Game is great fun.. BUT

[MeowThai]

well its a really fun game.
i was not having this much fun for a long time... BUT

battle time is really not enough to do anything (must have an option for this. actually no need time. you are already done when your supplies are finished and its really not that long)
soldiers are dying too fast
bomber plane seems to be not working (not dropping bombs)
1 turn is 1 month which makes the game sometimes fast sometimes slow feeling
supply in battle needs to be re-work
tech is too slow for a 1 turn 1 research game (1 turn is 1 month)
battles are 'rush' because of little time you are rushing from point to point and because there is supply problem with the game you are dying without even reaching your target on the half way. not even can get close.
grenade thing works funny. you can use grenade for machine guns, arty but not from trench to another one
star system for the capture logic is ok but also not ok. because of the problems i wrote above makes almost impossible to capture some cities.
recon needs rework
buying 150 supply for 500 gold is... rubbish. must have another way to get supply too

im in the early of the game and just dont or cannot move forward because of the things i wrote. i dont know things changes in late game about my comments or not.

[Wenatchee Willie]

I certainly agree that the supply limits remove the need for the battle timer.

[Master Chief]

Hey maybe we will get a mod one day to remove timer

[Vicxent]

-I agree with battle time, considering 1 battle last for the entire month. I play at half speed to make every second count

-Soldiers dying though makes sense, it is 1 month of battle. so a MG nest can kill 500+ soldiers in 10 seconds. Just keep pushing forward, and use arty when you can. Use chems especially if you can afford it.

-Early bombers are ass, very RNG based. and requires two bombs to kill an MG nest. but does get better. still RNG but can 1 shot a MG nest

-1 turn 1 month makes sense because it could go months without gaining ground I do understand you though like skipping a few times essentially skipped an entire year. but it is "realistic" at least. Just keep attacking especially when your soldiers have a + in moral or at least 0 just auto resolve it.

-Tech dev is slow, but fast if you think about it, just focus on the first few techs on each tech tree and start focusing on what ever you need, Tanks if your planning on focusing tanks etc. and Chlorine they are really good.

-Battles are indeed rush and favors heavily aggressive players (like me), tips DON'T attack if you don't have arty and at least level 1 supply depot (for smaller battles) a single arty barrage can save you 3-4 companies enough to make a breakthrough. If you're Allies don't attack first and keep defending for a few months. Supplies are a bottle neck and you can't go wrong with too much Depots. While defending, place your MGs at the second line (if you can afford multiple lines) and put conscripts/French or Belgians at the first trench. (conscripts and french because they are cheaper to deploy and Belgians because they have a morale bonus).

- Grenade would be op if they can just throw it to the next trench so I'll chuck it to just balance thing.

- Star system is ass, especially if you achieve a sweep, and persistence does not occur when you capture a point the game resets all gains the next battle. BUT this can be explained with balancing. I hate it also but makes sense in a balancing sense.

-Recon is fine though it's weird their using spies. How about a mid night raid or something like that

-Buying supplies is actually realistic. you only have finite resource with finite income per month. good luck trying to choose which one to priorities!

Early game movement is bare and minimum (almost non) your soldiers are way to squishy and supplies are almost non existent. But possible. a well place arty shot can effectively silence a capture points trench line especially early game. You just need an arty first though. don't be afraid of bombarding your own troops, especially with the light arty. Light arty damage is so ass you troops can basically tank it and keep charging the enemy line. Depots are your life line. doesn't matter if your attacking or defending. Place depot to important places first Verdun and Calais etc. and later the entire line you should have level 1 depot before 1916 if you use spies sparingly. And most importantly, learn from your mistakes. this isn't like other RTS. Losing is fine, being in a stalemate for 15+ battles is fine. Losing 4 entire regions is fine. it goes against all other RTS before it. And that's why it's good and realistic.

And most importantly enjoy the game.

[Yuithgf]

Originally posted by Vicxent:

-Soldiers dying though makes sense, it is 1 month of battle. so a MG nest can kill 500+ soldiers in 10 seconds.

Seen it a couple of times, i really don't like this one particular argument.

First because you cannot make sense in the time that way and actually get an idea of how long a battle is supposed to represent, especially if you throw in the historical battles that portray events that definitely weren't 1 month.

Second of all... Let's say the devs extended the timer from 20 to 30 minutes. Would you be here arguing that the killtimes should be upped by 50%? and that the speed of all units should be reduced as well?

Crazy thought, what if they removed the timer. Now an endless match is meant to repesent a month, or hell even a day, of battle. Well i think it would only be logical we made the killtimes endless, ot at least close to endless. Would it not?

You know i've been thinking, and in real life a 75mm 1897 field gun could actually fire close to 30 rounds a minute. Given each 20 minute battle represents months, i think it is only natural that the rate of fire of the shells should catch up. i propose the cooldown between artillery barrages be reduced to 0.78 nanoseconds, and the amount of shells per barrage be increased tenfold- without changing how long a barrage lasts of course.

[Yuithgf]

Originally posted by Vicxent:

- Grenade would be op if they can just throw it to the next trench so I'll chuck it to just balance thing.

I would say just nerf the damage/accuracy/rate of throwing of grenades for riflemen specifically. Also allow them to throw their nades at tanks and nerf rifles vs tanks.

[MeowThai]

Originally posted by Yuithgf:

Originally posted by Vicxent:

-Soldiers dying though makes sense, it is 1 month of battle. so a MG nest can kill 500+ soldiers in 10 seconds.

Seen it a couple of times, i really don't like this one particular argument.

First because you cannot make sense in the time that way and actually get an idea of how long a battle is supposed to represent, especially if you throw in the historical battles that portray events that definitely weren't 1 month.

Second of all... Let's say the devs extended the timer from 20 to 30 minutes. Would you be here arguing that the killtimes should be upped by 50%? and that the speed of all units should be reduced as well?

Crazy thought, what if they removed the timer. Now an endless match is meant to repesent a month, or hell even a day, of battle. Well i think it would only be logical we made the killtimes endless, ot at least close to endless. Would it not?

You know i've been thinking, and in real life a 75mm 1897 field gun could actually fire close to 30 rounds a minute. Given each 20 minute battle represents months, i think it is only natural that the rate of fire of the shells should catch up. i propose the cooldown between artillery barrages be reduced to 0.78 nanoseconds, and the amount of shells per barrage be increased tenfold- without changing how long a barrage lasts of course.

'historical battles' why are you comparing a game with history or historical battles. you ever played Heart of iron, seriously? so this means you always play these kind of games historically or compare how the things were?! or suppose to be?! well wake up, this is a game.

about the battle time.. i just wanted to say that the time DEVs gave us is not enough or fun to play the game. its just... rush point to point. and you lose all your army and the game is not progress.. also i already said that you are doomed when you are out of supply.. so actually the game is not unlimited time.

and whats the thing with real life field guns... dude this is a game.. whose looking for 100% reality?! people want to enjoy. so you are playing RDR2 and you think you can slow down the time and shoot all people?! thats the reality you are looking for?! common.. this is a game!

im sorry my english not that good and if i misunderstood your reply and reacted too much but it seems you are too.... REALISTIC

PS: im so sorry about this edit. i did because im little bit drinking, i was not going to do but my dark side wanted to edit this. Im 43 years old veteran. Iraq, Afghanistan, Africa. and believe or not but 4 months in Ukraine, Bakhmut. so.. please.. dont tell me whats historic or real.. thanks. and also please ignore my this edit.. thanks again

[Yuithgf]

yeah you misunderstood every single thing i said. it's ok tho

Originally posted by MeowThai:

'historical battles' why are you comparing a game with history or historical battles.

...Because the devs added battles meant to represent historical battles.

Originally posted by MeowThai:

! well wake up, this is a game.

Might i add, this would be a bad argument even if i had said what you think i said. Because it's explicitely a game meant to emulate parts of hsitory. You can argue how realistic it should be, but not justify any change simply by saying ''it's a game''. What if every soldier was wearing a clown outfit and brazil replaced france as the main allied faction? what would be wrong there, its a game bruh.

Originally posted by MeowThai:

and whats the thing with real life field guns... dude this is a game.. whose looking for 100% reality?! people want to enjoy. so you are playing RDR2 and you think you can slow down the time and shoot all people?! thats the reality you are looking for?! common.. this is a game!

Yeah you seem to misunderstand some of what i said.

Originally posted by Yuithgf:

i propose the cooldown between artillery barrages be reduced to 0.78 nanoseconds, and the amount of shells per barrage be increased tenfold- without changing how long a barrage lasts of course.

I thought it was clear this wasn't serious. I was Mocking the point about time made above by the other dude, because i think its internal logic is flawed. Not that i think trying to inject realism in the game is inherently flawed, of course i don't.

[Yuithgf]

Alright i saw the edit, i'm not sure what being a veteran has to do with knowing what is historically correct, but my comment didnt really touch on history anyway.

Take care, and i'd recommend not spending too much time on the forums while drunk.

[MeowThai]

Originally posted by Yuithgf:

yeah you misunderstood every single thing i said. it's ok tho

Originally posted by MeowThai:

'historical battles' why are you comparing a game with history or historical battles.

...Because the devs added battles meant to represent historical battles.

Originally posted by MeowThai:

! well wake up, this is a game.

Might i add, this would be a bad argument even if i had said what you think i said. Because it's explicitely a game meant to emulate parts of hsitory. You can argue how realistic it should be, but not justify any change simply by saying ''it's a game''. What if every soldier was wearing a clown outfit and brazil replaced france as the main allied faction? what would be wrong there, its a game bruh.

Originally posted by MeowThai:

and whats the thing with real life field guns... dude this is a game.. whose looking for 100% reality?! people want to enjoy. so you are playing RDR2 and you think you can slow down the time and shoot all people?! thats the reality you are looking for?! common.. this is a game!

Yeah you seem to misunderstand some of what i said.

Originally posted by Yuithgf:

i propose the cooldown between artillery barrages be reduced to 0.78 nanoseconds, and the amount of shells per barrage be increased tenfold- without changing how long a barrage lasts of course.

I thought it was clear this wasn't serious. I was Mocking the point about time made above by the other dude, because i think its internal logic is flawed. Not that i think trying to inject realism in the game is inherently flawed, of course i don't.

Originally posted by Yuithgf:

Alright i saw the edit, i'm not sure what being a veteran has to do with knowing what is historically correct, but my comment didnt really touch on history anyway.

Take care, and i'd recommend not spending too much time on the forums while drunk.

dude... i have nothing to say... good luck

[Machiavelli]

No, I like it where it is. It isn't a drag. Espeically in the campaign, when you are fighting multiple battles and the AI has alot of corps attacking.