Moderator: Thanas
Uh...play ground control 1 multiplayer?Stark wrote: Er, it's not about lacking units, it's about working with a TO&E, and making decisions beforehand, and having to work with what you've got. Not build costs.
All actual air to air units(bar helis) are considered tactical aids and are called in. Infact, unless I'm blind, player controlled airborne vehicles is limited to a varaiety of helicopters, but I've only been playing USA.
Why no stealth fighters? It's set in the late 80s (which to me means 87-90) and the government acknowledged the existence of the F-117 in 1988, so they ought to be in the game. I'm actually pretty sure they started testing them as far back as 1977.
Yeah, but once you've killed the defences on one control point and captured it, doesn't the whole group (village, whatever) go neutral? So they're magical forts from the land of game mechanics? I stand by my assessment of 'weak'.Ace Pace wrote:You can't lose a control point without the other player destroying the forts, as I understand it.
Nope, your control over the sector dissapears(a sector is a group of control points, say around a bridge), but your control over individual points remains, as do their fortifications. Furthermore, I'm not seeing anyone capture a point while fortifications remain.
Yeah, but once you've killed the defences on one control point and captured it, doesn't the whole group (village, whatever) go neutral? So they're magical forts from the land of game mechanics? I stand by my assessment of 'weak'.
Are you serious? This... boggles the mind.Ace Pace wrote:You will. I have a 6800GT, running on 1280x1024, all high, running fine.
Dude, magic forts aren't as magical as offmap strikes. How long do they take to build again? Perhaps they're inflatable.Ace Pace wrote:Nope, your control over the sector dissapears(a sector is a group of control points, say around a bridge), but your control over individual points remains, as do their fortifications. Furthermore, I'm not seeing anyone capture a point while fortifications remain.
And yes, magical forts. Like the magical tactical nukes.
I havn't seen my preformance in a nuke attack,but I had smooth firefights, my primary 'lag' now is actual internet ping, in the 300-400 range. Quite unplayable.Are you serious? This... boggles the mind.
At the rate they die? Yeah, they're rubber.
Dude, magic forts aren't as magical as offmap strikes. How long do they take to build again? Perhaps they're inflatable.
And I was under the impression that once you lost a single part, you lost control of all of it - do you just lose the overall set, but retain the forts? That's not nearly as Starcraft, much better.
IIRC the F-117 has never actually been used in a forward air support role despite being officially a tactical fighter. It doesn't really make sense to use it for tactical roles either, as you don't want a lucky hit with heavy MG fire taking it down. It has mostly been used for night attacks on strategic targets, historically.Losonti Tokash wrote:Why no stealth fighters? It's set in the late 80s (which to me means 87-90) and the government acknowledged the existence of the F-117 in 1988, so they ought to be in the game. I'm actually pretty sure they started testing them as far back as 1977.
Not that big a deal, though. Game looks pretty kickass.
I saw a documentary on it that pretty much said the only reason it's an F-117 and not B or A is because they didn't want to offend the fighter pilots who would be flying them.kheegster wrote: IIRC the F-117 has never actually been used in a forward air support role despite being officially a tactical fighter. It doesn't really make sense to use it for tactical roles either, as you don't want a lucky hit with heavy MG fire taking it down. It has mostly been used for night attacks on strategic targets, historically.
Q3 2007.LaserRifleofDoom wrote:I saw a documentary on it that pretty much said the only reason it's an F-117 and not B or A is because they didn't want to offend the fighter pilots who would be flying them.kheegster wrote: IIRC the F-117 has never actually been used in a forward air support role despite being officially a tactical fighter. It doesn't really make sense to use it for tactical roles either, as you don't want a lucky hit with heavy MG fire taking it down. It has mostly been used for night attacks on strategic targets, historically.
But when is this beautiful, beautiful, most awesome game coming out?
Yes, BUT it's not implemented retardly like..lvl 2 units do 1.6x times damage lvl1. It gives better reload times and forgot what else.
1. Is there a veterancy system for troops in-mission? (ie. they become more effective after getting a few kills)
If there is, this is a minus for me. Combat Mission's take on the issue (ie. there are Green to Elite troops, but they will never gain experience over the course of a mission) is best.
Squads, from 2 to 8 men I think.
2. Are infantry commanded as individuals or squads?
No idea.
3. "Anti-tank infantry"- infantry with ATGMs, or RPGs? The former is good, the latter is unforgiveably bad. All infantry should have either disposable LAWs (ie. US troops) or disposable LAWskis together with RPG-7s and RPG-16s (ie Soviet troops) as standard
No idea, Stark has also been on my case to check this, I've been lazy to zoom it to notice anything.
4. Tanks: APFSDS/HEAT/HEF, or all purpose, whatever they're shooting at? Coaxial MG, commander's MG, modeled?
Theres alot of rolling hills in the maps so far, but range dosn't seem so tiny. On the other hand, nor is it realistically long.
5. Engagement ranges: realistic, or ridiculously close range?
No idea, I don't play infantry, I'm a tank player, give me 5 medium tanks, a heavy, and enough spare points to call down a reserve and I'm happy.
6. Snipers- do Soviet squads get an SVD-marksman as standard?
There seems to be some confusion regarding the 3 levels of the TA.
What you invest the extra points in is the ability to drop 2 or 3 simultaneously.
When you consider how extremly different (as in "more powerful") two para drops are compared to one (you can capture a Command Point) you'll see the purpose of the system.
The premium you pay for going 2x or 3x is not very well balanced at the moment.
TA prices will be different depending on role (as the radar scan is much more useful to the arty than to the inf for instance). Coordinated teams will share points to maximize returns.
Magnus "Soundboy" Jansén
Lead designer World in Conflict
GameSpot AU: Why has all the focus on World in Conflict been on the multiplayer side thus far?
Nicklas Cederstrom: When the project started out, it started as a multiplayer game. We wanted to get that right first, so we focused on that and spent the first 16 months on getting the feeling that it's going to be a great multiplayer game. When we knew what we had was really good, we started focusing on single player, and we've been working on that for over a year now.
GS AU: So is it a multiplayer game first and foremost?
NC: No, absolutely not. It's 50-50. It has a rock solid and very interesting single-player campaign, but with the added depth of multiplayer.
GS AU: Why did you decide to lighten the RTS elements in World in Conflict--such as having no resource gathering?
NC: First of all, we wanted to make a great game that a lot of people will play. Massive has done two games before--Ground Control I and II--and they both got great reviews, and everyone that played it loved it. But it didn't reach the mass market. This time around we decided to focus on a setting that we knew would draw more people, a setting that we all fell in love with from Red Dawn, the old '80s movie. We decided to make a game that's easy to get into and we focused on action--this is an action game. Personally, I don't even call it an RTS, because it's just pure action.
GS AU: If it's not an RTS, what would you call it?
NC: That's hard. Internally we sometime call it RTT--real-time tactics. But basically I would just say it's a come-together-with-your-friends action game. We want it to be the Counter-Strike of RTS gaming. So in multiplayer, we have 20 minute matches, so that you know when you get into a match it'll be 20-minutes or shorter. You can play two or three games in your lunch break--if you do a traditional RTS, you can be in a match for up to four hours or 14 minutes.
GS AU: Tell us more about the single-player storyline.
NC: World in Conflict is played out in 1989, and the Cold War has gone hot. When we set out to make the game, we really wanted to have a plausible war scenario. So what we did was contact Larry Bond--who is the Tom Clancy co-writer--and he's a Cold War era expert. We asked him to write for us a plausible invasion scenario for the Russians coming into the US. So he made up this great story, where the Soviet Union is on the brink of economic disaster--they go to the UN to try and blackmail them to give them unconditional aid. Of course, they refuse, and the Russians invade Europe. In doing so, they attack NATO and kill a lot of US soldiers, which draws the US into the war in Europe. The Russians then do a sneak attack on the western coast of the US, where they arrive on civilian ships like tankers, but they have military hardware with them. They invade Seattle, and it goes from there.
When we came to the single player, we decided we really wanted to have a great story. And great stories are told from the perspective of people, so we decided to have a strong line of characters that we follow throughout the war. You are not the supreme commander in our game, you are basically one of the guys in the trenches fighting for your life and your men. You are playing a character called Parker--he's anonymous, he never speaks and you never really see him. The leader of the pack is Colonel Sawyer, he's an old school military man that's been in a lot of wars. With him is Bannon, a West Point graduate--he's basically come out from military school, he thinks he's the best. We compare him to Hudson in Aliens--because he's so cocky in the beginning, but by the end he's going "Oh my God, we're going to be screwed." It's going to be the character of Bannon that's really interesting to follow, as he goes through so many things in the war. And finally we have Webb--very straightforward, calm and cool.
GS AU: How do these characters interact with each other?
NC: We have different game mechanics to do that. First we have some in-game cinematics, and there are a couple on each map setting up scenarios and breaking up the middle of the game to tell you the story. We also have message boxes in missions for dialogue that's going on throughout the game. We also have two other game mechanics that will drive the story forward, but we're not talking about them right now.
GS AU: In the World of Conflict multiplayer, players have to take different roles, which then affect how much support units will cost them. Will there be roles in the single player game?
NC: No, we made a decision early on to not have the roles in the single player. So what we are doing are essentially faking roles in some maps. For example, if we have a helicopter map, so we'll give you the air role, but it's not really that because we allow you some ground-based vehicles as well. The cost is independent of the multiplayer.
GS AU: Will your single-player comrades' actions be scripted or dynamic?
NC: It's different on different maps. We will full-script them and let them loose depending on which map you are on. On some maps we are testing to have them totally free, but it's always risky, because they can of course decide to complete an objective you haven't got to yet. It's dangerous, but we're trying it out.
GS AU: One of the coolest things about the multiplayer demo was the ability to use a nuclear weapon. How will that fit into the single-player campaign?
NC: We can't say how it will exactly play out yet, but there is a nuke in the single-player campaign.
GS AU: How long will the single-player campaign go for?
NC: Final length hasn't been decided yet because it's still a work in progress. But I'll guess it'll be between 15 and 25 hours, depending on how hardcore you are. It depends on how many side objectives you complete and how agressive you are. As from now, we have 14 maps in single player.
GS AU: The single player game only focuses on US. Was there any discussion about including the Russians?
NC: We talked about it early on, but when push came to shove we decided to focus on one campaign. For me and many of the guys at Massive, the key line from World in Conflict is that war is coming home. And home for many is the US, because we are all so familiar with their culture, and we have seen it all in movies. So having the Russians invading the US, that was the core of the game in my opinion.
GS AU: Thanks for your time.
BwahahahahahahahahahhahahahaArticle wrote:The Russians then do a sneak attack on the western coast of the US, where they arrive on civilian ships like tankers, but they have military hardware with them. They invade Seattle, and it goes from there.
Oh, I will definitely play it. Because, frankly, I loved Red Dawn (yeah. I know. There's just something about American desire to be the underdog that just cracks me up) and the backstory isn't any worse than in that movieAce Pace wrote:It's a hilarious backstory, but frankly, there have been worse.
And you know what? The game utterly kicks ass and I'm having fun with it every night till the alpha ends, if it stays anything like this till the end, it will rock hard.
