[QUOTE=Leon;23072533]i'm more interested in a more modern men of war
yeah SAY cliche and over done as much as you want, but theres hardly been any modern RTS games, let alone realistic and fun ones like MoW[/QUOTE]
Actually, on rethinking, I agree. But not completely modern; I think 1986 would be good. You could have:
-The People's Republic of China
-The USSR/RSFSR
-The USA
-West Germany
-East Germany
-Israel
-Egypt
-Syria
-Poland
Now, if it were to keep true to the Men of War company-level combat, I think it would be good, but IMO, for the modern era, something grander would be better. After thinking about it, I actually have some distinct ideas, but I don't quite think Men of War is the game for them, which is a shame, because Men of War is pretty awesome. If it does turn out, however, with time, that Men of War's sequels can support brigade and division sized units, that would be awesome.
[editline]07:20PM[/editline]
[QUOTE=TicTac;23072466][media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-MX2pGXlCIw[/media]
This guy has more videos of his WW1 mod.[/QUOTE]
I know about the mod, but the actual company has significantly more resources. Besides, they could update GEM to work for WWI far better than it does now.
[QUOTE=hurts;23262192]Actually, on rethinking, I agree. But not completely modern; I think 1986 would be good. You could have:
-The People's Republic of China
-The USSR/RSFSR
-The USA
-West Germany
-East Germany
-Israel
-Egypt
-Syria
-Poland
Now, if it were to keep true to the Men of War company-level combat, I think it would be good, but IMO, for the modern era, something grander would be better. After thinking about it, I actually have some distinct ideas, but I don't quite think Men of War is the game for them, which is a shame, because Men of War is pretty awesome. If it does turn out, however, with time, that Men of War's sequels can support brigade and division sized units, that would be awesome.
[editline]07:20PM[/editline]
I know about the mod, but the actual company has significantly more resources. Besides, they could update GEM to work for WWI far better than it does now.[/QUOTE]
Grander? Either it's going to be micromanagement hell or it will need some AI subordinates to conduct the orders you've issued to them. The ideal system be something like a division commander only ordering his brigade commanders and them only ordering their battalion commanders, all down the chain of command to the squad and fireteam elements. Without it, organization would fall apart.
The 1980s is a great era for a military strategy game that's set after WWII. You've got roughly equal sides in terms of combat capability, full combined arms and it's distinctly different from today's view of conventional warfare, which is basically nothing but "push button wars" and precision munitions.
[QUOTE=Tac Error;23264297]Grander? Either it's going to be micromanagement hell or it will need some AI subordinates to conduct the orders you've issued to them. The ideal system be something like a division commander only ordering his brigade commanders and them only ordering their battalion commanders, all down the chain of command to the squad and fireteam elements. Without it, organization would fall apart.
The 1980s is a great era for a military strategy game that's set after WWII. You've got roughly equal sides in terms of combat capability, full combined arms and it's distinctly different from today's view of conventional warfare, which is basically nothing but "push button wars" and precision munitions.[/QUOTE]
Exactly what I was thinking. It could work something like this:
-You play as a Major General or Rear Admiral (Oh, yeah, that's right, there should be an extremley detailed naval system as well. I think Tom Clancy's [I]Red Storm Rising[/I] is an excellent example, at least to give an idea of what the naval warfare would be like. I don't really want to go into detail on Naval matters though.)
-Assuming you play on land, you give orders to a Colonel, who is in command of a brigade
-They give orders to their Lieutenant Colonels who are in command of regiments
-They give orders to their battalions
-Their battalions give orders to their companies
-The companies give orders to platoons
-Platoons give orders to squads. Generally, however, infantry units will advance/do anything in platoons, but they operate in squads.
You, as divisional commander, would set overall objectives. You could micromanage down to the squad level if you really wanted to, but the AI would be such that there would not be a need for it. Your role would be less directly controlling the battle (unless you wanted to; you could still have Men of War style battles, just company against company. There would be a completely separate gamemode set for that) and more watching and dictating when to throw reserves in, and you would have to pay very close attention to the situation of the air, and call in fighter/bomber reserves accordingly. Radar would play a huge part in air warfare, and, as a direct result, so would jamming. It would be a very complicated game methinks.
The AI, of course, would be very, very self sufficient. I suppose the AI, at least at the small unit level, would have to be comparable to Arma 2 AI at its best (which, with some mods, like GL4 and Zeus AI thrown in, is really goddamn awesome.) Then, of course, there would be the military doctrine of the countries to consider, and the fighting style, and the type of troop and their respective equipment and training. All of these would dictate how the AI would act. Enemy actions would also of course have a big (largest, if the commander is skilled*) impact on the actions as well.
Oh and air would play a huge role. That's obvious though.
*The AI leaders would have varying skill levels; best being a modern Suvorov basically, and worst being one of those chicken-shit officers from the Sharpe series.
As for modern, 2010-modern-warfare, I think a war between two military superpowers (Russia and the US, China and Russia, India and China, etc) would be fascinating due to the at least similar technological states of the armies. I still think the 1980s would be a better time period though.
China doesn't have equivalent technology to fight either US or Russia, they have lots of troops, but little means of transporting them. Is India even involved with the quarrels with other big nations? All I know is that they want to nuke Pakistan or something.
[QUOTE=Zezibesh;23270606]China doesn't have equivalent technology to fight either US or Russia, they have lots of troops, but little means of transporting them. Is India even involved with the quarrels with other big nations? All I know is that they want to nuke Pakistan or something.[/QUOTE]
Technology should be a secondary matter when it comes to your military doctrine and the tactics your guys will utilize in battle. Even then, the Western perception of the PLA being nothing than "untrained conscripts with AKs, T-55s and MiG-21s" is totally wrong.
The PLA isn't interested in doing the long-range power projection stuff the US does with their giant airlift fleet and carrier battle groups. Their concerns of regional power projection and national defense makes expeditionary warfare as much of a concern as the US has with replacing B-52s.
I was just commenting on a US vs China scenario. It'd have to be US attacking or China attacking their ally, really. The PLA doesn't have the capability to bring their troops over the pacific.
[QUOTE=Zezibesh;23270606]China doesn't have equivalent technology to fight either US or Russia, they have lots of troops, but little means of transporting them. Is India even involved with the quarrels with other big nations? All I know is that they want to nuke Pakistan or something.[/QUOTE]
Er, no, you know, they basically do. If they're behind at all, it's by very little. The Chinese army is modern. You'll find relatively few T-55s in their military. They have some in reserve, but that makes sense. Why throw away a perfectly good tank?
As for India: they're an emerging power, I suppose. They deserve some representation.
[editline]05:23PM[/editline]
[QUOTE=Zezibesh;23272214]I was just commenting on a US vs China scenario. It'd have to be US attacking or China attacking their ally, really. The PLA doesn't have the capability to bring their troops over the pacific.[/QUOTE]
So? It doesn't have to be fought in China or the US.
God fucking dammit thread don't die.
I just bought this game, the editor is so easy to use, I've only done one mission in campaign, but made 5 missions in the editor. Suggest a good mod for me.
Is there any way to play the campaign on editing mode ? like a normal mission but with the unit placing screen and all that ?
I really want to mess with planes and nukes on the early missions.
[QUOTE=FuzzyPoop;24510166]Is there any way to play the campaign on editing mode ? like a normal mission but with the unit placing screen and all that ?
I really want to mess with planes and nukes on the early missions.[/QUOTE]
yeah. open the editor, hit F3 and then hit escape. Load will let you load missions instead of just maps. If you load single player missions through that, you can hit the start button and do whatever you want to the campaign mission in real time
play the ruskie POW mission and drop a king tiger next to you and have at it
Haha... thanks
Loads operation torch, first US mission, set off a nuke on the end of the village, sit and watch while the whole placed gets torched to the ground.
:smug:
Assault Squad is fucking awesome, I highly recommend you guys get it when it comes out.
Scenarios <3
So, somewhat better textures, and more contrast, and better models.
Holy shit where did this thread come from. I almost posted in the other one.
[editline]11:21PM[/editline]
Looks like both threads were active around the same time periods :confused:
The other one ("Company of Heroes + ArmA = Men of War" or whatever) was active when the game was released and then somebody bumped it while this was active.
Was probably me, oops :wink:
[QUOTE=Tark;24511131]Assault Squad is fucking awesome, I highly recommend you guys get it when it comes out.
Scenarios <3[/QUOTE]
And when is that ?
[QUOTE=FuzzyPoop;24537662]And when is that ?[/QUOTE]
lol i dunno
[img]http://dl.dropbox.com/u/795329/Pictures/me/screnshot/FRAPS/mow_editor%202010-07-28%2019-50-07-82.png[/img]
These guys seem somewhat fucked
Nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah.
If that mob is handled by the AI they could probably sit in the corners of those sandbags and survive. Only in a game like MoW could a gun such as the MG42 be the greatest CQB gun...
[QUOTE=Mbbird;24574477]If that mob is handled by the AI they could probably sit in the corners of those sandbags and survive. Only in a game like MoW could a gun such as the MG42 be the greatest CQB gun...[/QUOTE]
Heh. It does have it's unrealistic aspects.
Is there a way to place tanks in the editor with crew already in them? I know how to set teams, put the crew in, ect. But if I copy the tank that already has crew inside it they get out. :argh:
[QUOTE=Teh Zip File;24575784]Is there a way to place tanks in the editor with crew already in them? I know how to set teams, put the crew in, ect. But if I copy the tank that already has crew inside it they get out. :argh:[/QUOTE]
Unfortunately there isn't, and I've never had the crew inside a vehicle get out after copying it, did you change the vehicles player ownership or something?
Hey guys I made a small water map, and the ships seem to float underwater, even if I move them upwards. How do I fix it.
[img]http://gyazo.com/24b8c9f601552d86745258270f385597.png[/img]
[editline]07:42PM[/editline]
[QUOTE=Teh Zip File;24575784]Is there a way to place tanks in the editor with crew already in them? I know how to set teams, put the crew in, ect. But if I copy the tank that already has crew inside it they get out. :argh:[/QUOTE]
When you want to edit another teams npc's the numpad numbers select the teams,
0 = grey
1 = red
etc.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
