World in Conflict - Released! Thread

[Flagg]

Soon I hope...is there a world editor in the full game?

No idea.

[Dargos]

I expect more maps to come in the future. I just hope the Devs don't go the way of BF2 and BF2142 and make "Expansion Packs" that you have to buy, but end up being nothing more than large patches with a few maps thrown in.

[Dargos]

Same thing for anti-air units. There needs to be a light AA unit along the lines of something like a Humvee Avenger, or a Soviet truck with a quad 14.5mm HMG in the back that everyone can buy.

Avenger AA will be out of the question because the game takes place in 1989. The Avenger system was fielded in 1993 when it replaced the M167 Vulcan.

[Ace Pace]

My personal opinions is that while armour is the 'lame easy tank rush kekeke' group, it's essential, and a good armour player can easily break up large concertrations of enemy units if he coordinates with his team. True, 5 heavies alone will just die to helis, infantry or whatever, but they're capable of mass devestation if you're not careful.

On tournament play, SHep, fuck you. Tournament play is fucking awesome, and avoids gaming going back into "30 year olds playing in their moms basement while the 12 year old plays on the NES."

[loomer]

Three LANs against bots, and still no nukes. Might have to try proper multiplayer.

[MKSheppard]

On tournament play, SHep, fuck you. Tournament play is fucking awesome, and avoids gaming going back into "30 year olds playing in their moms basement while the 12 year old plays on the NES."

No, fuck you. I'm sick and tired of games being dumbed down for tournament play, resulting in such gems on teh Massgate forums:

Please stop bringing realism into game balancing because game balancing has nothing to do with realism.

I can never get over the fact that in Company of Heroes, the Tiger and Panther are essentially buffed up Panzer IVs with more hitpoints and a bit more firepower, instead of being the one shot; one kill wonders they were IRL.

Or that in order to actually use units to the best in RTSes, you have to absurdly micromanage them -- I can understand keeping control of a unit's special attack, like the ATGMs for Heavy Helos or Armored Transports because you don't want them wasting a 24 second reload ability on something as weak as an infantry truck, or want to prioritize targets like heavy AA, but I shouldn't have to absurdly micro every defensive action like popping smoke or dropping flares, or telling my infantry to run away from hand grenades -- that always was weird in CoH; in Single player CoH, the AI would run away from your grenades, but in MP, you have to micro your squads to make them run from grenades.

[Ace Pace]

No, fuck you. I'm sick and tired of games being dumbed down for tournament play, resulting in such gems on teh Massgate forums:

So tell me, how is WiC dumbed down? Maybe it's percise goal was this? A game I can show to a newb and have him playing in 5 minutes? Not every game needs to be a 500 page manual monster and thats a good thing.

The rest of your complaints center on implementation, and honestly, thats a computing power issue. Imagine if due to the AI algorithm used for popping smoke, your choppers would just be popping smoke 24/7 because an enemy AA is in viewing range? You'd be pissed off. So instead of having an algorithm that works partially, they let the player control it.

[Laughing Mechanicus]

The rest of your complaints center on implementation, and honestly, thats a computing power issue. Imagine if due to the AI algorithm used for popping smoke, your choppers would just be popping smoke 24/7 because an enemy AA is in viewing range? You'd be pissed off. So instead of having an algorithm that works partially, they let the player control it.

Sorry but no, it really is not hugely computationally intensive to have some simple AI to control unit actions. I've seen artificial life simulations in 3D environments executing far more complex instruction sets in real time and on far less powerful hardware than a moderately powerful games rig.

The only reason that such things are not done in mainstream games is pure genre inertia. The vast majority of the player base thinks having to compensate for stupid units with micro-management just demonstrates their awesome skills. Games publishers know this, and hence there is no point investing more programming time in additional AI.

[Sea Skimmer]

If you can run the graphics of the game decently, your computer is going to have no shortage of power for a better AI. Close Combat and Earth 2150 had better AI and more AI control years ago. Your flare poping example would be easily solved by having the AI not deploy flares unless actually fired upon.

And my god does infantry desperately need to come with organic truck transport. Even if infantry wasn’t so absurdly easy to kill, on most maps you have to spend half the game just walking to the enemy. Most games I’ve played in the last two days had no one at all in the infantry role.

[Stark]

The AI in WiC is *clearly* substandard. The focus is firmly on multi, and the compaign and 'skirmish' AI is hopeless. I'd consider this a problem if multi wasn't so much fun, but saying simple scripts like 'AI sequentially pop flares when under attack' would use too much processing power is nuts. The AI *sucks*, it sucks *assballs*. Luckily I'm all about the multi...

While you have to pay for trucks, they're reusable between squads... I usually buy 2-3 at the start and never lose more than one. Sometimes air and armour even cooperates with me and provide better transport.. and there's nothing like seeing the 'holy fuck half a dozen infantry squads in our base' reaction as the whole team turns and retreats.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

Sorry but no, it really is not hugely computationally intensive to have some simple AI to control unit actions. I've seen artificial life simulations in 3D environments executing far more complex instruction sets in real time and on far less powerful hardware than a moderately powerful games rig.

The only reason that such things are not done in mainstream games is pure genre inertia. The vast majority of the player base thinks having to compensate for stupid units with micro-management just demonstrates their awesome skills. Games publishers know this, and hence there is no point investing more programming time in additional AI.

I personally hate this micromanagement nonsense. RTS should not be about having to bark orders to the fine print. I expect the soldiers to take a set of orders and to do as ordered not me ordering them every step of the way. Much like Homeworld where you can leave the fighters to do the job of hunting and then I will just coordinate the overall attack.

This is pointless ridiculous nonsense that leaves no room for real strategy, especially combined arms strategy which totally messes up in a game of micromanagement.

[Stark]

In WiC it's more forgivable for me, because you're only managing a small group instead of many groups + a whole base + other shit. There isn't that much micro - far, far less than the 'lol revolutionary' Supreme Commander, for instance - and unless people equally lambast things like Dawn of War for retarded 'special attack' micro I can't take this seriously. WiC, while it has some micro elements, is a step AWAY from absurd shit like 'click to throw grenade'.

Even though it has a 'click to fire grenade' attack.

[ray245]

Sorry but no, it really is not hugely computationally intensive to have some simple AI to control unit actions. I've seen artificial life simulations in 3D environments executing far more complex instruction sets in real time and on far less powerful hardware than a moderately powerful games rig.

The only reason that such things are not done in mainstream games is pure genre inertia. The vast majority of the player base thinks having to compensate for stupid units with micro-management just demonstrates their awesome skills. Games publishers know this, and hence there is no point investing more programming time in additional AI.

I personally hate this micromanagement nonsense. RTS should not be about having to bark orders to the fine print. I expect the soldiers to take a set of orders and to do as ordered not me ordering them every step of the way. Much like Homeworld where you can leave the fighters to do the job of hunting and then I will just coordinate the overall attack.

This is pointless ridiculous nonsense that leaves no room for real strategy, especially combined arms strategy which totally messes up in a game of micromanagement.

Unless there is a game which combines both and best aspect from FPS and RTS like WiC, not the traditional ones, then we will get a more real war feeling.

FPS players will be basically playing the game as a Co-op campaign mission, where the objectives is constantly changing due to the commander giving different orders.

Like CoD for instance, where the objectives given are constantly updated by a real computer instead of some scripts.

Although to make the idea even WORK, you need a very good computer, lots of players, and a very good internet service and powerful server.

In that type of games...you will have like...maybe 100-200 person on one team?

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

Unless there is a game which combines both and best aspect from FPS and RTS like WiC, not the traditional ones, then we will get a more real war feeling.

FPS players will be basically playing the game as a Co-op campaign mission, where the objectives is constantly changing due to the commander giving different orders.

Like CoD for instance, where the objectives given are constantly updated by a real computer instead of some scripts.

Although to make the idea even WORK, you need a very good computer, lots of players, and a very good internet service and powerful server.

In that type of games...you will have like...maybe 100-200 person on one team?

Nope. You don't need too powerful a computer. Ever played M2TW? If M2TW went by that sort of nonsense, I will pull my hair out trying to micromanage up to 2000 bloody troops while fighting a computer with just as many and no problems with controlling them.

[ray245]

Unless there is a game which combines both and best aspect from FPS and RTS like WiC, not the traditional ones, then we will get a more real war feeling.

FPS players will be basically playing the game as a Co-op campaign mission, where the objectives is constantly changing due to the commander giving different orders.

Like CoD for instance, where the objectives given are constantly updated by a real computer instead of some scripts.

Although to make the idea even WORK, you need a very good computer, lots of players, and a very good internet service and powerful server.

In that type of games...you will have like...maybe 100-200 person on one team?

Nope. You don't need too powerful a computer. Ever played M2TW? If M2TW went by that sort of nonsense, I will pull my hair out trying to micromanage up to 2000 bloody troops while fighting a computer with just as many and no problems with controlling them.

Sign...all along I was hoping for a modern day total war series..maybe a ww2 version if possible. But then again...

[Instant Sunrise]

In case you haven't seen this yet:

World in Conflict Update
Update #001


We are currently scheduled for release later this week, but no final date has been set.


This update introduces several new features that allow players to customize their profiles, and it improves the DX10 performance on all graphic cards. The update also includes many smaller fixes, tweaks and balancing improvements.

Units and balancing:
- The fire rate for US and NATO Heavy Artillery has been improved.
- Score for repairing your own repair units has decreased.
- Score for repairing friendly units has been increased.
- The cost for Airdropped Light Tank Tactical Aid is now higher.
- The recharge time for all Airdropped Unit Tactical Aid has been increased.
- The target area for Air-to-Air Strike Tactical Aid has been increased.
- The view range for Airborne Infantry has been decreased.

Server side:
- Players per role cap is now a server setting, default is 4.
- Auto-kick of idle players has been improved and turned on by default.
- Servers can now ban players that have been kicked from the server.
- A limited server admin functionality has been added, you can now kick players and change maps.

Massgate:
- Guestbook, motto and web-link has been added to player profile.
- You will no longer auto-scroll to the end of chat when a new message arrives.
- Winning a game will now increase the score reported to the leaderboard.
- We have updated the description for some awards.

Bug fixes:
- Targeting bug for Heavy Helicopters has been fixed.
- Attack ground directly below Helicopters has been fixed.
- No sound is played when enemy units fire out of line of sight.
- Earning points and tactical aid when losing infantry units has been fixed.
- VOIP does no longer lower volume if VOIP has been turned off.
- Move order on mini-map feature has been improved.
- Killing infantry squad now counts as only one kill in Massgate stats.
- Infantry reinforcement feedback sound is no longer heard by everyone on the team.
- Feedback sound now is now played when Offensive Special Ability order is given instead of delivered.
- Accepted request does no longer give a generic tactical aid output.
- Infantry squads will no longer get de-selected when a member dies.
- Performance on ATI DX10 cards has been improved.
- Performance on DX10 has generally been improved.
- Crater artifacts on ATI cards has been fixed.
- Wide screen is now HOR+ instead of VERT-.
- You can now save replays in the online only version as well.
- Players that get kicked or banned now get a confirmation.
- Added description to flags when choosing faction.
- The artillery warning marker from the US Heavy Artillery smoke screen Special Ability has been removed.
- USSR Heavy Tank now turns turret before firing its special ability.

Other:
- A console command for scaling time in replays and single player has been added.
- You can now use the VOIP outside of team after a match and during loading.

[loomer]

Nukes are fuuuun. Increased the battle size a fair bit, for more nukey goodness.

[Vympel]

I'm still waiting for them to fix the bug where T-80Us don't have their Refleks ... *grumble*

[MKSheppard]

So tell me, how is WiC dumbed down?

Oh, plenty of ways. First, the catering to the "Balance the gameplay for tournament!!!" rar idiots.

Secondly, only two types of formations in the entire game? Line and Box?

Not even looking in actual military manuals which are full of nice graphics like this:



Also units are unrealistically strong; I wonder what would happen if you simply halved the hitpoints for all the vehicles? Gameplay would slowdown significantly, and center more around ambushes and preparing the route of march (as in pre-emptively using TA against likely ambush positions); but no; we have to make units unrealistically strong in order to attract the 12 year old RTS twitch crowd.

Maybe it's percise goal was this? A game I can show to a newb and have him playing in 5 minutes?

Surprise; I can do that with Combat Mission BO, BB, and AK. You are making a false analogy that a game with detail needs to be a 500 page monster and require 1 hour for each turn.

The rest of your complaints center on implementation, and honestly, thats a computing power issue.

How strange that Battlefront with their Combat Mission Trilogy was able to implement reasonably decent AI for infantry and tanks on MUCH less computing power than is available to the typical WiC Player.

[MKSheppard]

I'm still waiting for them to fix the bug where T-80Us don't have their Refleks ... *grumble*

But, but; that's BALANCE; Vympel! If you gave the T-80Us an ATGM, it would unbalance the game in tournament play!

Just be thankful they gave the Bradley and BMP ATGMs.

[Vympel]

Unfortunately, the game is simply not catered to those who wanted to see at least a halfway decent attempt at a Cold War bash - I'm fine with the realism problems, the game's still really fun to me (haven't even tried MP yet) - but a real opportunity was missed to actually establish differences between the sides.

[Flagg]

I'm with Shep when it comes to formations. Should have at least included staggered and spearhead formations.

[MKSheppard]

Oh my god; I just realized something:

The ZSU-23-4; SA-9 GASKIN; M-163 VULCAN, Chaparral, Gepard, and ROLAND don't really do anything except kill helicopters, and in some cases, have secondary anti infantry roles -- which puzzles me.

A lot of these weapons are quite powerful in real life, especially the heavy anti aircraft vehicles; yet they don't seem to have any effect on air operations in the game; like shooting down incoming aircraft before they can drop their napalm, LGBs, or strafe; or kill incoming transport aircraft carrying paid-for units....

It just seems like the designers said - Hay guys, we need something to counter heavy helos..., lets put in SA-9 guys, and not even consider the effects of such a powerful unit would have in real life.

If you could actually shoot down reinforcements and airstrikes, then the support player would actually become a quite powerful player; which could lead to two new types of TAs:

"Counterbattery Fire" Known enemy artillery concentrations get pounded; everyone by 1989 had counterbattery radars capable of tracking the fall of shot and figuring out the firing position before the shells had landed.

"Wild Weasel Fire" A bunch of F-4s or Su-27s swoop across the map, firing Anti Radiation missiles that seek out AA units.

[Flagg]

Can't those AA batteries take out fucking heavy tanks? In reality, I mean.

[Vympel]

Oh my god; I just realized something:

The ZSU-23-4; SA-9 GASKIN; M-163 VULCAN, Chaparral, Gepard, and ROLAND don't really do anything except kill helicopters, and in some cases, have secondary anti infantry roles -- which puzzles me.

Isn't it the Strela-10 (SA-13 GOPHER) that's in WiC, not the Strela-1/ SA-9 GASKIN?

(I'm only up to the second single player mission)

A lot of these weapons are quite powerful in real life, especially the heavy anti aircraft vehicles; yet they don't seem to have any effect on air operations in the game; like shooting down incoming aircraft before they can drop their napalm, LGBs, or strafe; or kill incoming transport aircraft carrying paid-for units....

I don't like the whole airdrop thing to begin with, but I think irrespective of the low altitude drops the game shows, it'd be very improbable - in reality the SA-13 would never be able to hit a C-141 dropping cargo from a realistic altitude, IIRC.

"Wild Weasel Fire" A bunch of F-4s or Su-27s swoop across the map, firing Anti Radiation missiles that seek out AA units.

The problem with that is the SA-13/ Chapparal (don't know about Roland) don't track their targets with radar, they're IR trackers

(Also it'd be an Su-24 or Su-17M4 doing the WW for the Soviets, the Su-27 only got Kh-31Ps the other year )