Login

russian armor

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

10 Mar 2017, 10:25 AM
#41
avatar of Dangerous-Cloth

Posts: 2066


It's Normandy because that battle is one of the best documented of the entire second world war, with a plethora of information on unit TO&E. It's easier to make an accurate representation of that rather than the clusterfuck that was the eastern front.


There is a lot of data on the Eastern front battles too. Not only surviving OKW documentation, but also the availlable documentations in the British War Registers since they cracked the German codes and have all OKW communications etc. since the first day that they cracked it.

I rather think the choosing of Normandy is two fold, one being that it involves the American and British forces, which sells better, secondly the battles were on a far smaller scale than the Eastern front, which of course makes it easier to not only find completer documentation, but also easier to reproduce them.

Still, the game looks cool.
11 Mar 2017, 20:49 PM
#42
avatar of Ulaire Minya

Posts: 372



There is a lot of data on the Eastern front battles too. Not only surviving OKW documentation, but also the availlable documentations in the British War Registers since they cracked the German codes and have all OKW communications etc. since the first day that they cracked it.

I rather think the choosing of Normandy is two fold, one being that it involves the American and British forces, which sells better, secondly the battles were on a far smaller scale than the Eastern front, which of course makes it easier to not only find completer documentation, but also easier to reproduce them.

Still, the game looks cool.

Again, just because OKW documents something doesn't mean it's true. The Eastern Front is notorious for contradictory information. Additionally, many records were woefully incomplete or flat out wrong, most commonly division numbers on paper and in reality.
11 Mar 2017, 22:03 PM
#43
avatar of le_saucisson_masque

Posts: 485 | Subs: 1



Eugen Systems provide very solid support to their games in terms of balance patches, Free/cheap DLC and talking with community about every part of the game. There is no USSR, but come on! This game has "Normandy 44" in the name!

How can you imagine USSR tanks rushing Normandy beach?


agree, i saw the thread on DOW3 preorder yesterday, and people wondering if they should buy it or not.
i say to them " keep your money for Steel Division".

3 reason :

1. It will be cheaper
2. It's made by EUGEN, known to do great game (wargame), they are awesome at balancing and there is almost no bugs.
3. No more Lelic, cancer free.
12 Mar 2017, 08:50 AM
#44
avatar of Dangerous-Cloth

Posts: 2066


Again, just because OKW documents something doesn't mean it's true. The Eastern Front is notorious for contradictory information. Additionally, many records were woefully incomplete or flat out wrong, most commonly division numbers on paper and in reality.


Good point, I see what you mean. But our American friends also have a hand in this. I remember the lovely kill claim ratio of the Sabres in Korea being way too high as found by recent studies. You are certain this has not happened in the Normandy campaign too?
12 Mar 2017, 08:53 AM
#45
avatar of TheMachine
Senior Caster Badge

Posts: 875 | Subs: 6

This game is going to be nothing like Coh2, it'll be a large scale strategy game like all of the other Eugen Wargame series.
13 Mar 2017, 01:50 AM
#46
avatar of Ulaire Minya

Posts: 372



Good point, I see what you mean. But our American friends also have a hand in this. I remember the lovely kill claim ratio of the Sabres in Korea being way too high as found by recent studies. You are certain this has not happened in the Normandy campaign too?

Eugen is using the mostly accurate information to reconstruct division TO&E from my understanding. Kill ratios have little to do with it.
13 Mar 2017, 09:56 AM
#47
avatar of nigo
Senior Editor Badge

Posts: 2238 | Subs: 15

This game is going to be nothing like Coh2, it'll be a large scale strategy game like all of the other Eugen Wargame series.


Its a fresh WW2 RTS game and Paradox as publisher. Its enought for me.

RIP COH2. :)
13 Mar 2017, 10:27 AM
#48
avatar of wuff

Posts: 1534 | Subs: 1

Looks similar to RUSE which I personally found quite dull, but who knows.
13 Mar 2017, 21:26 PM
#49
avatar of Spanky
Senior Strategist Badge

Posts: 1820 | Subs: 2

These kind of tabletop RTS games are boring for me.
14 Mar 2017, 01:51 AM
#50
avatar of Kamzil118

Posts: 455

Hopefully the game will be friendly to new players. I recall that Wargame has a high learning curve compared to Company of Heroes, but I hope it will be a bit friendly to new players.

How do I put this? One of Wargame's "Easy" campaigns is unforgiving.
22 Mar 2017, 09:47 AM
#51
avatar of nigo
Senior Editor Badge

Posts: 2238 | Subs: 15

GAMEPLAY #1 – DYNAMIC FRONT LINE

http://www.eugensystems.com/steel-division-normandy-44-gameplay-dynamic-front-line/




====================


https://www.factornews.com/preview/steel-division-normandy-44-page-1-42811.html

General news :

  • Devs want to create a game more accessible then Wargame, but in the same vine and with as much (more?) depth.
  • The 3 phases (A, B, C) last for 10 minutes (at least in the game that he played).
  • The “requisition” he gets changes depending on the phase he’s in, and is not the same as his adversary. In this particular game, allies had 110 -> 105 -> 115. Axe forces had 90 -> 110 -> 130. This shows that depending on the “scenario” certain dynamic can be created.
  • Victory can be achieved by capturing 51% of the map (in this particular game), but it seems you can also capture “strategic objectives” that will give you victory points.

Frontline news :

  • Front line is created depending on the troops positioning.
  • If your troops move forward, but some enemy units are still hiding (houses, forests etc.) the front line will not move.
  • Not all troops influence the front line. Exemple : infiltration troops will not move the front line.
  • If a units moral drops to much it will surrender if in enemy territory but will only retreat if in your territory (This means that flanking manoeuvres could be highly effective).

22 Mar 2017, 22:39 PM
#52
avatar of Senseo1990

Posts: 317

Well, and you can watch a full match here:

https://www.twitch.tv/videos/130436498

(begins at minute 20)
23 Mar 2017, 06:10 AM
#53
avatar of Volsky

Posts: 344




@Leutnant

Delayed as this response is, I must protest against what you're trying to say. As someone who's put a great deal of effort into studying the Italian campaign in particular, nearly every factor was in favor of the defender. The terrain, problems of logistics, and weather all hampered the ability of both sides to resupply and move--and this inherently aids the defender.

Going down the list you provided, I see a lot of "attack successfully" next to those 'low scores'. Those scores are looking at K-D. Guess what? K-D usually favors the defender, especially in conditions where he possesses entrenched positions and is defending in favorable terrain--sound familiar?

In general, Allied unit performance in Italy was quite good. By my estimation the 3rd ID was probably the best (or very close to being the best) US ID on offer, period. The Canadians and Poles both showed their mettle in dislodging the 'invincible' FSJ formations. Other units like the 36th Engineer BDE performed well beyond what was expected of them, given available equipment and the scope of their training. Those boys were no slouches.

The bitter truth is, yes, man-for-man, German formations up until mid-late 1943 were superior to their counterparts in the Allied camp (ignoring first rate divisions like the 3rd ID, 1st ID). By the time the Italian campaign rolled around, the Western Allies enjoyed superiority in terms of basic training, materiel, and munitions (artillery, air support). They enjoyed parity in terms of NCO and junior officer skill, though senior command was admittedly still hit or miss.

On the other hand, German supply, training quality, and general leadership (from junior officers down) was beginning to decline. For God's sake, units like the 90. Panzergrenadier-Division "Sardinien" were likely armed with boatloads of weapons chambered in 6.5×52 mm Parravicini-Carcano; Modello 1891 rifles, Modello 30 LMGs--mediocre quality goods, backed up by hand-me-down, worn out le M.G. 34s and Gewehr 41(W)s, if those were even available.

Fallschirm-Panzer-Division „Hermann Göring“ hogged most of the good equipment, and frankly squandered it--it was no longer a top-of-the-line fighting formation. Panthers and Elefants were sent into combat, and quickly lost due to both mechanical issues and and an inability to stem the Allied advance (and thus prevent those vehicle from being overrun). Surely, if the Germans were still the masters of combat, they would have been able to hold their positions against the smelly Amerikaner and Britische!

Once you get to the Normandy campaign, you're looking at a few token formations, elite ones, propping up a disproportionately large number of trash formations. Units like the 29th ID--which was seeing its first combat--were able to, albeit slowly and painfully, carve a path through the Bocage, into, through, and past St. Lo, and on through France.

In the battles were the Wehrmacht and SS were finally able to readily administer bloody noses to the Allies; Aachen and the Hürtgen Forest, you are again looking at German units tucked into formidable defensive positions or utterly inhospitable terrain that invariably favored the defender, respectively. In both cases, there were precious few German formations still worth calling 'elite', or even standard; the vast majority of the rest of what was on offer were simply large mobs of untrained reservists and the beginnings of the Volksgrenadier formations.

Around Aachen, the 2nd AD, with its woefully inferior Sherman tanks (easily eliminated by even glancing blows from 9 mm weapon systems) were able to give better than what they got--they managed a positive K-D with 'inferior' equipment while on the offensive.

True, the replacement system in place in the American camp was sub par. Yes, troops were generally inexperienced replacements. But their training was far and away superior to the training the Germans were putting out at that point, as was the quality of their arms, coordination of forces, and leadership at nearly every level (again, barring senior command).

As for your technical arguments, yes, the Panther and Tiger were marvels of engineering. Little good that did them; even with their superior technical specs, they didn't get a good enough K-D to have ever even had a hope of changing the course of the war, on either the Eastern or Western. Yep, the M4 medium was Panzerbait, and a tasty snack for any hidden 7,5 cm Pak lurking around. I'll let you in on a little secret though: the Cromwell and T-34 fared no better, and neither did the Panzer IV in the face of any half-competent 57 mm or 3"/76 mm-armed TD crew. The medium tank was food during the war, plain and simple.

I will freely admit that the Soviets did more to crush the Reich's forces than the Western Allies put together. That said, there was still at least the hope in the German camp, however slim, of a prolonged war against the Bolshevik menace--until forces of the Western Allies came ashore, in force, all along the Normandy coast.
23 Mar 2017, 20:34 PM
#54
24 Mar 2017, 12:35 PM
#55
avatar of Archont

Posts: 96

27 Mar 2017, 17:47 PM
#56
avatar of Basilone

Posts: 1944 | Subs: 2

Its one of those games that has to be played to be appreciated. Like Hearts of Iron, EU4, Civilization, etc. Fun to watch? Not for any reason other than a learning experience (for most people anyway), but still a blast to play. Plus the people showcasing it either aren't that good or were more focused on talking about it. I saw two AT guns sitting on top of each other in an intersection at one point. If you watched Quinn Duffy play COH you would think its a piece of shit too.
27 Mar 2017, 17:52 PM
#57
avatar of Stark

Posts: 626 | Subs: 1

jump backJump back to quoted post1 Mar 2017, 19:18 PMWygrif


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.


cannot wait to see that and the salt on a forum after that :D
30 Mar 2017, 01:43 AM
#58
avatar of Kolaris

Posts: 308 | Subs: 1

On paper I should love this but I wasn't very impressed by that video. What's the core gameplay? I have no idea.
31 Mar 2017, 19:20 PM
#59
avatar of Vuther
Senior Moderator Badge

Posts: 3103 | Subs: 1

jump backJump back to quoted post30 Mar 2017, 01:43 AMKolaris
On paper I should love this but I wasn't very impressed by that video. What's the core gameplay? I have no idea.

You could try their early game Wargame: European Escalation and refunding it within two hours if it really doesn't click with you (though naturally, it lacks features their later games include...so you could try those too).

In general, it's a bit like CoH with no constructing buildings and on a larger-scale with the differences that implies.

Control the particular territories to win (any territory can only be held by having a "command" unit within them), and these territories give you the single resource used for buying units. Terrain (forests, town's blocks, elevations, and not-affecting-in-anyway everything else) and combat is largely more abrupt with infantry taking a particular defensive meatshield role (or ambush, given terrain and their line-of-sight implications largely serve to even up the disparities between infantry and vehicles) considering most vehicles heavily outranging, outrunning and outgunning them, and dice rolls are limited to accuracy and scattering missed shots that are total crapshoots to hit anything. Morale is modeled into combat a bit like the Total War series, with worsening morale nerfing units until they rout away from the fighting, though it mostly boils down to "Taking lots of suppression makes units worse" like CoH and avoids other considerations unlike Total War. There's a veterancy mechanic, but it's hardly like CoH where you can expect sufficient micro will give it to most, if not all, units - a larger-scale means a lot of stuff can die immediately or close to it. There's also a supply mechanic where supply units heal, fuel, and replenish ammo for the combat units. Unlike CoH's commanders, players make their entire unit list "deck" out of the options available to them (later games expanded the system with optional limitations for bonuses or new units in return).

The Wargame series (and from what I can tell, probably Steel Division: Normandy 44 as well) definitely has more in common with CoH than the typical RTS, but it's still fairly different from CoH too.

My opinion led me to not really like most of the differences myself, I much prefer CoH's "Band of Brothers AS AN RTS!" style. I can definitely say it's probably worth a try for any CoH fans, though.
1 Apr 2017, 00:39 AM
#60
avatar of Kolaris

Posts: 308 | Subs: 1

Thanks for the info. Have you played Men of War? That would seem to be even more similar, and I'm worried a lot of the problems I had with that title will apply to Steel Division as well.
1 user is browsing this thread: 1 guest

Ladders Top 10

  • #
    Steam Alias
    W
    L
    %
    Streak
Data provided by Relic Relic Entertainment

Replay highlight

VS
  • U.S. Forces flag cblanco ★
  • The British Forces flag 보드카 중대
  • Oberkommando West flag VonManteuffel
  • Ostheer flag Heartless Jäger
uploaded by XXxxHeartlessxxXX

Board Info

344 users are online: 344 guests
0 post in the last 24h
3 posts in the last week
35 posts in the last month
Registered members: 49230
Welcome our newest member, Werman94
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM