in any Eugen game so I doubt we'll see them here either. I'd motion for them, as it'd open up a whole variety of new play, as well as other "traps" for AFVs
 
Must agree with the previous poster, AT should be plentiful if tanks are returning to forests. The Soviets might've lacked PIATs and Bazookas (by this stage anyway) but they still had AT rifles, AT grenades and (not least) large supplies of captured panzerfausts by '44.

Mines would be interesting, but we've not had those in any Eugen game so I doubt we'll see them here either. I'd motion for them, as it'd open up a whole variety of new play, as well as other "traps" for AFVs

So long as some squads have AT, that will be enough to deter players from using tanks carelessly in forests and towns. Giving all infantry units - including the very cheap ones - AT capability would be a bad idea, because it would encourage cheesy tactics like unloading infantry right infront of AFVs to kill them in suicidal charges. You can already use cheap infantry to force surrenders like that.
 
The most important thing for me is that they get rid of the fixed values, as e.g. stuck Tank-Ranges (Wargame did this by far better)...

€: And that they add a "dynamic campaign" is a waste of energy and ressources. Just comparing the campaigns of WG:EE/ SD:44 with WG:ALB/ WG:RD make later always look worse just because the AI was never able to handle it except when scripted.

€2: If they fix the player-dropping dilemma... they achieved a lot.
 
Last edited:
Will there be any finnish divisions? Bagration did not involve the northern front, so I guess not?
I don't think there's any point in asking questions here about SD2 - it's not being published by Paradox, who have nothing to do with it. The Eugen devs have left this forum.
 
I hope they are making a sequel because they have lots of great ideas on how to improve the engine and gameplay. Otherwise I'll probably pass this one by.

Not too excited, to be honest.
 
A little sad no Paradox, but I guess I'm just a fanboy.
 
A little sad no Paradox, but I guess I'm just a fanboy.
 
A little sad no Paradox, but I guess I'm just a fanboy.

It didn't change much when they left paradox. Who knows maybe we'll have lesser paid content while they did back on wargame. Eversince Eugen partnered with paradox, consumers got bombarded with paid content. And SD felt like a rushed game than their previous games.