StarDestroyer.Net BBS

It's a game from the makers of Ground Control, which on their own were excellent tactical combat games with limited resources (no building tanks or troops in game), good protrayal of artillery (very destructive but vulnerable), and decent squad tactics (flanking and shoot the back of enemy tanks were important). Indeed I think GC1 had more squad feeling than GC2, which though graphically excellent had squad mechanics dumbed down and a wierd compromise between the resource and tactical models. Now with a real world version with 1989 hardware, I think we can drool.

Ground Control 1 and 2 were both fun games with a good level of tactics. I hope this surpasses them. Rather nice looking, too.

Fuck yes. The Golden Age of military hardware, IMO. The only thing I'll miss in 1989 is the Longbow and its radar-guided Hellfire IIs.

The makers of GC1? HOLY FUCK YA!

Wow, that looks good. 2S5 SP guns and ZSU-23s blasting away, BTR-80s doing an amphibious crossing, Apaches, incoming rockets (presumably from Grads) ... awesome.

Though there's an Mi-28 HAVOC-A in one of those shots. Not exactly 1989 tech- in reality the Soviets hadn't decided between it in the Ka-50 at the time, and by the time they did it wasn't even the Soviet Union anymore. They decided on the Ka-50, then decided they needed night-capability, and switched their vote back to the Mi-28N HAVOC-B (the series production of which has just very recently begun).

Better to have Mi-24V HIND-Es and Mi-24P HIND-Fs.

I like the M60 tanks too. The real test, however, will be the Soviet tanks. I'll be pissed if they fuck that up.

I read from a google search that it's actually set in an alternate present day timeline where the Soviet Union never fell, and they stage and invasion of the United States! This is probably incorrect as far as the "present day" is concerned, as I prefer the 1989 setting, and the 2S5 guns, ZSU-23s, HAVOC-A, and most importantly the M60s would tend towards that.

If it was present day, one would expect 2S19s, Tunguska-M1s, Mi-28Ns, T-90s, BTR-80As or BTR-90s, etc.

I've just seen the trailer. I'm not sure if parts of it are CGI or culled from a real movie.

That trailer was awesome. The best part was the T-72/80 (hard to tell) coming into view in the mall, coaxial MG flaming, Soviet troops firing from above at the defenders. Followed closely by the hordes of VDV troopers paradropping onto (what I think is) Seattle, from hordes of Il-76s

Come to think of it, given this is an alternate 1989, it's very plausible that the Mi-28 HAVOC-A could enter service a little prior to what it was slated to originally, asides from the obvious point that the HOKUM-A was favored. Man, I'd love to see the Ka-50 in this game.

I'm in love. I've been waiting a while for a game like this, although I'd like it tabletop.

Seriously? I'm picky when it comes to my RTS's. But from GC1's makers? I shall buy it! The fact it looks like sex doesn't hurt either.

IGN

Larry Bonds is involved.

Check out the screenshots- BMP-3s, 2S9 Nona-S arty, 2S7 203mm arty, T-62s even, baby!

A screenshot of how players would likely play the game, view wise:

Link

GC2 was utter shit. However, as loomer says, this looks like sex.

It would be so kickass if you could deploy tactical nuclear weapons.

I will need this game. It looks amazing!

Ooooooooh fuck yeah. Let's just hope it's more GC1 than GC2!

Acidburns wrote:Ooooooooh fuck yeah. Let's just hope it's more GC1 than GC2!

Its more GC1, check the gamespot preview.

Fuck...I nearly came in my pants when I saw the trailer. If that's the in-game graphics, what sort of monster specs would be required to run it?

It isn't in game graphics. You can tell the difference with the screenshots.

Vympel wrote:It isn't in game graphics. You can tell the difference with the screenshots.

But the game graphics arn't that far away, look at the infantry models.

If it sticks to the GC1 formula and not GC2, then this will be positively orgasmic joy.

I've only played GC2. What are the major differences? I rather enjoyed the sequel, myself.

Brother-Captain Gaius wrote:I've only played GC2. What are the major differences? I rather enjoyed the sequel, myself.

No resource manegment/reinforcements. You choose your units, equipt them with UNIQUE special weapons/equiptment, deploy. Thats it, Every single marine life is valuble.

GC1 was everything Dawn of Rush *should* have been, if they'd used the army lists from the tabletop. GC2 was just bland and uninspired by comparison.

Games Workshop would never, ever allow anything that played remotely like the tabletop on the computer, including GC1-esque gameplay. They specifically told Relic that they wanted yet another basic RTS with resources, bases, and research, because they did not want DoW to compete in any meaningful way with the tabletop game.

Yeah, that's what I said before DoW came out: if they make an attractive, flexible game using their rules and imagery, they just destroyed their own minutures business.

And business is *good*.