Fulqrum Publishing Home   |   Register   |   Today Posts   |   Members   |   UserCP   |   Calendar   |   Search   |   FAQ

Go Back   Official Fulqrum Publishing forum > Fulqrum Publishing > Men of War > Men of War: Assault Squad

Men of War: Assault Squad Sequel to the critically acclaimed real-time tactics game Men of War

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 01-01-2011, 11:51 AM
firearms2k firearms2k is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Stavanger, Norway
Posts: 19
Default

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.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 01-10-2011, 12:37 PM
Crni vuk Crni vuk is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 185
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by firearms2k View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 01-18-2011, 02:14 PM
honsou honsou is offline
Registered Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 1
Default

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.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 01-18-2011, 02:57 PM
SpeedWolf's Avatar
SpeedWolf SpeedWolf is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 349
Default

1 2 and 3 i vote no. but 4 is a good idea.
__________________
[CENTER]
===
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 01-21-2011, 09:38 PM
Parkaboy Parkaboy is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 53
Default

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.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 01-21-2011, 10:08 PM
KnightFandragon KnightFandragon is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: KRL HQ, Ontario Canada
Posts: 740
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by honsou View Post
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....
Reply With Quote
Reply


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 12:09 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2007 Fulqrum Publishing. All rights reserved.