Remember Wargame?

Name one developer who has actually improved their niche game with each installment.

Mount and blade

These games always seemed cool but were too fucking european for me. by that I mean they had awful weird UIs that lacked any polish and horrible tutorials.

I'm reserving judgement until we see Bannerlord. I get the feeling there's way less to that game than people are expecting.

total war

lol

lol nice

Soon

As in they removed it from Red Dragon. No idea if they ever added it back again.

Spiderweb Software
not counting the remakes

How much shitposting will it cause?

Zero
Pol doesnt care about niche, only mainstream

Have you ever paid attention to the in-game chat room, or even the comment of some of your teammates?

literally for warfare nerds who know 100 different types of 1 fucking APC that has an extra number or letter added to it just because they added headlight or something dumb

not saying i don't respect them but you gotta be autisitcly good to know what is what in them games

i'll just stick to World of Tanks and World of Warships

Yes. I was fucking good at it too.
Stopped playing because the fucking nato bias. dumb fucking frogs.

pretty much this

if all other RTS games are too casual for you, then wargame is your game. hyper-realism, absurdly large maps, super punishing and unforgiving gameplay - if that's what you want, then go play wargame!

seriously, it's a fucking great game and i admire the people who are able to play it. i can't do it, the absurd amount of multitasking and micromanagement required to not get shitstomped is too much for my old brain.

rip /wgg/

Wargame and red orchestra are the official games of Cred Forums
Every second player browses Cred Forums.

you really don't

the finite details only give you so much edge over the other guy, you can consistently trash the fuck out of people if you experiment with different tactics and cheese the hell out of everyone all the time.

>hyper-realism, absurdly large maps

look, let's not say things that aren't true. The maps are ridiculously tiny for the kind of warfare it tries to portray, specially ALB and it's corridor fuckfest. You got extremely bastardized/abstract range for all the missiles and rounds and every unit is blind and dumb as shit and helicopters behave like they're hanging on strings.

you mean /k/

Cred Forums is just edgy kids that can't be bothered to read instructions or wait.

>The maps are ridiculously tiny for the kind of warfare it tries to portray

yeah, but compare them to maps in any other RTS on the market and they are bigger by several orders of magnitude

and yeah, it's nowhere near actual reality, but it's by far one of the most realistic games ever made

it's not to say how it stacks to other RTSs(there aren't any contemporary ones), but there's definitely a massive disconnect between the depth of the unit stats and mechanics and all the tl;dr shit and what actually works in game, it doesn't MEAN anything when you can't really use all those dynamics to a meaningful extent.

it's just a somewhat normal RTS with really counterintuitive interface and a lot of masturbatory fluff.

>if you experiment with different tactics and cheese the hell out of everyone all the time

Teach me your ways wise master.

Sincerely,
low level shitter

spam all the low cost units and place them in annoying locations

use them as baits, trap and cannon fooder, and wage economic warfare on the idiot that buys the best units in the game

I don't remember the game, but I do remember that one webm.

Member AirLand Battle?

Do shock troops count as "low cost"? And what if my low cost units gets rolled by that top tier tank with frontal armor they can't penetrate?

...

general rule of warfare is to go around everything you can't go through

the game is basically about three things
1)speed
2)direction
3)posting and feinting

Which one?

How do I learn to get good at attacking with speed?

...

...

Iraq DLC after Israel Eugen

...

This was top jej

...

>gifs
OH COME ON

Yea the complexity of the game is massively overstated. Like dwarf fortress. That 100 page guide on the steam forums is literally nothing but the fans wanking themselves off to feel smart. The kind of faggots who quote sun tzu.
You only need to remember a few weapon types and what number makes them better. There's only a handful of units that actually do unique things.

Fuck i miss /wgg/ though, it was one of the best generals.

the movement orders actually mean a lot, you need to distinguish when they need to go full retard speed and when to send them attacking, mostly depends on how exposed you think they will be and when the enemy "would choose to be"

...

...

...

>Fuck i miss /wgg/ though, it was one of the best generals.
Uh, you're joking, right?

...

Here's a great resource for Cold War Eastern Block pics.

partisan1943.tumblr com/archive

...

...

It was the best

...

God. Quitters are why I stopped playing wargame. That shit was the fucking worst.

>Games that end three minutes in when some fucking retard gets his units killed and quits, causing a cascade quit

...

...

Anyone have that gif with the BMPT's slaughtering conscripts.

see

see, this is exactly what wargame is about

-what your unit's attack range is
-who spots the other first and thus can park their ass and fire with gusto
-who's got the better cover and firing position
-who can get to those better cover and firing positions first
-who can keep them the longer

Ah yea that's it.

What if you're in a nice position but you keep getting artilleried?

Just the other day i also had the town my marines were holding shelled and everyone got stunned before a massive wave came in.

...

Any Patch Leaks?

>Yea the complexity of the game is massively overstated.
This, there are only a handful of things you really have to know.
Any complex rts, like supreme commander, is infinitely harder to play/learn.

Then counterbattery them or have a reserve force behind your main force. Your enemy used artillery appropriately and you failed to react to it.

>Mi-24d Homer

Every time

>What if you're in a nice position but you keep getting artilleried?

that's what the "keeping them" part plays into

you don't. You move everything, every few minutes, don't just forget they're there, always rotate in and out, like a sniper after two or three shots.

...

It was the worst.

Some mortars just fire way to fast. Impossible to counter them unless you break through their lines.

They were in a town in the center of a zone, Should I have been moving some of them forward to attack instead?

Then learn how long between firing and bring in a plane just before it fires. A cheap bomber can be worth killing a battery.

1. Let them get intel on the exact position of your troops
2. Didn't get intel on the massive wave
3. Didn't move infantry
4. Didn't call in arty/helo/air support/armor counterattack on the massive wave

...

holy fuck yes

you put them in the most obvious "something might be hidden in here might as well arty just in case" spot.

...

...

>Any complex rts, like supreme commander, is infinitely harder to play/learn.

i disagree
i can play supcom semi-competently against people on FAF, but i cant get anything done in wargame

But they move them is the problem. By the time you see them firing they're already gone.
It's a tactic that only works in 10v10 but it's annoying as fuck.

...

Nope

Well i have the opposite problem. It's just a different kind of game.

Wargame is fun as fuck but it's so hard to get a decent game these days
Either you get stuck on a team against 3 or 4 incredible players who know how to cheese everything or you ARE on the team of incredible players who steamrolls the competition in 5 minutes
It's really a shame, too, most games are decided before it even starts
I hope the next Wargame makes efforts to fix this teamstacking bullshit

Then git gud. Learn to anticipate. Other people do this, it's not like I'm advising anything hard or impossible.

>tfw West Germany will always be gimped because muh coalitions
All I want is a Pzh2000 and IR AA, is that really too much to ask for?

I main West Germany, man, it's a great deck

>I am a one man team!
>my team sucks
every time

>God. Quitters are why I stopped playing wargame. That shit was the fucking worst.
this

Quitters should be banned from online until the game they left is over.

They released Israel units just recently

...

yeah, probably

supcom is a lot about economy, macro, and pumping out a constant stream of disposable units to gain and maintain map control, while wargame is all about controlling vision and getting the right units in position to hard-counter enemy units in that area.

why can't they add a path indicator so you can give movement waypoints instead of trusting the feriociously idiotic AI pathfinding

why can't they give the units a range cone or range radious

why can't they give unit groups bounding boxes to quick select them

...

Octobre 4th

...

Why would they do that when they can make DLC to sell for money?

...

RD has shit maps and less interesting deckbuilding than the first two games. the only thing it has on ALB is coalition decks, and Amphibious units. nothing else.

somebody play ALB with me fuck

...

...

Should have bombed his arty desu

>assholes who buy 3 fobs then lock them and never use them.

reminder that tactical is unironically the best game mode

BMPTs are my fucking favourite unit in the whole game

Wargame is actually pretty nice looking up close. Reminds me of World in Conflict that way.

Pubs who use up your FOBs for their arty spam are the only time it's acceptable to TK.

...

...

...

...

...

It's Finland and Yugoslavia after Israel. Thank god.

wish they added Italy and Turkey, they got real neat gear

this would be awesome

We Don't Listen To Our Stupid Fans' Suggestions, Inc.

Is this dlc breathing any new life into the playerbase?
How is the balance? I haven't played since they released norse dragons.

like what

all of Italy's funky APCs and the Mangusta

Turkey's full retard arsenal of literally everything

>israel being added
>going to be OP as fuck
>finns and yugos gonna be added
>not gonna be anywhere near as OP as israel
I love the blufor bias in this game

That's for the next game centering around the Mediterranean. See how they're already making people pay for their development with Israel and Yugoslavia? Finland is just appeasement for the ALB crowd who weren't massively wronged and the sizeable Finnish diaspora (why those autists love mil shit so much I'll never know)

It's a shame, since the Finns really got shat on with alb

>partisan1943.tumblr com/archive

thanks fampai

Now it's mostly USSR bias. Soviet units in RD normally outmatch their BLUFOR counterparts, just look at the units with autocannons...

>Now it's mostly USSR bias. Soviet units in RD normally outmatch their BLUFOR counterparts, just look at the units with autocannons...
>just look at the units with autocannons...

That's a load of malarkey user, the bushmaster has always outclassed the 2A42 in the game, unless a recent buff has changed that, and this is saying nothing about the monstrously overpowered scandinavian autocannons.

The only time soviets completely overpower NATO is in cat B armor. Cat A balance is so hilariously flip flopped that the only faction to get ballistic missiles and strategic air defense is the USA, and for some odd reason to balance this eugen decided to give the soviets an outrageous amount of top tier air assets, allowing them to asset stack and almost always gain unilateral control of the skies.

these games have been in my backlog for a while, I think I have money to buy one or two of them right nowso, which ones would you guys recommend?

>absurd amount of multitasking and micromanagement
Holy shit, you could pretty much wargame on an ipad.

that's sometimes true on paper but it's not true in practice. look at unit costs. quality red units are far too expensive. look at the T-64 series. similar tanks in NATO would cost 10-20 points less, no doubt. the blu bias is REAL

>israelis get an immensely diverse airforce, extremely overpowered tanks and some really interesting rocket artillery units

Gotta make em' OP so people buy them goy. The only unfortunate thing is that so fucking many people play NATO that I can almost never find a match with open slots for NATO so I am permanently confined to playing pact, especially after this DLC. Not sayin' they're bad, just boring as all fuck after my fiftieth consecutive game.

Red dragon is the only game that is alive enough to get any matches in. Buy it and save up for the jew DLC which is gonna be 7-10 bucks.

>backlog
No it's a multiplayer game. Don't bother with the campaign, the ai is beyond shit.

unfortunately the only game anyone can recommend in good faith is Red Dragon. ALB is completely dead. EE had a great campaign but the multiplayer balance patches broke it and it's mostly unplayable.

Red Dragon

That's pretty much it. Have friends on hand to do multiplayer because the only thing the AI is good at is charging at you with as much as they can afford

oh they're multiplayer focused? I just heard people saying how the units were varied and how the gameplay was complex and I was in a huge modern war RTS vibe after playing CoH1 and 2 for hundreds of hours.
Well I don't mind having to play mostly in multiplayer as I'm generally decent at RTS games, shame that means most of them are dead though, how different is each game? Do they take place in different periods of time?

>tfw buying four smerches and crushing anything and everything on the map in seconds

It was unholy, PACT artillery wasn't just unfair, it was completely fucking broken. Keep in mind EE was a trenchfest 80% of the time.

>select all units
>attack-move into enemy base
>hurr durr so easy

Jesus dude, you must just be really bad.
You're supposed to try new tactics if what you're doing isn't working

This is the worst scummery of the wargame franchise

I wish I could find friends to play with. Most matches I join are teamstacks where the most experienced players get on the same teams even if they didn't know each other.

welcome to wargame multiplayer

it's been this same exact cancer in every game and the devs refuse to address it with a basic matchmaking system

>hon hon let the community handle itself

I got lucky and found that a community I was already in and had friends at also just happened to have enough wargame players to consistently fill 3v3 games.

I've not even tried public games

>the absurd amount of multitasking and micromanagement

That's what killed it for me. Tanks that advanced a pixel too far and started getting whacked not retreating for instance.

It felt like I was the commander of every single separate unit and not the general of a whole force. Not fun.

They all take place in the cold war. Red dragon is 1959-1991. They all have different balancing, but once again the only active community is in red dragon.

RD has naval that is never used due to poor implementation causing tactical blobs and aircraft-carried anti-ship missile spam. RD also has some really even and meta balancing in category A (1980+) units.

The game plays nothing like CoH, if you want to invest in multiplayer find some videos. That being said, don't be afraid to try it, it's not nearly as difficult to get into as many say it is.

>most
Every single match is stacked. Every multiplayer battle larger than 1v1 is bullshit. There's a single 10v10 server that runs some autobalance script, but I haven't seen it for a while.

>the absurd amount of multitasking and micromanagement required to not get shitstomped is too much for my old brain.
You use drugs or something, mate? Wargame doesn't have any great amount of micromanaging in it. Not unless you stretch yourself out far too much.

They're all set during a cold war gone hot scenario although red dragon includes prototypes from the 90s.
Euro escalation is mostly in central europe the controls suck.
Airland battle adds in aircraft and takes place in scandinavia
Red dragon adds naval units and is set in the pacific/asia.
They're all pretty similar, EE has the biggest focus on campaign.

>still no map or campaign editor
>single player was okay in the first game, complete garbage in ALB, meh in RD with awful forced naval battles
>devs are only concerned with retarded esports crowd
>MP is nigh unplayable with ultra cancerous community, matches that take ages to start and absurd levels of team stacking

RIP Eugen, this could have been the game with an insane amount of content produced by modders, but instead you chose the path to obscurity to please the few tourneyfags.

Yea I was expecting it to be different, but that's not bad, I'm looking forward to playing it.

>RD also has some really even and meta balancing in category A (1980+) units.

Uh, what do you mean by that exactly? Is the balance kinda fucked because of that?

>try to find stacks cause pubbies never join ours
>enemy stack takes one look at our stats and leaves or kicks us
>have been fprced to play 10v10s and inhaus with borks ever since
>mfw

They really need to remove stats from viewing, this level of shit is really absurd. Possibly even worse than leavers.

What are you complaining about, not being able pubstomp in stacks? How do you even have fun playing with absolutely no challenge? Why don't you play against eachother?

>RD also has some really even and meta balancing in category A (1980+) units.

a.k.a. overbalanced and boring as fuck like 90%+ of RTS games

if I put a server up would anyone want to play? Wargame unfortunately has no password system so you'd have to add me and receive an invite

I think people are pretty excited about the Israeli DLC. The Netherlands DLC was a nice enough idea and people played about with it for awhile but I don't see it used much anymore in multiplayer games.

Balance has made the factions progressively more and more same-y since the release of the game. It used to be that asymmetrical balancing dominated the game, but since players didn't understand how to use units and nations to their strengths they instead decided to bitch on the forums which has resulted in nations being more or less the same across all boards in games with units from 1980+.

Although asymmetrical balance still holds true for many nations, eugens insistence on this form of balancing has effectively sterilized the USSR and the USA, and has turned many factions (specifically china and north korea) into utter trash that is incapable of competing against its asian blufor counterparts.

>tfw love Wargame
>finished all campaigns
>get my shit kicked in multiplayer every single time

now i'm too scared to play it with other people, wat do?

Play with your friends on your team

Learn while your friends got your back

Did you even read my post? I specifically state that we look for other stacks, as in other groups of guys that know each other that have set up a lobby to fight against.

yeah it does

>nato nooblets are excited for their next dose of fantasy meme units

fify

don't worry most people in multi are shitters. and by most i mean nearly all. if you actually want to git gud, watch pro replays from alb replay center

I see, that sucks, what I like the most about RTS games are varied factions, not only in aesthetics but in gameplay.
So 1980+ units can be blocked in multiplayer matches, right? Do most people play like that?

Don't fucking encourage that shit.

Super duper units like the USA holy trinity ruin this game

I was thinking about pub stacks, but now that I think of it, I'm not at all certain if they're common at all.

YUGOSLAVIA?!

Guess I'm buying the game!

youtube.com/watch?v=Jd49buQVUGc

I actually meant autoloader - but I'm talking more about the quantity of auto loaders rather than quality. Just see forums.eugensystems.com/viewtopic.php?f=189&t=47156&sid=e16d69c6ab54bf17c80c14e7bf919fc1 BLUFOR only has a handful.

I'd agree about US AD being massively unbalanced, but anyone that plays anything other than US, like myself that mains a commonwealth General or UK armoured deck, the mid-tier AD weapons they have are no match whatsoever to REDFOR air.

The BLUFOR tanks might have better armour protection (UK particularly) but the REDFOR armour outmatches them with its range and ATGM weapons, not to mention the diversity of the armour itself.

The issue is that everything below the super units is pretty much just a gray mass of average. They can't compete with the super units in any real way or form.

>easily counterable shit
>all expensive as fuck so killing it deals a blow to the enemy
Git fucking gud

>game is balanced around nato having superior/higher quantity air units.
>pact with better anti air.
>they give US the best anti air in the game on a platform with wheels.
>pact equivalents nowhere to be seen.
Fuck those french kikes.

>easily counterable
Yeah, unless used by a good player. Patriots are the rapemachines of a deep AA-net, ATACMS is the best counter-artillery you can find and Longbows used to be superior, but AA-buffs in RD made them less so. Still good at checking enemy armoured offenses.

1980+ (or Category A) is generally the most played selection simply because it includes all the units in the game. Yes, it can be blocked and there are some servers/custom matches that do so. You can also limit decks to type (such as armored) or whether or not coalitions should be allowed versus single nations.

It's the easiest mode to play since you can invest in only a handful of really good units and perform really well if you know what you're doing.

>atacms
>easily counterable
>patriot
>more range than most SEAD, also on wheels so can move fast
>easily counterable.
If you're playing against a fucking idiot maybe.
>blufor now has 2 ballistic missiles
>red still has none

correction
>game balanced around NATO having better quality units
>eugen makes Pact units COST THE SAME PRICE

How hard is the game to get into?

I plaeyd some 50 hours of RUSE online.

Is there still a dedicated player base?

>Tochka has been in service since '76
>Still not in game

>How hard is the game to get into?
Play the tutorial, use some common sense, but never ever try to think the game is realistic. It will bite you in the ass.

>Is there still a dedicated player base?
Yes, but most games are stacked 10v10 where victory is 99% dependent on which team you are on.

>ATACMs
>easily counterable

nigga u wat, the ATACMs is the single most difficult unit to counterbattery in the game since it only fires once and can move immediately afterwards. The only way to CB it is if you either managed to sneak a recon unit to their FOB staging area or if they're fucking retards and don't move their artillery units after firing.

>fantasy meme units
yfw Israeli arty SEAD will change the game

>few patches ago USSR finally has a cost efficient medium tank, the T-64BM
>blufor babbies whining gets it nerfed to 100 points
>only cost efficient USSR fighter, the MIG-25PD got its veterancy nerfed, while blufor has 5 nations with 100-120 point fighters that you can get 2-3 of in Elite
>all while blufor has AA equal to red or stronger

I mean fuck I wouldn't mind Redfor having a much weaker airforce if they had superior air defence to make up for it, but blufor has meme units like Otomatic and Patriot.

Surely the Kikes won't get radar-targeting artillery shells? If so, I demand Finns get mines, both EFP, blast and AP. I want to mine roads so that any HATO tanks moving on them either blow up or are disabled.

Veterancy and price of PD nerfed* I mean

All I want is for them to add the percentage of games quit to the stats viewer.

That would actually be useful.

How in the fuck would that be useful? 99% of players quit games when defeat is absolutely certain and staying on would be a waste of time. Especially in tactical matches.

In that case I agree, soviet armor normally crushes NATO armor simply due to the fact that they can kite with ATGMs whereas NATO cannot. Also manual loader stuns on first hit really fucks NATO tanks, which is absurd considering pact tanks can not even get autoloader jams.

All things considered though, the game is rarely ever decided by purely armor and NATO gets access to the atacms and the longbow along with many other units, whereas pact units, specifically the smerch, have been nerfed into the ground.

So is it worth it buying it?

It it more like that game... what was it called... the one where it was supposed to be an MMO RTS... you picked like artilery, aircraft, infantry, etc...

I can't remember WIC Or something...

Yes it's World in Conflict is it like that?

>HATO
*NATO

No, most pubs quit the instant they actually start to lose. Every time I play I see it almost as often as not - they try some stupid cheesy bullshit and when it gets effortlessly countered they quit and find a new lobby and try it again. Then because their teammate quit the rest of the team quits as well.

It's a little like World in Conflict, only with a far worse soundtrack, larger maps and slightly more realistic gameplay.

youtube.com/watch?v=zGWxmCZO0y8

Yes and with your system those latter quitters who give up because they have no chance would suffer as well.

>implying redfor tank ATGMs apart from Invar ever hit unless using an armoured deck

I'm pretty sure it's already been confirmed, standby for the uncounterable counter to radar-AD

Maybe if 75% of matches you play end up "having no possible chance to win" you're the shitter and I don't want to play with you.

Leaving the instant you don't think you'll win is the video game equivalent of flipping the table and storming off.

None of the Redfor ATGMs ever fucking hit and even if they magically do, it takes fucking 5 missiles or more to actually get a kill.

Guess I'll get it on Steam Sale!

This, I have had more games than I can count last literally two minutes because some fucking moron lost his opening because he was trying something utterly retarded and rage quit instead of either trying something that was not cheese or rebuilding the tattered remains of his force to establish a defensive line to at least contest the sector.

And when one quits the entire team begins to cascade quit since they cant bear the idea of losing since a lost teammate is a essentially a lost flank in the game and most cannot recover from an open flank.

No. I play 10v10 matches and tend to join when the lobby is almost full, so I'm always on the non-stacked team. I play until the enemy is riding into our last cap zone and I've no units left to fight with. I still tend to quit early though, even if it's only by a few minutes. I'm not really interested in seeing my stats from a complete shit-stomp.

>I play until the enemy is riding into our last cap zone and I've no units left to fight with.
Ah, if it's so hopeless surely it's not going to take that long then.

No, people who quit "when the game is truly over" are universally liars denying the blatant reality literally anyone who plays the game can see - that this shit:
happens all the fucking time and makes public games not worth playing.

All visible stats did was make people more likely to want to quit because muh stats.

If "everyone" quits all the time, then surely these stats won't mean anything. So what is it you're afraid of? No, what you're afraid of is that if people knew how you were going to act, they wouldn't want to play with you. That should tell you something, you fucking child.

I was talking specifically about armor-only servers. Sides' its not about the damage, its about the stun and the kite. Doesn't matter if it takes like six missiles, NATO tanks still cant fire back, giving you all the time in the world to harass them. As they move forward you move back, which will cause them to overextend to pursue your force and then they become vulnerable to flanks, aircraft and all sorts of nastiness.

I have abused this specifically on armor-only servers more times than I can count.

>Leopard and Chieftain from 1974 has 10% more accuracy than a Modernized T-55 from 1993

>1979 AMX-32 has the same accuracy has a T-90

Bravo eugen

The smerch is still an interesting unit, it might not be potent enough to be a decisive battle winner but it can certainly help and causes a lot of grief to BLUFOR, especially when used to deny wood blocks or towns.

The issue is ridiculously stacked teams that lead into matches with absolutely no chance of victory due to the team consisting of retards and quitters. There is no point in continuing the game when your last units are being taken down on one flank and the enemy is literally already in your base on the other side of the map. Maybe you should stop playing on stacked teams and you'd realise how pointless it is.

>ad hominem
No, not everyone who is sick of being quit on by fucking pubs is a teamstacker. Some of us, get this, are fucking tired of pubs quitting the instant something goes wrong, and want to identify who those fuckers are and boot them.

>I only quit when the game is truly lost!
Unless an unusually high number of your games are "truly lost," what are you afraid of exactly?

While I agree that the smerch is still potent it fulfills the same purported armor-killing role as the ATACMs, just with more rockets and a larger spread, allowing the enemy to move their units out of danger before any real damage is done. By the time the enemy realizes an ATACMs missile is on its way it is often too late to do anything, whereas the smerch often fails to kill anything other than lightly armored targets.

These days I take the BM-27 instead, since it kills light armor dead just as well and has a decent stun radius not to mention the fact that it comes in two per card and is cheaper to both field and supply to boot.

I've always wondered why there aren't Thai units in red dragon. Thailand has always sided with the US in any Asian conflicts since WWII. I supose it's redundancy, since most stuff would be the same as other NATO units. The only unique units would be the Stingray tank, the Type 85 AFV, and the RPS-001

And unless there's some system to determine the situation where the quit occurs, it's going to force players to sit around pointlessly until the end of a match that can't be won, or even brought anywhere close to a draw.
I would love a system that marked people who quit in the first 10 minutes, or people who quit with piss-poor stats, maybe even something that looks at the battle situation and determines whether surrender is a valid option. That would be great, but a simple system that just flags everyone who quits before the match is over would be shit.

Pretty much all matches I play are truly lost, since I join 18/20 player lobbies and so inevitably end on the non-stacked team full of Russians and other subhumans. I hold my flanks, I fight to the end, but when the other 2/3rds of our team's defence doesn't exist anymore, I really don't see the point. The most I can do is start shit-talking the HATO players for stacking their team.

Such a system merely says that quitting after 10 minutes is okay. Again, all I want is a quit percentage. If you think everyone will have a natural percentage of quit matches, then fine, only worry about people who have a higher than average quit rate.

Literally the only people served by hiding these stats are serial quitters who go from game to game, qutiting two minutes in and finding a new match until they get matched up against a shitter.

SCS Software (the Euro Truck Simulator people)? Paradox?

>Such a system merely says that quitting after 10 minutes is okay. Again, all I want is a quit percentage. If you think everyone will have a natural percentage of quit matches, then fine, only worry about people who have a higher than average quit rate.
So everyone WHO DOESN'T STACK TEAMS, you double-nigger. Victory in 10v10 matches is literally about stacking teams. If you stack teams, you get a +50% win rate, if you don't, you get a below 50% rate. That is it. That's all there is to it. If you really haven't noticed that, you're either playing on stacked teams or have some real issues with pattern recognition.

Then maybe stop playing with shitters and then quitting on them for being shitters.

No user, I think you are the shitter and you're afraid your shitter behavior will mean nobody will play with you.

>Then maybe stop playing with shitters
So, stack teams, you mean?

I don't care about win percentage, I care about quit percentage. Are you even reading posts before replying to them?

The other guy is right. You're a shitter who's feeling defensive because you rely on your behavior not being recorded.

>tfw Russian and perform better than a solid 90% of the wargame community

Even after the wave after wave of nerfs against pact I still persist. I don't think I've gone negative more than ten times out of hundreds of games.

>I know these specific games have stacked teams. I joined them anyway, and that's why I'm justified in quitting!
I mean don't join games you know are stacked, and then quit when the stack overruns you.

>Let me win or I quit!
Yes, you are a shitter.

it's a meme you dip

And 90% of people quit before the match itself ends. Quit games show up on the defeat percentage.

Congratulations, you're an anomaly. Most Russians are shit at whatever games they play.

>I mean don't join games you know are stacked, and then quit when the stack overruns you.
All games are stacked, user. You either join the stack, or oppose it. I join on the opposing team because I find no fun in stomping shitters.

>Let me win or I quit!
>Yes, you are a shitter.
For quitting when the game is pretty much already over? If that's what you think, then ok. I'm not going to waste my time doing nothing but being overrun when more than half of my team has already left the game and I can't afford to purchase any actual units. You might adopt the same point of view if you only played the game against stackers.

>pubstomper crying about leavers
anyone who stays when losing 2-1 in destruction is doing you a SERVICE and you should thank them for doing you a fucking favor.

>And 90% of people quit before the match itself ends.
Oh, good, then your quit percentage won't stand out. What is it you're worried about, then?

Isn't this only a potential problem for you if you think your stats will stand out somehow? If you think "90%" of people ragequit all their matches, then what's the issue?

THE FOURTH ARMY OF THE WORLD

>quit games show up on defeat percentage

They actually didn't for an extremely long time, and iirc that was only added this year in a patch.

>They actually didn't for an extremely long time, and iirc that was only added this year in a patch.
Ah, that explains it. I stopped playing Red Dragon before that patch, apparently, because it didn't when I got too fed up with the cascade quits every fucking match. 10v10s always turn into 10v2s and 4v4s turn into 4v1s. It made the game unplayable.

>Anyone who doesn't like leavers is a pubstomper
But that's not how it works user. No, I dislike leavers because I don't like my teammates ragequitting because the match is "truly lost" two fucking minutes in when someone's strike eagle or command tank got killed.

But the thing is, user, since teams are always stacked, the playerbase will be divided, like it already is to:
>players with good statistics (stackers)
>players with poor statistics (non-stackers)
So what I'm afraid of, is that in in the end I couldn't enter any fucking games, except ones saturate with quitters, since any good host will kick those with a higher quit percentage, meaning all the non-stackers.

>because the match is "truly lost" two fucking minutes in when someone's strike eagle or command tank got killed.
That's not what truly lost means, user. What truly lost is 80-90% of your combat strength is destroyed and the enemy is advancing into your last cap zone in strength. An actual, decisive defeat.

So host your own match and kick all the non-leavers then. If there are so many people like you, who quit every match they play but for totally legit reasons honest!!!!, then surely this won't be a problem.

It does absolutely nothing to remedy the problem, since it only factors into losses and not a separate %quit stat.

And even then I'm not sure if it always works correctly, since you can ALT-F4 and avoid the loss.

>and kick all the non-leavers the
What?
>If there are so many people like you, who quit every match they play but for totally legit reasons honest
Yes, that's exactly what I said, you strawmanning fuckface. All this time I've been talking solely about myself. Kill yourself.

That's what you say, and yet every other fucking 4v4 match ends well before the game is actually decided.

Sorry, but if you claim every single match you play is universally a stomp, and you know it's a stomp, and they always overrun you every single time, I just don't believe you.

Not that guy user, but you're being ridiculous. There's a difference between bailing when the game is nearly finished and the enemy has almost taken your FOB sector and leaving cause your opening didnt work.

As I've said oh so many times, I play 10v10 rounds. I haven't played 4v4 in a really long time now.

>I'm the only one!
Yes, I'm sure you have all these totes legit reasons for quitting every match. You're not just a ragequitting shitter afraid nobody would play with you if they could see how you're going to treat them.

Horseshit. Every quitter swears they only quit when the game is "truly lost," yet every match has quitters drop within minutes of the start. It's "let me win or I quit."

10v10s just become 10v2s. I've seen that happen so many times I just stopped playing 10v10s.

If you can argue in utter sincerity that nobody would want to play with you if they had accurate statistics on how you play, that calls for some self-examination.

You're right. I don't want to play with you if every match you play is "truly lost" because you, for some weird reason, exclusively play with pubs against stacked teams and then quit when the pubs inevitably lose.

>Every quitter swears they only quit when the game is "truly lost,"
Your mother is a whore, your father fucked you in the ass when you were a boy and you're a sub-100 IQ faggot. Just because you say something is X, doesn't make it so.

actually you're the one that is hard to believe. you say you can't believe anyone who's disagreeing with you, but I don't believe that you have never quit a lost game, nor that you magically know the circumstances of every single game in which someone has quit

you should probably head back to your TS, your next 10 player stack is starting soon.

What if profiles had both a quit percentage and mean-time-to-quit?

That seems like it would only screw over serial quitters who quit a few minutes into a match.

>biggest popular complaint about wargame is the community
>mfw reading the last half of this thread
no wonder

So I should be a shitter like you who enjoys pub stomping casuals and Russians. Yay. What a truly wonderful game. How about Eugen create a functional matchmaking system that doesn't lead into this worthless situation.

>I don't believe that you have never quit a lost game
I haven't. Why should I? I'm not a small child who only has fun if he's allowed to win.
>magically know the circumstances of every single game
I don't need to. It's a percentage. If your percentage isn't much higher than most people, then fine. If it is much higher, I don't want to play with you, and I don't really care what bullshit excuse you have for it.

...

>that apache humping the shinnok
lewd

that's great because I don't want to play with you either, so I guess ultimately we're on the same page

Again with the retarded fallacy that anyone who doesn't like how every game ends in mass quit is a team stacker.

No. I don't like every game ending in a mass quit because I usually play in pub matches, which rapidly gets unrewarding when pubs can't be assed to actually play the fucking game. I want to know if my teammates are going to play the game or not, because if they're not, then I'll find a different lobby.

I dont see what you can possibly accomplish when there is literally ten minutes left on the timer and there is a 2000+ point gap separating you and the enemy, with all your combat assets destroyed and the enemy marching into your base.

Staying and moving your last CV around only extends the inevitable and is often more annoying to the enemy than it is honorable.

Although I have literally never in my life quit a game, I can recognize and understand the reasons why people quit in the last few minutes of a match. Once again, there is a difference between quitting two minutes in and quitting when there is two minutes left and you cannot possibly pull a win out of your ass.

And if those stats were visible you wouldn't have to put up with people like me who think games should be played to completion. Isn't that wonderful? It's almost like this solution allows both sides to choose, and the only reason anyone would oppose it is fear that people would choose ntot o play with you if they saw how you act.

Meta shitters, quitters, tryhards, and memelords in chat often ruin the game.

WELCOME TO WARGAME FRIEND

>Staying and moving your last CV around only extends the inevitable and is often more annoying to the enemy than it is honorable.
Nobody suggested this.

>all your combat assets are destroyed and the enemy marching into your base
Ah, then it won't take too long then, if it's so "truly lost." So why the hurry to quit?

>there is a difference between quitting two minutes in and quitting when there is two minutes left and you cannot possibly pull a win out of your ass.
So at what point is it acceptable to quit? Halfway? Two thirds? Ten minutes? Twenty? Sixty? That's a difficult question to answer, and moreover, if you ask ten different players they'll probably have twelve different answers.

the fact that WG shares winrate % is great. I still think you being delusional if you think the two players in examples like this one are equals. don't be so black-and-white.

I only played the first war game, but I don't remember the community being this shit.

But that's not even rage. I was just making a point about how saying things are something doesn't make them so. I*m sure user had a lovely chaste mother, a good father and he himself is an intelligent individual.

>Ah, then it won't take too long then, if it's so "truly lost." So why the hurry to quit?
If it's truly lost, then why stay in the game?
How about you give me an actual argument for it.

>So at what point is it acceptable to quit?

We've been over this. When there is absolutely no realistic way to salvage a victory from the jaws of defeat.

And I'm not talking about subjectives here, I'm talking about mathematics. If you have less than 5% of the game's time left on the timer and you're facing a 2000+ point gap (assuming 2v2) and you have no more combat assets remaining then it is safe to say that you may quit to save the enemy team some time.

It is absolutely NOT acceptable to quit when you have lost a sizeable portion of your beginning force during the opening attack.

Because it's polite to accept a defeat gracefully instead of flip the table and storm off. It's fun to actually carry out a win rather than have the enemy team suddenly decide they can't be bothered to play the game the instant they decide they won't win, which contrary to your assertion that this totally only happens at the very dire end (which still somehow takes ten minutes or more to play out, somehow, despite having no combat assets and no points. Somehow.), it actually happens all the fucking time sometimes just minutes into a match.

And, as I'm sure you're about to argue, if most people disagree with that assessment that it's rude, then what are you afraid of? Most people won't pay attention to your quit rate.

>We've been over this. When there is absolutely no realistic way to salvage a victory from the jaws of defeat.
So it IS "let me win or I quit." You're just wording it nicer.

>save the enemy some time
Don't even start with that bullshit. No, it's because you're losing and would rather storm off than let the enemy have their fun. No, you're not doing them a favor. You're doing it for yourself, and fuck you for pretending otherwise. You're not some polite gentleman gracefully bowing out, you're flipping the table and storming off.

I can guarantee you've never, ever, ever once asked the enemy team if they'd rather you bowed out or stayed. I can guarantee that because shitters like you don't genuinely care about anyone else's fun, neither your enemy nor your teammates, and I'm sick of playing on the same team with shitters like you.

>Ausfag fun jet
STREWTH!

>Because it's polite
So I should waste my time just to make the other team feel better about having spectators when they destroy a few CVs and take a few FOBs. Wow, really good reason, totally convinced me not to quit.

Maybe people wouldn't consider teamstacks the only way to play if it wasn't the only way to ensure your teammates will actually stick around and play.

Maybe people wouldn't teamstack if EUGEN FUCKING MADE A PROPER MATCHMAKING SYSTEM. Goddamn incompetent frog cunts.

Treat people how you want to be treated, faggot. I like it when the enemy team I'm beating doesn't flip the table and storm off, so I don't do it to others.

Your argument boils down to you don't want people to know your quit rate because you don't think anyone would want to play with you if they know how you behave. In which case, yes, I totally agree, I want visible quit rates precisely so I don't have to play with shitters like you.

Teamstacker here. Very amused with this conversation.

This is like 80% of the reason I almost exclusively play with friends. Sorry not sorry, it's just no fun playing with pubs on your side.

>Treat people how you want to be treated, faggot
I'm completely fine with the enemy quitting after they've suffered a decisive defeat. I have no interest in them staying in game when they can no longer actually play the game.

>Your argument boils down to you don't want people to know your quit rate because you don't think anyone would want to play with you if they know how you behave
I don't really think most people mind those who play until they can no longer play, then surrender after a gg message.

so after israel they're also doing yugo and finland?

wtf it takes them like 3 months to get something out the door. those lazy frogs better be making wg4 on the side

>I don't want to play with quitters
>proposes a mechanic that will make quitting and lobby leaving even worse than it currently is

The fact that people want to cherry pick their match is precisely why this game is unplayable without bringing our own stack.

>when they can no longer actually play the game.
The situation your describing is so close to the end of the match quitting doesn't really save you any time anyway. This is why it's obvious how full of shit you are. If you and your team have "No" combat assets and "no" points, bullshit this game is going to last even 30 seconds longer.

>I don't really think most people mind those who play until they can no longer play, then surrender after a gg message.
Then stop dodging this question and answer it:
What are you afraid of, then? If "most people" don't mind your quitting habits, why do you insist on hiding them? Again, this is why it's obvious you're full of shit.

I feel like you're not reading my posts, I keep saying over and over again that it is acceptable to quit only in the last few minutes of the match when nothing can be done to positively affect your team.

It's almost as though you're ignoring three quarters of the talking points cause you're an insufferable fucking faggot.

But hey, what do quitters like me know? I mean I've only never actually quit out of a game of wargame ever, but fuck I guess its "let me win or I leave hurrdurr" anytime I may bring up a time when it may be acceptable for an enemy to leave a game.

the memelords are the best bit about wargame

I fucking love this game dispite being total shit

You're right user. The autistic retard crying about quitters can't separate people who leave early and the people who concede. Don't bother trying to help him.

>Wanting to play with people who will actually play the fucking game is "cherrypicking" now
No, this mindset is why the game is unplayable.

And don't even pretend quitting only happens when the game is not only losing, but utterly unplayable, with literally nothing left. That's horseshit and anyone who has ever played more than a match or two in Wargame knows that's horseshit.

So it's not "Let me win or I quit," it's "Once I know I'm not going to win, I'll quit." Yeah, that's definitely different. I definitely see the difference here.

All I'm doing is wording your exact attitude in an honest, but unflattering light. Again, it's utter horseshit that games only end in mass cascade quits in the "last few minutes," and anyone who has ever played the game knows how full of shit that is.

>The situation your describing is so close to the end of the match quitting doesn't really save you any time anyway. This is why it's obvious how full of shit you are. If you and your team have "No" combat assets and "no" points, bullshit this game is going to last even 30 seconds longer.
Eh, no. I'm really using too complex terminology for you here, aren't I?
>The term decisive victory refers to a military victory in battle that definitively resolves the objective being fought over, ending one stage of the conflict and beginning another stage.
Once a decisive victory is reached, the enemy can no longer reach its objective, or succesfully defend it. The stragglers of course can still cause casualties and there may still be fighting, but the objective, which in this case is simply victory, has been reached.
There may be a good 5, or even 10 minutes (if you hide) of the game left.

>What are you afraid of, then? If "most people" don't mind your quitting habits, why do you insist on hiding them? Again, this is why it's obvious you're full of shit.
Except I said I would love a system that shows quit statistics based on when that quit occured, instead of clumping everyone together. Quitting when you lose your starting units to a retard rush is not the same thing as surrendering when you have actually lost the game and 8/10 of your team has quit.

>So it's not "Let me win or I quit," it's "Once I know I'm not going to win, I'll quit." Yeah, that's definitely different. I definitely see the difference here.
No, you dingaling. It's "once I can no longer fight, I'll quit". Victory is determined in the lobby. The stacked team wins atleast 95% of the time, yet we still play those matches instead of quitting at the start.

>it's utter horseshit that games only end in mass cascade quits in the "last few minutes," and anyone who has ever played the game knows how full of shit that is.
Missed that bit. Nobody ever claimed that's how they end. What people are claiming is that the non-quitting players who don't fuck up at the start and ragequit may very well still quit at the end of the round when they've finally lost all their units after putting up a good defence. Lumping these people together with the shits who quite in the first 10 minutes is bullshit.

>Eh, no. I'm really using too complex terminology for you here, aren't I?
Don't confuse insults for answers. That didn't actually address why you're full of shit at all.

>if you hide
Again, who but you is talking about CV hiding?

>The stacked team wins atleast 95% of the time
Then don't play stacked matches. Intentionally joining a match you know you will lose, then quitting because you're losing too much, still sounds like "let me win or I quit."

>Then don't play stacked matches.
You're telling me to not play the game at all, you know.

>Nobody ever claimed that's how they end.
see
and pretty much every other post I've replied to.

tl;dr: Read the fucking thread.

More than 50% of matches I play end in cascade quits, or at the very least may as well have ended in terms of actually posing a challenge when three players quit in a row and the last guy is obviously overwhelmed in a 4v1 or whatever.

Sod off.
>mass cascade quits in the "last few minutes,"
LAST FEW MINUTES. That's the core part of the fucking post right there. Nobody ever fucking claimed the mass cascades happen in the last few minutes. We're literally talking about the sorry wankers who stay behind to fight those 2v10 or 1v4 matches and then quit because they've lost all their units.

How can you not distinguish between these two groups of people? Are you literally retarded?

Ban quitters for the remainder of the match they quit from.

You quit a game that was over anyway? You'll be ready before the next 10v10 starts anyway.

You quit a match like a shitter the instant something goes wrong? Fucking good, nobody wants to play with you anyway.

This should separate the people who see no need to drag out an obviously lost game that will be over imminently anyway, and the people who just want to quit any game they won't easily win.

It's "When it is pointless to continue the fight I will quit" you greasy goddamn nigger.

There is absolutely no reason at all whatsoever to extend the game by less than five minutes by staying alive with your one CV and handfull of supply trucks.

Also I almost never see cascade quits in the last few minutes because the parameters are almost never met for that to happen. Early quits are bullshit but they're not what I'm talking about.

That's a good idea, to be honest, but I think there still needs to be something extra to mark those people who quit early. Could be something as simple as an early quit percentage in the stats, with a red marker by their name to warn others if they do it excessively.

>There is absolutely no reason at all whatsoever to extend the game by less than five minutes by staying alive with your one CV and handfull of supply trucks.
The only way you're going to last five minutes with a CV and no combat assets is if you're deliberately CV hiding at the end to drag a game out. If the enemy's already taken your base zones and shit, you really should have no problem with this unless you deliberately sent your CV off to be hidden somewhere.

I don't know why CV hiding has come up more than once when literally nobody here is advocating for that.

a quitter stat in their personal stats page

this should be standard in ANY competitive multiplayer game

it isnt really a punishment anyway just a stat

>I don't know why CV hiding has come up more than once when literally nobody here is advocating for that.
Well, I do know the real reason why, but I'd like to hear your justification, at least. Pic related.

>it isnt really a punishment anyway just a stat
this.

the ONLY time it's a punishment is if your stat is so noticeably out of the average range that people feel a need to avoid you. In which case you probably deserve it and you're a shitter. If it isn't, then what's the problem?

Surrendering should not be the same thing as quitting though. There need to be actual acceptable conditions for surrender.

That is essentially what everyone is arguing about. Even if they have combat assets what does it matter if they leave and there is less than ten minutes left? You still get to play the entire match for fucks sake. Don't ask one guy to stay behind when his entire fucking team leaves so you can clobber him exclusively.

Everyone can agree that niggers who quit early on in matches are worthless scumbags who deserve only the deepest pit in hell.

I had bought EE sometime in the distant past but never played it, should I play the campaign now (mp is ded it seems)? Is it fun? Someone was mentioning how the later patches broke the campaign, is this true

>You still get to play the entire match for fucks sake.
No, you don't. You miss the ending. As in, the part where your strategies come to fruition and carry you to victory.

The fruition is the climax of the battle, ie. the moment you destroy your enemies' forces and overrun their positions. The ending is just an irrelevant clean-up operation.

surrender stat too
if you really think there's a difference

I learn that in Go (the jap table top game) you can concede a match so if there are real life instances for such an action there can be one for online games

so
surrender stat
quit before match over stat

I remember doing nothing but going into the big matches with all MLRS decks, sitting far back and just completely coating one side of the map with rockets over and over until I was dead. I would do nothing to help my team, but boy did it look cool as fuck at ground level to see all these fucking rockets raining down.

It is true. Prepare for hell.

can someone post the webm of the "actual real time footage of russian forces invading ukraine" and its just a shitload of t34s getting held up by a foot bridge

>No, you don't. You miss the ending. As in, the part where your strategies come to fruition and carry you to victory.

Okay, it seems that after perhaps six other anons telling you otherwise you STILL don't understand. We're not talking about an even match here where you're in a bitter fight and the last few minutes of the match will be the deciding factor and you pull off something brilliant and the enemy leaves robbing you of your hard earned victory.

We're talking about a game that you have been winning the ENTIRE time and you have been effortlessly steamrolling the enemy team to the point where you are in their last sector and they have NO UNITS LEFT.

This has been the argument the whole fucking time. From multiple fucking people. You have been told this on more than one occasion from more than one person. Are you literally, actually autistic? It's okay if you are user but holy fuck please save us the goddamn headache and state it from the beginning.

>if you really think there's a difference
Mostly in competitive games, where one side will surrender once the game has reached its obvious conclusion. Nothing wrong with telling your opponent gg wp and surrendering graciously.
It would partially help in larger, non-competitive team matches as well, where the team, or what's left of it could vote to surrender. Lots of competitive games have this feature and I don't see anything wrong with adding it to Wargame.

Anyone got a link to that vid of a tripfag getting absolutely BTFO in a match then having an autistic meltdown in chat?

there've been times (in other games) where i've gained much more stats wise despite losing the match
it's a balance thing where you trade gaining other stats for a surrender stat increase
really it's a personal choice

I abuse blufor on a daily basis.

>come back to wargame after a long hiatus
>assemble a rickety deck
>first game I play I roast an enormous force of abrams with migs cause the dumbass severely overextended

STILL GOT IT BABY

M I G - 2 7 STRONG

Yeah, I guess it depends on the game and gamemode. Capture and hold type of games usually allow even the loser to gain kills and may even allow him to lose with the better stats, since the victor might have had to assault positions, dying a lot.

Goddamn meme units.

kurva

Fucking glorious.

This is just as good as Cred Forums beats reddit in Tribes

I finally got back into it a bit last week after a fucking long hiatus bc pre game nerves

The community is still super cancerous, some dude on my team told me (the host) that I had stacked the game against our team by not kicking their high stats players, literally 5 seconds into the game he said we'd basically already lost

How the fuck could that possible happen

Czechs are legit the most fun nation in the game to play.
Spooky Jedooki are the best

I almost exclusive played them in ALB and had an absolute fucking blast, I find it tough in Red Dragon though they just don't seem as viable

not pictured: MH370

MH17*

hue

>Destruction game becomes stalemate
>Blufor wins with unholy artillery units that fire slowly enough that counter arty isn't viable

When someone reposts the thingy you made

>all my fucking wargame screenshots have been deleted somehow.
>all those hours spent capturing action shots.
>All those post game score screens.
>gone.
How the fuck am i supposed to brag now.

I was pretty autistic.

...

yeah I member

thats an IS-3 rrreeee

I see now why /wgg/ went the way of the dodo

literally PTSD inducing
youtube.com/watch?v=6R1_pKW-__U

Maybe you still are, and you just need to find your next "Autism Activator"

I'll come back once there is proper matchmaking and they stop shitting on PACT.

If you're gonna make a "sim", then stick to real-life truths like the Patriot and the M1 being piles of shit when compared to their Russian counterparts.

...

Pure comedy gold coming thru

...

Is it worth getting into multiplayer now? How is the balance? How long till i git gud?

This sounds like MGO2 tier shit community, holy fuck.

It's still really fun, and in NATO campaigns you can now truly feel the desperation