PDA

View Full Version : The Problem With this "reality" game


moontribestudios
12-13-2010, 11:53 PM
If, indeed, this game is simply a simulation of what could have been, then the game is fine given that definition.

If we really are going to "realistic" and strategy etc. Then there are some problems to consider.

So far, though this game is interesting to play and fun, it's far from realistic. Why is that a problem? Well, people love their games, especially WWII one's, to have realistic traits. But so far, MoW has made the same mistake as others have, such as CoH. I love CoH but MoW can be so much better in regards to the realistic-ness and game play.

The biggest mistake they've made is in trying to balance the forces of Germany during that time with the opposing forces of that time. Historically, there wasn't a balance. That's what made our victory over Germany one to be celebrated. It was one where our combined forces were necessary and where our outnumbering forces and pervasive strategies were what won the war.

That said, here's my suggestion on how to balance this game realistically and historically.

1. Don't add post-war technologies, forces and equipment. Yes, so everyone who fights Germany is at a disadvantage right? To balance this, instead lessen the time it takes for Allies to bring in new forces. This would account for them having "numbers" to draw from while Germany will still have it's superior technology and equipment. Allies could outnumber them just the way they did in the war.

2. Don't increase the power of Allies' tanks, etc. Again, this can be accounted for in numbers. Allies should produce faster and they should also be able to deploy behind enemy lines, a tactic that weighed against Germany during the war and made a significant difference.

3. Strategies should be employed. One thing this game is missing is the small stuff like spies, communications, etc. Wouldn't it be great if both sides had use of chat and if one side was successful at gaining access to, say their Enigma codes, then we could listen to them and they would have no idea. Ah, maybe something for another game eh?

4. Lastly, the allies should be able to fight together. Two full teams of Russian and USA or U.K and USA or whatever against Germany. That's when things were "balanced".

Just some suggestions...feel free to add yours.

petemyster
12-16-2010, 02:34 PM
If, indeed, this game is simply a simulation of what could have been, then the game is fine given that definition.

If we really are going to "realistic" and strategy etc. Then there are some problems to consider.

So far, though this game is interesting to play and fun, it's far from realistic. Why is that a problem? Well, people love their games, especially WWII one's, to have realistic traits. But so far, MoW has made the same mistake as others have, such as CoH. I love CoH but MoW can be so much better in regards to the realistic-ness and game play.

The biggest mistake they've made is in trying to balance the forces of Germany during that time with the opposing forces of that time. Historically, there wasn't a balance. That's what made our victory over Germany one to be celebrated. It was one where our combined forces were necessary and where our outnumbering forces and pervasive strategies were what won the war.

That said, here's my suggestion on how to balance this game realistically and historically.

1. Don't add post-war technologies, forces and equipment. Yes, so everyone who fights Germany is at a disadvantage right? To balance this, instead lessen the time it takes for Allies to bring in new forces. This would account for them having "numbers" to draw from while Germany will still have it's superior technology and equipment. Allies could outnumber them just the way they did in the war.

2. Don't increase the power of Allies' tanks, etc. Again, this can be accounted for in numbers. Allies should produce faster and they should also be able to deploy behind enemy lines, a tactic that weighed against Germany during the war and made a significant difference.

3. Strategies should be employed. One thing this game is missing is the small stuff like spies, communications, etc. Wouldn't it be great if both sides had use of chat and if one side was successful at gaining access to, say their Enigma codes, then we could listen to them and they would have no idea. Ah, maybe something for another game eh?

4. Lastly, the allies should be able to fight together. Two full teams of Russian and USA or U.K and USA or whatever against Germany. That's when things were "balanced".

Just some suggestions...feel free to add yours.

You started off good but then your suggestions started turning assault squad into coh and started sounding really lame (deploying behind enemies lines and spy networks? Seriously? MoW is not that kind of game).

Crni vuk
12-18-2010, 06:37 PM
So far, though this game is interesting to play and fun, it's far from realistic. Why is that a problem? Well, people love their games, especially WWII one's, to have realistic traits. But so far, MoW has made the same mistake as others have, such as CoH. I love CoH but MoW can be so much better in regards to the realistic-ness and game play.


While one might easily get that idea, though Mow does not have any intention of beeing a simulation. Not even close to it. Letz face it Mow and Ass are still "arcade" real time strategy games. That doesnt mean they are bad or do not involve strategy. But they are far away from realism. There are many incorect features in the game which simply havnt been that way and I am not just talking about the things tweaked for gameplay. It starts with inacurate units and look. Well the last might be a bit nitpicking but when you see the standart Tiger 1 coming in its "gray" painting while that was changed very fast to yellow or some other colour pattern you know what I am talking about. Or the Panzer IV G beeing rather more the very rare Panzer IV F1 convereted to the F2 with its 50mm of armor when the Panzer IV G had in reality either 80mm or 50 + 30mm aplique armor. Just a few examples though.

I love simulations. But I doubt Mow would be a good one even if it tried to be such. The gameplay is simply made for fast gameplay and action. Simulations usualy require a different gameplay.

firearms2k
01-01-2011, 12:51 PM
Your first 2 suggestions are pretty good, and I myself stress nr.2(hurr) in your post. Seeing a Pershing to be on-par with a Tiger/Panther is just retarded, seeing how it came out 1-2 years later before the Tiger/Panther was already well established and in production.

Your third suggestion is terrible, tbh. How often do you actually communicate with your team in a standard game by typing? I don't really see it. And besides, if you're trying to get good communications between your team-mates, you're most likely already friends playing together, and speaking through a third party like Skype, or Vent etc. Strategies in this game is based on how you choose to use your wide selection of units, and partly why I really enjoy this game with its diverse selection of units with different qualities to take and puzzle together to create your battle plan.

To your fourth one, if you were to do that, then Germany would need their allieds too - like Hungary, Italy etc.

Crni vuk
01-10-2011, 01:37 PM
Your first 2 suggestions are pretty good, and I myself stress nr.2(hurr) in your post. Seeing a Pershing to be on-par with a Tiger/Panther is just retarded, seeing how it came out 1-2 years later before the Tiger/Panther was already well established and in production.

Why is that retarded ? What do you think the main intention behind the Pershing was ? The Pershing from its value is "just" on the level of a Tiger 1 or more, a Panther.

Both the Panther and Tiger 1 would have a decent chance of taking out the Pershing on usual combat distances. But same counts for the Pershing as its gun was potent enough to take the fight to the Tiger or panther on reasonable distances (that is with 1000 meters). With APCR the Panther might have a slightly better chance but it depends very much on the skills of the crew actually. There is even a chance for the Panzer IV to penetrate the turret of the Pershing well if close enough. And it has a reason why the Pershing was later classified with the Patton series as rather "medium armor". But just because its some "american" armor eventually doesnt mean it can not be on par with the Panther or Tiger. Particuilarly with the Tiger as it is more like a shoe box then a tank with any angled armor. To succesfully damage the Pershing in game you have to be close enough.

honsou
01-18-2011, 03:14 PM
This game is not far to be realistic and it's probably the only one available on WW2 close to this definition. I agree on the first 2 points "moontribestudios" listed in his post but I would add some suggestions..

If this game is supposed to be realistic there should be some "periods" to chose from..I mean why not adding "mid" and "late" period as settings for a game (ranked or 4fun), so the units available (and factions too) should be restricted to those that fought in those periods..you won't see anymore Pershing fighting against Tiger 1 and so on..

Instead of decreasing time needed for allied to spawn new units simply make them cost less but also with less skill: allied troops, even if well equipped, where not famous for their experience in wars, at least in mid period, you can't compare german army with usa..the only way to "balance" it is in numbers.

SpeedWolf
01-18-2011, 03:57 PM
1 2 and 3 i vote no. but 4 is a good idea.

Parkaboy
01-21-2011, 10:38 PM
I like the ideas, but they seem idealist and not very balanced. When making a game balance is one of the most important things achieve, and when all said and done I'll take balance over realism any day.

KnightFandragon
01-21-2011, 11:08 PM
This game is not far to be realistic and it's probably the only one available on WW2 close to this definition. I agree on the first 2 points "moontribestudios" listed in his post but I would add some suggestions..

If this game is supposed to be realistic there should be some "periods" to chose from..I mean why not adding "mid" and "late" period as settings for a game (ranked or 4fun), so the units available (and factions too) should be restricted to those that fought in those periods..you won't see anymore Pershing fighting against Tiger 1 and so on..

Instead of decreasing time needed for allied to spawn new units simply make them cost less but also with less skill: allied troops, even if well equipped, where not famous for their experience in wars, at least in mid period, you can't compare german army with usa..the only way to "balance" it is in numbers.

Tehre really should be a "Time Period" gamemode, this would be probably the most realistic. You would then have a use for the light stuff and yeah..I like that idea there, one of the GSM mods or something tried this and it was kinda neat. One thing also would be to add in the rarity factor to units through the use of the timer thing and cost as well as amount. While the Tiger and Panther, King Tiger and the like were very powerful and a total menace on the field there simply werent that many.....This should be represented by limiting the number of each of them to 1 for King Tiger, 2 maybe for each of the Tiger and Panther. A limited number kinda erases the need for a higher cost or long time cuz you can only have so many anyway, if your a moron with it, then its gone..... As for the Allied sides, you get rid of the Centurion, Pershing and IS3. Instead you make the German AT weapons work, give the Allied tanks cheap cost and more numbers and if you must give the Allieds a "Fantasy Tank" give the US the M4A3E2(76)W Jumbo...and make 1 or possibly 2 available, these good Allied tanks just plain werent as common as the game makes them. For the M4A2 and A1(76)W's you give them maybe 2 or possibly 3....The rest would be M4A1 75mm Shermans and Stuarts....all the junk. Then for the Panzer IV, it's gun should be deadly like it was, not this MoW bounce BS..... but the Germans get maybe 4 of them per player. This would stop the tank spamming and quite possibly make people learn to use infantry properly as they would know if they lose thier tanks they dont get many more. This would make Germans properly played prolly impossible to beat but with a well played Allied team the numbers would overcome the power of the Germans....

godman1986
02-02-2011, 10:07 PM
If, indeed, this game is simply a simulation of what could have been, then the game is fine given that definition.

If we really are going to "realistic" and strategy etc. Then there are some problems to consider.

So far, though this game is interesting to play and fun, it's far from realistic. Why is that a problem? Well, people love their games, especially WWII one's, to have realistic traits. But so far, MoW has made the same mistake as others have, such as CoH. I love CoH but MoW can be so much better in regards to the realistic-ness and game play.

The biggest mistake they've made is in trying to balance the forces of Germany during that time with the opposing forces of that time. Historically, there wasn't a balance. That's what made our victory over Germany one to be celebrated. It was one where our combined forces were necessary and where our outnumbering forces and pervasive strategies were what won the war.

That said, here's my suggestion on how to balance this game realistically and historically.

1. Don't add post-war technologies, forces and equipment. Yes, so everyone who fights Germany is at a disadvantage right? To balance this, instead lessen the time it takes for Allies to bring in new forces. This would account for them having "numbers" to draw from while Germany will still have it's superior technology and equipment. Allies could outnumber them just the way they did in the war.

2. Don't increase the power of Allies' tanks, etc. Again, this can be accounted for in numbers. Allies should produce faster and they should also be able to deploy behind enemy lines, a tactic that weighed against Germany during the war and made a significant difference.

3. Strategies should be employed. One thing this game is missing is the small stuff like spies, communications, etc. Wouldn't it be great if both sides had use of chat and if one side was successful at gaining access to, say their Enigma codes, then we could listen to them and they would have no idea. Ah, maybe something for another game eh?

4. Lastly, the allies should be able to fight together. Two full teams of Russian and USA or U.K and USA or whatever against Germany. That's when things were "balanced".

Just some suggestions...feel free to add yours.

Why Realistic At All? This Is a Game To Be Played For fun. Spie and comunication is not at place In War Games RTS:evil:. I agre That Faction Can Fight Togethr With Many diferent faction On Every team:-).