Steel Division: Normandy 44 - Unit, vehicle and feature overview

[Holy.Death]

Imagine: one player has more than 50% map control and destroys all the bridges, so the battle is now reduced on a tiny amount of choke points. Is that what you are looking for in a game, that should make fun and where amphibious units are rather uncommon?

From where I am standing it's having a few designated, undestructable bridges what causes battle being fought over "a tiny amount of choke points". With the ability to make your own crossings there would be way more options to get to the other side, although with some effort required to establish such bridgehead.

It would make more sense if the maps where huuuuge, with drop in multiplayer, engineering brigades and dedicated fighter wings. Each Unit commanded by a player. But that game is a few years in the future. Let's hope its eugene and Paradox that makes that <3

Infantry units could cross rivers on their own and create a temporary bridge when on the other side.

 

[Steeperman]

From where I am standing it's having a few designated, undestructable bridges what causes battle being fought over "a tiny amount of choke points". With the ability to make your own crossings there would be way more options to get to the other side, although with some effort required to establish such bridgehead.

Creating your own river crossings would be an option, but how long does it take, to establish something like that, if you do not want to let down authencity?
My argument was buuld on the fact, that i do not think there will be the option to build your own bridges. And when that is not the case, you would make certain zones of the frontline impassable, when you could destroy bridges.

 

[Wicca]

Repairing bridges, or engineering smaller bridges for infantry or light vehicles might take a day. In operational context you could prebuild major parts of the bridge, which would float, as opposed to be grounded. But doing it under fire is probably impossible.

It could be a game mechanic in such a large game. But really we shouldn't be talking about this. We should be talking about Steel Division!

 

[Wicca]

Updated the OP.

Added some information and tried to work on the way it all "looks". Since it might be hard on the eyes.

Apparently vehicles do not require fuel, but aircraft still do. Vehicles still need ammunition though.

 

[EUG_MadMat]

List of divisons
Axis Divisions

1. German 21. Panzer-Division
2. French 2e Division Blindée (Armoured)
3. Panzer-Lehr German (Heavy armoured)
4. 12. SS Panzer Division (Armoured)
5. Unknown
6. Unknown
7. Unknown
8. Unknown
9. Unknown

2e DB ... as Axis?! Realy?

Char 1 biz (47mm turret, 75 howitzer hull)

It's called Char B1 Bis.

 

[Wicca]

Thanks, small cockup on my part!

If anyone has any information about anything, or knowledge about anything PLEASE reply to the thread with the information. I check it like a hundred times a day!

 

[Wicca]

added this:


Players are scored on how much of the battlefield they control, and that front line provides a quick and easy abstraction of where players can press their advantage. Being able to coordinate attacks or exploit breaks is key to win, so is preventing the enemy from doing the same.

got the intel here: http://www.polygon.com/2017/3/6/148...-44-preview-eugen-systems-paradox-interactive

 

[Steeperman]

Apparently vehicles do not require fuel.

Really? Can't imagine vehicels don't need fuel, in a game made by eugen, which should be realistic.

 

[Wicca]

Really? Can't imagine vehicels don't need fuel, in a game made by eugen, which should be realistic.

Prove me wrong and I will edit the OP!

 

[Fonz]

Prove me wrong and I will edit the OP!

But where did you see that to begin with

 

[Wicca]

I will start linking the sources. standby for that.

 

[Vulcan 607]

Just noted a20 Havoc/ Boston III this is most likely free french they preformed the dangerous but vital task of smoke laying to protect the invasion fleet at this point there were only 2 Boston squadrons left in RAF service. Incidentally check my RAF on d day thread for possible aircraft used by the RAF, RCAF, RAAF, RNZAF as well as free french, Polish, Czech, Belgium and so on

 

[Steeperman]

Prove me wrong and I will edit the OP!

I can't, but i too only wanted to know, where you have this Information from.

Especially, because i would like to know, why Eugen would do this.

 

[Graphic]

Lack of fuel doesn't bother me that much. The battlefield is significantly smaller than Wargame and there won't be vast distances to travel. Correct me if I'm wrong but I don't imagine tanks needed to be topped off in the middle of combat very often just for doing tactical maneuvers.

 

[Protz]

Fuel is a strategic issue and is out of scope of a tactical RTS. Realistically, the tanks would not run out of fuel travelling only a few km in combat.

 

[Baane]

Really? Can't imagine vehicels don't need fuel, in a game made by eugen, which should be realistic.

As said in previous posts, fuel is largely out of the scope of a game of this scale. To give you an idea:

The Standard model of 'Sherman' for the U.S. army by this point was the M4A3. This tank had an operational cruising range of 161 kilometers (via roads.) If we are to assume that the tanks in this game come into battle with even just a quarter tank of gas, it can still manage just over 40 kilometers before the tank runs dry.

For a comparison, sources vary on the Pz.Kpfw IV. But they all seem to indicate roughly 134 or so kilometers of off-road range on a full fuel tank. Again, assuming a quarter tank, it can still pull its own weight up and down these maps several times before running dry.

 

[Steeperman]

As said in previous posts, fuel is largely out of the scope of a game of this scale. To give you an idea:

The Standard model of 'Sherman' for the U.S. army by this point was the M4A3. This tank had an operational cruising range of 161 kilometers (via roads.) If we are to assume that the tanks in this game come into battle with even just a quarter tank of gas, it can still manage just over 40 kilometers before the tank runs dry.

For a comparison, sources vary on the Pz.Kpfw IV. But they all seem to indicate roughly 134 or so kilometers of off-road range on a full fuel tank. Again, assuming a quarter tank, it can still pull its own weight up and down these maps several times before running dry.

That is right. But than, the question is, why would you insert it into Wargame?
One example: In the stats of a "Leclerc" stands 550 km or 600 km range. And i think i no game I have played, i travelled hundreds of kilometers with this tank, but it still needs refueling.
With this logic, it would make sense, to impliment this Feature in SD, too.

 

[UltimateIdiot]

Wargame maps are still significantly larger than SD maps will be. It could also just be hindsight 20/20, and Eugen realising fuel consumption isn't really as big of a deal in game as ammo consumption.

 

[gronank]

In wargame, the range in km was the number of seconds a vehicle could run before fuel ran out. It was an unrealistic mechanic that didn't make gameplay better.

 

[Baane]

That is right. But than, the question is, why would you insert it into Wargame?
One example: In the stats of a "Leclerc" stands 550 km or 600 km range. And i think i no game I have played, i travelled hundreds of kilometers with this tank, but it still needs refueling.
With this logic, it would make sense, to impliment this Feature in SD, too.

The fuel in the Wargame series was always cartoony.

The M1 Abrams, the least fuel-efficiant modern MBT in that game, can still carry itself over 400 kilometers on a tank of gas. The idea of tanks in Wargame needing to be refueled in a map length is silly.