Steel Division: Normandy 44 (RTS ww2 published by Paradox)

http://www.pcgamer.com/steel-division-normandy-44-is-a-realistic-ww2-rts-coming-this-year/





Official forums: https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/index.php?forums/steel-division-normandy-44.968/

RIP Coh2

Looks cool! Will definitely be picking this up if it is as promising as that interview proclaims!

"Eugen’s desire is to skew towards historical accuracy over what they referred to as the contrived, 'rock-paper-scissors' balancing of other RTSes."

Finally a studio with a brain is making a WW2 RTS. Wargame Red Dragon is already the best RTS/RTT as of the past 10 years and now these champs are making a WW2 game. And the studio is french so expect the Brits to be properly portrayed (ie trash). No more fireflies and jacksons auto-penning King Tigers.

"Eugen’s desire is to skew towards historical accuracy over what they referred to as the contrived, 'rock-paper-scissors' balancing of other RTSes."

Finally a studio with a brain is making a WW2 RTS. Wargame Red Dragon is already the best RTS/RTT as of the past 10 years and now these champs are making a WW2 game. And the studio is french so expect the Brits to be properly portrayed (ie trash). No more fireflies and jacksons auto-penning King Tigers.

They already made a ww2 game, RUSE.

They already made a ww2 game, RUSE.

yea but that was more of a kid game kinda like CoH in a way. steel division is going to be even more hardcore than Wargame judging by what eugen has said.

"Eugen’s desire is to skew towards historical accuracy over what they referred to as the contrived, 'rock-paper-scissors' balancing of other RTSes."

Finally a studio with a brain is making a WW2 RTS. Wargame Red Dragon is already the best RTS/RTT as of the past 10 years and now these champs are making a WW2 game. And the studio is french so expect the Brits to be properly portrayed (ie trash). No more fireflies and jacksons auto-penning King Tigers.

But do expect that KT to run out of POL, break down on the way, or get its road wheels pasted by some arty and get abandoned.

A dev deficated to historocal accuracy in 44. Be ready to have zero access to air support as Germans and get strafed/bombed by P47's P51's typhoon the moment you leave hiding places in bushes.the point is, claiming to be historical as a dev, if you do that to the most realistic degree the result of equal opponents in game should still mean an outcome similar to history. Hence every dev says this to thier benefit but would make a boring game if it we literally true. Ie yes tiger would 4-1 Sherman's, then be promptly bombed by planes incessantly and unopposed.

A dev deficated to historocal accuracy in 44. Be ready to have zero access to air support as Germans and get strafed/bombed by P47's P51's typhoon the moment you leave hiding places in bushes.the point is, claiming to be historical as a dev, if you do that to the most realistic degree the result of equal opponents in game should still mean an outcome similar to history. Hence every dev says this to thier benefit but would make a boring game if it we literally true. Ie yes tiger would 4-1 Sherman's, then be promptly bombed by planes incessantly and unopposed.

IRL allied CAS was about as effective firecrackers vs tanks. Go look at allied CAS tank kill claims and compare them to actual unit losses. And Wirbelwinds and Ostwinds were operational in Normandy and although rare completely decimated Allied CAS IRL . . . It's not like Germany will be helpless. The meme of allied air strikes being entire panzer division killers is a meme I hope Eugen will chuck into the trash, unlike CoH devs who actually believe it.

Also the game takes place on the divisional level. It is only division vs. division. To historically balance German qualitative superiority allies will obviously have access to more unit availability per card and more offmaps.

When Eugen says they will make the game realistic they mean absolute realism in game mechanics and no unit hand holding. If a tank can't penetrate another, it won't. There is no deflection damage. Riflemen will have a 0% chance to win against Fallschirmjager. British Commando units will have no combat effectiveness outside of forests and town sectors. British infantry sections are not arbitrarily better, but will likely be worse according to history. A flanking shot on armor will almost always result in instant KO, just like in WG. Artillery without a spotter is worthless, hidden AT guns completely slaughter tanks.etc

A new mechanic similar to "teching" seen in kid RTS is appearing. As time progresses the battle will enter different "phases" and both factions would get stronger units/offmaps. It is said divisions like the 101st Airborne division will have early game advantage thanks to elite, numerous infantry and the Panzer Lehr division will be weak early game but have elite mechanized infantry and heavy armor as the battle drags out. This is authentic in some ways because a Panzer Division would not mobilize it's heavy armor unless absolutely necessary in a meeting engagement like Steel Division is portraying. And wow, the game is balanced theory wise in a realistic way without hand holding units.

Victory points are gained by holding more territory than the other so SS panzer divisions and the like would have to push hard to take back lost ground assuming they survived early game. Seems well designed to me. . .. ..... . . . . . . . .

If both this and the new Close Combat game turn out to be good it will mean two new quality WW2 strategy/wargame titles. Good in one sense, not so good for CoH2 multiplayer playerbase.

Do not preorder guys do not preorder. Wait how good game will be and then buy. We dont want another 2013 coh2 fast released because of pre orders

IRL allied CAS was about as effective firecrackers vs tanks. Go look at allied CAS tank kill claims and compare them to actual unit losses. And Wirbelwinds and Ostwinds were operational in Normandy and although rare completely decimated Allied CAS IRL . . . It's not like Germany will be helpless. The meme of allied air strikes being entire panzer division killers is a meme I hope Eugen will chuck into the trash, unlike CoH devs who actually believe it.

Also the game takes place on the divisional level. It is only division vs. division. To historically balance German qualitative superiority allies will obviously have access to more unit availability per card and more offmaps.

When Eugen says they will make the game realistic they mean absolute realism in game mechanics and no unit hand holding. If a tank can't penetrate another, it won't. There is no deflection damage. Riflemen will have a 0% chance to win against Fallschirmjager. British Commando units will have no combat effectiveness outside of forests and town sectors. British infantry sections are not arbitrarily better, but will likely be worse according to history. A flanking shot on armor will almost always result in instant KO, just like in WG. Artillery without a spotter is worthless, hidden AT guns completely slaughter tanks.etc

A new mechanic similar to "teching" seen in kid RTS is appearing. As time progresses the battle will enter different "phases" and both factions would get stronger units/offmaps. It is said divisions like the 101st Airborne division will have early game advantage thanks to elite, numerous infantry and the Panzer Lehr division will be weak early game but have elite mechanized infantry and heavy armor as the battle drags out. This is authentic in some ways because a Panzer Division would not mobilize it's heavy armor unless absolutely necessary in a meeting engagement like Steel Division is portraying. And wow, the game is balanced theory wise in a realistic way without hand holding units.

Victory points are gained by holding more territory than the other so SS panzer divisions and the like would have to push hard to take back lost ground assuming they survived early game. Seems well designed to me. . .. ..... . . . . . . . .

OMG what garbage history did you learn? Or do you get your facts from neo-Nazi Youth magazines?

True, CAs was not as effective in the AT role as was thought during the war. But CAs was still very effective at killing all the things those tanks needed to advance, from light armor, to support and supply vehicles. That the Germans had difficulty moving during daylight hours was the truth, even if they didn't automatically lose their tanks to air power.

And most allied AT, including the Sherman variants, were also much better than their reputation. Furthermore, the reputation of Axis materiale was much higher than the reality due to many factors, from actually being under-engineered, to lacking the proper materials for the original design specs, to being too complicated in their design for easy field maintenance, to a plethora of designs and the supply issues that implies.

And one matter that is often unaddressed was the tremendous superiority of both the quality and quantity of allied artillery systems (equipment, training, and most of all, organization) over that of the Germans.

Likewise the quality of the troops. The average US infantry division was of superior quality (not to mention firepower) to a Wehrmacht division while possibly slightly lower quality than one of the elite divisions (since aside from Airborne, the allies didn't have "elite" divisions). Usually the big difference was in experience, not training. As '44 progressed US troops became much more effective, while German units, because of the attrition to their experienced troops, became less effective. Nevermind the "new" units that kept being organized who proved disastrously bad in combat against the now much more experienced US troops (see the battle of Arracourt where Shermans and TDs trounced a larger force of Panthers).

One has to remember that "memory" and actual accounts are finicky. Every Sherman crewman who bounced a round off a Tiger wishes he was in the Tiger. But the Tiger crew of a broken down or out of fuel Tiger wishes their tank too was better. But more to the point, the Wehrmacht infantryman wishes there were a whole lot more Tigers or Panthers or PIVs or StuGs when facing Shermans when they don't have any of their own armor in support.

There was simply no way you could combine the (turns out not so elite) German units and material into a force that can counter the allied artillery, armor and infantry SYSTEMS (logistics, support, synergy, training, etc.)

British Commando units will have no combat effectiveness outside of forests and town sectors. British infantry sections are not arbitrarily better, but will likely be worse according to history.

I'd like to know why you hold the Commonwealth in such poor esteem. By all accounts they have a pretty illustrious campaign record post the recapture of Tobruk and Operation Torch.


-- on topic --

I personally don't like this scale of combat done in 3D engines. Operating at the divisional level means that without player influence, it usually means a drastic oversimplification of unit formations, LOS mechanics, movement and terrain.

I can be pretty certain this isn't for me, but I'm hopeful that people who enjoy that niche will find pleasure in it.

One thing that would be fun to have them model (but OP) would be Time-on-Target artillery strikes. At the Elsenborne Ridge the US had I think 7 divisions' artillery available and one fire mission included all 4 on one target. (Imagine the whole world just blowing up.)

OMG what garbage history did you learn? Or do you get your facts from neo-Nazi Youth magazines?

True, CAs was not as effective in the AT role as was thought during the war. But CAs was still very effective at killing all the things those tanks needed to advance, from light armor, to support and supply vehicles. That the Germans had difficulty moving during daylight hours was the truth, even if they didn't automatically lose their tanks to air power.

I was addressing allied CAS meme effects on tanks specifically. You are right that CAS was effective against all other assets and I did not deny that in my post.

And most allied AT, including the Sherman variants, were also much better than their reputation. Furthermore, the reputation of Axis materiale was much higher than the reality due to many factors, from actually being under-engineered, to lacking the proper materials for the original design specs, to being too complicated in their design for easy field maintenance, to a plethora of designs and the supply issues that implies.

Allied AT? The M36 and M18 are better than most give it credit for, but the Firefly is meme'd to hell. Only the Jackson could reliably penetrate a Panther's glacis plate beyond close distance, and that was with T33 APC shot which was incredibly rare. The Firefly could too firing sabot. But that had the accuracy of a musket, only having 14% chance to hit a Panther's turret at 1000 yards. It's rate of fire also suffered and the gun wore out incredibly quickly. The M18 enjoyed good combat success against German armour because of it's extreme mobility and thanks to American TD tactics. But it still has Go-Kart armour and a relatively weak gun. Low caliber FlaK could destroy it. None of the dedicated allied tank destroyers could out fight a Jagdpanther, Panther, King Tiger or Panzer IV/70. They needed the element of surprise. Keep in mind that Panthers actually made up more of the German tank force than Pz.IV's at certain points of the Normandy campaign.


Let me help you educate yourself on actual tank specifications of the war:

British tank gun accuracy: http://www.panzer-war.com/page40.html

WW2 Ballistics Armor and Gunnery: https://www.scribd.com/doc/219173969/WWII-Ballistics-Armor-and-Gunnery

WW2 BAG is a US publication that accurately documents the armor and gun performance values of every WW2 tank gun and vehicle all in one book. Go look at how junk allied tanks are for yourself.

German tank reliability meme:

"The statistics compiled from status reports from 15 March 1945 show that 59 percent of the Tigers with front line units were operational. This was about equal to the Pz.Kpf.IV at 62 percent operational and much better than the Panther at only 48 percent."

Kingtiger Heavy Tank 1942-45, page 36

Wow, so much for muh Tiger breaking down every 4km.



And one matter that is often unaddressed was the tremendous superiority of both the quality and quantity of allied artillery systems (equipment, training, and most of all, organization) over that of the Germans.

20% of the Wehrmacht was on the Western Front buddy. The rest and best units were in the East, fighting the more challenging opponents. This includes most of the German SPG divisions. Congrats Western allies, you have more manpower and materiel than 20% of the Wehrmacht . . . Seriously?

Likewise the quality of the troops. The average US infantry division was of superior quality (not to mention firepower) to a Wehrmacht division while possibly slightly lower quality than one of the elite divisions (since aside from Airborne, the allies didn't have "elite" divisions). Usually the big difference was in experience, not training. As '44 progressed US troops became much more effective, while German units, because of the attrition to their experienced troops, became less effective. Nevermind the "new" units that kept being organized who proved disastrously bad in combat against the now much more experienced US troops (see the battle of Arracourt where Shermans and TDs trounced a larger force of Panthers).

Oh really? Sounds like someone has watched a bit too much Band of Brothers.

http://ww2-weapons.com/military-performance/

Data is taken from one of Trevor Dupuy's books. He was a US soldier and military historian.

Hmm, looks like the average US infantry division was utter trash compared to the average Wehrmacht one to me. And lmao, "possibly" having slightly lower quality than "elite" divisions... this is what I imagine Relic was thinking when they made this game. Also RIP Britain.

Also most Wehrmacht infantry divisions had either Panzer-Jäger or Panzer Abteilung's as part of their force. Or do you mean the average US infantry squad was better equipped than a German one firearms wise? Hmm, the MP43 (STG-44) was in service since 1943, and 2/3 of divisions that were issued with this weapon had entire squads equipped with them. No MG42, no scoped Kar 43 or 44. The other 1/3 retained an MG42 instead of extra STG. No western allied infantry squad had equivalent firepower. Ever. And these weapons were actually quite common. It's debatable whether the standard US squad with Garands and M1919 had more firepower than MG42 squad with Kar43/Kar44. Not so if the MG42 is the lafette version with tripod and scope.

The battle of Arracourt involved a Panzer division with no combat experience . . . Lol.



One has to remember that "memory" and actual accounts are finicky. Every Sherman crewman who bounced a round off a Tiger wishes he was in the Tiger. But the Tiger crew of a broken down or out of fuel Tiger wishes their tank too was better. But more to the point, the Wehrmacht infantryman wishes there were a whole lot more Tigers or Panthers or PIVs or StuGs when facing Shermans when they don't have any of their own armor in support.

Yup. Thats why I provided real data that slam dunks this entire discussion. Tiger I had superior reliability to Pz.IV's btw so into the trash with that little scenario you cooked up.

There was simply no way you could combine the (turns out not so elite) German units and material into a force that can counter the allied artillery, armor and infantry SYSTEMS (logistics, support, synergy, training, etc.)

And more circlejerking over outnumbering 20% of the Wehrmacht. Hey, did you ever notice that it took the Western allies more time fighting less of the enemy to cover less ground than the Soviets? Hmm . . . it's almost as if western allies were a bunch of bumbling morons who could barely fight a war without spending weeks fighting over single towns before their numbers advantage came into play. That or using hilarious amounts of artillery to push tiny distances into German territory before being pushed back, and then trying again. And again. Until their opponents' lack of materiel and manpower gives way. See Caen and well... the entire Normandy campaign and the Gothic Line.

And turbotortoise, current Wargame has more detailed armor models and weapon profiles than CoH with 1000+ units with 30x the scale. Terrain is not simplified, in fact there is more varied terrain in Wargame than CoH with more gameplay implications. LoS is also truesight, just like CoH. Steel Division is going to be even more detailed than Wargame in terms of game mechanics and certainly more than CoH... Thats why Wargame series is so good, they don't sacrifice detail and depth for scale. They go overboard on all three. The learning curve is a bit much though.

Looks like wargame, honestly wargame is very good and more like chess.. but its boring compared to coh2. IMO they would have to add some interesting things to that game to break the staleness of wargame.

And turbotortoise, current Wargame has more detailed armor models and weapon profiles than CoH with 1000+ units with 30x the scale. Terrain is not simplified, in fact there is more varied terrain in Wargame than CoH with more gameplay implications. LoS is also truesight, just like CoH. Steel Division is going to be even more detailed than Wargame in terms of game mechanics and certainly more than CoH... Thats why Wargame series is so good, they don't sacrifice detail and depth for scale. They go overboard on all three. The learning curve is a bit much though.

Yeah, but play it a bit more. Examine how infantry moves, and more particularly how it engages as an odd trapezoid/rhombus entity throwing tracers at an enemy unit. This is particularly evident in how garrisons work. Units arbitrarily occupying something that is classified as heavy cover and that's it. It's not necessarily a fault of the game, when the scale is larger than a company, there's nothing really that can be done about it. That's what I mean when I say it will likely lack nuance, and won't be for me.

Yeah, but play it a bit more. Examine how infantry moves, and more particularly how it engages as an odd trapezoid/rhombus entity throwing tracers at an enemy unit. This is particularly evident in how garrisons work. Units arbitrarily occupying something that is classified as heavy cover and that's it. It's not necessarily a fault of the game, when the scale is larger than a company, there's nothing really that can be done about it. That's what I mean when I say it will likely lack nuance, and won't be for me.

Infantry in WG is a very small part of the game. It's not like CoH where it makes up the majority of the gameplay... The nuance is in other areas that are less trivial than chucking your infantry squad behind a blown up truck. Steel Division is going to be smaller scale than current Wargame, I doubt they will leave the infantry gameplay the same.

Looks like wargame, honestly wargame is very good and more like chess.. but its boring compared to coh2. IMO they would have to add some interesting things to that game to break the staleness of wargame.

only reason i didn't play wargame is beacuse i don't like the modern period war, now it's a complete deal !

of course it's more tactical and strategy that coh2, even the windows minesweeper game is more tactical that coh2

really hiped about this game since it's eugene and the 2017 release, with some luck it will ever happen before winter balance patch

Wish it were Steel Division: Eastern Front.

The Germany vs Soviets theme is always more compelling on a creative level.