The end of Eugen Systems

[kenberg]

As Wargame Red Dragon was the last financially successful game from Eugen i place this here.

Act of Aggression and Steel Division: Normandy 44 are both disasters and a financial fiasco for Eugen,
But i think Eugen does not care if they are the next Lionhead Studios as they very clearly and openly refuse to make a Wargame 4 and now WGRD DLCs in 2017 in favor of financial disasters like AoA and SDN44.

As the Community for the last three years has been wanting a Wargame 4 set in modern time's.

[GrandHardy]

kenberg eredeti hozzászólása:

I dont see Eugen recovering from SDN44 and if it some how does it will be 2 or 3 years befor thay make a new game just like AoA it toke 2 years after that disaster to make SDN44.

It does take time to develop games...

[SNADAMS]

Viss Valdyr eredeti hozzászólása:

I won't buy modern times. It should stay in cold war era. This is where it excells. AoA was modern times and it failed

AoA failed because it was a bad game,they tri to go back to the CaQ era of strat games...If they made a Wargame 4 moderen times,with the same playstyle it would be amazing. If you like Wargame Rd,aLB and EE How could you possibly not want one in modern times?

[Viss Valdyr]

Because I love the cold war era. That's why. I wanna stay there. I have more knowledge and experience with that kind of gear.

[kenberg]

Viss Valdyr eredeti hozzászólása:

Because I love the cold war era. That's why. I wanna stay there. I have more knowledge and experience with that kind of gear.

But we are in a Cold War right now with Russia.

[Viss Valdyr]

you don't want to get it, I am ok with it, because sometimes, people don't want to understand what other mean. So, I will try to explain it to you:

I want the cold war era, the one with soviet russia, the one which actually ended already. The one, which ended around 1991.

Did you understand me? Yes? Fantastic!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_War

Historians do not fully agree on the dates, but a common timeframe is the period between 1947, the year the Truman Doctrine (a U.S. foreign policy pledging to aid nations threatened by Soviet expansionism) was announced, and 1991, the year the Soviet Union collapsed.

I am talking about the common timeframe. I don't think a new Wargame will be modern times, I even hope it won't happen.

[ColonelWilson]

Viss Valdyr eredeti hozzászólása:

you don't want to get it, I am ok with it, because sometimes, people don't want to understand what other mean. So, I will try to explain it to you:

I want the cold war era, the one with soviet russia, the one which actually ended already. The one, which ended around 1991.

Did you understand me? Yes? Fantastic!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_War

Historians do not fully agree on the dates, but a common timeframe is the period between 1947, the year the Truman Doctrine (a U.S. foreign policy pledging to aid nations threatened by Soviet expansionism) was announced, and 1991, the year the Soviet Union collapsed.

I am talking about the common timeframe. I don't think a new Wargame will be modern times, I even hope it won't happen.

Yeah those are the best kinds of games.

[Mack Yuu]

The folks who are saying "but modern is fun" must not play Red Dragon.

You ever try naval combat? It sucks. You know why? Because those ships would never see each other. Beyond-visual-horizon combat made sure of that, and Red Dragon said "screw that" to try and shoebox in combat that doesn't make sense. And it was bad.

Pushing farther into modern just means it's going to be more beyond-visual-horizon stuff that doesn't belong in Wargame. It's why EE and ALB worked: that stuff was limited. And that's why, if for whatever silly reason Eugen would make WG4, they'd have to go back to a hard cutoff of at least 1990, if not sooner.

"But we're in a cold war with Russia right now" you say.

Yeah, but it's a war fought with economics. Sanctions, boycotts, trade deals, with a tiny bit of proxy war going on in the Middle East. The EU's very existence is in question, and not a hot war shot has been fired on European soil. I regret to inform you Michael Bay worshippers out there that a 2008 "Cold War Gone Hot" game on Wargame's scale would make zero sense, and would have to make seriously detrimental concessions that, if you want to touch yourself over a F-22 doing its thing, you might a well just do an image search on Google, because what you get in Wargame, for any semblance of balance, wouldn't be anything like what you're expecting.

If you want to play "Cold War 2008 Simulator", Cities Skylines is a great game that I can recommend. A 2008+ Wargame would suck, plain and simple, because it would take everything that fuzzed suspension of disbelief in Red Dragon and turn it up to 11 simply to make the game function in an RTS square.

[Viss Valdyr]

Token Why Boy eredeti hozzászólása:

stuff

so much yes! Thank you!

[kenberg]

For some the Cold War did not end in 1991 but took a hiatus till 2008.

If we ever do get a WG4 the best time to set the game would be in 1957-1962 Operation Dropshot to Operation Anadyr.
Or set the game in 2017 ween we are closer to a nuclear confrontation with Russia then we were in 1962 and 1983.

[Viss Valdyr]

kenberg eredeti hozzászólása:

For some the Cold War did not end in 1991 but took a hiatus till 2008.

I don't care for them, since I have another idea about this "Cold War" thing. And you already know it, don't try to change my words in my mouth.

[Råb!d]

Harpoon was a great naval game strategy game. I think Eugen should have stuck with land and air only.

[kenberg]

Råb!d eredeti hozzászólása:

Harpoon was a great naval game strategy game. I think Eugen should have stuck with land and air only.

Yea ships did not go all that well and i dont use them as most maps are AirLand only.

But WG4 will need Steam WorkShop and one more thing to make it better then WGRD,
And that one thing was in R.U.S.E. and it was Nuclear equipped artillery

[Mack Yuu]

kenberg eredeti hozzászólása:

For some the Cold War did not end in 1991 but took a hiatus till 2008.

That's like saying "World War I never ended." It's a semantic argument. And frankly, a dumb one. The First Cold War (or the first "phase" of the Cold War) ended in 1991 when the Soviet Bloc dissolved and the Berlin Wall came tumbling down. The West, or NATO, however you want to specify it, technically won, as their strategic goal—the dissolution of the Soviet Bloc—was accomplished. And we enjoyed a lull of peace for a while during the Clinton administration. Now, you can say that the events of the Cold War up to 91 gave us the situation for the new conflict brewing with Russia, but again, the events of World War I set the stage for World War II, and we clearly recognize them as separate conflicts while still teaching the links between the two.

Look, man, if you want any kind of semi-realistic RTS set in a "2nd Cold War" (2008-2017) conflict, it's going to make a ♥♥♥♥♥♥ game. Or, rather, it'll look and play nothing like Wargame, because the scope of Wargame does not work for the kind of combat that would be seen in a hot war between post-2005ish superpowers. Your best bet, honestly, if you got that itch to scratch, is to start looking at novels. Or Call of Duty: Modern Warfare.

nuclear-equipped artillery

At this point, all I can say is, please don't go into game design. Or, actually, please do. You're throwing ideas at a wall hoping someone in the biz looks at your idea and goes, "Aw man, that'd be great." When you actually have demonstrated that you have no idea how game balance works, and why what sounds fun in your head would never work when it goes beyond paper. And the only way you're ever going to realize that is by getting into the nitty gritty rather than trying to get Eugen or anyone to do it for you.

You might as well be playing with toy soldiers.

[kenberg]

The nuclear-equipped artillery in R.U.S.E. was slower then hell and took forever to fire and was slower then hell moveing out after fireing, Thers a word for that and its called balance and if Eugen did that 7 years ago why cant they do it now.

And ww1 ended in a armistice so no one won or lost in that war, And the war restarted in 1939.
Just like the Cold War ened no one won or lost it just went in to hiatus.

The soviet union ended in 1991 but the Cold War did not.
Armistice and hiatus does not mean it has ended forever and ever, Just that it is to be continued at a later date.

[Mack Yuu]

kenberg eredeti hozzászólása:

The nuclear-equipped artillery in R.U.S.E. was slower then hell and took forever to fire and was slower then hell moveing out after fireing, Thers a word for that and its called balance and if Eugen did that 7 years ago why cant they do it now.

And ww1 ended in a armistice so no one won or lost in that war, And the war restarted in 1939.
Just like the Cold War ened no one won or lost it just went in to hiatus.

The soviet union ended in 1991 but the Cold War did not.
Armistice and hiatus does not mean it has ended forever and ever, Just that it is to be continued at a later date.

Again, look, you're just arguing semantics. World War I was itself the continuance of prior conflict, and the Cold War itself was just the continuance of World War II. We can go on and on if you want, but frankly, it's a tired, boring argument to have. We separate these things the same way one marks chapters in a book: arbitrarily, but for the assistance of those looking back.

To say, "The Cold War never ended" is as technically correct as saying that World War I never ended. I don't know what you hope to accomplish with your arguments, and I've made mine, so I'm just gonna let you go on rambling. Whether or not the Cold War ended, it doesn't change the fact that a modern-day conflict in Wargame's scale would be dumb, or so unrealistic that you might as well make pew pew noises with a F-22 model on green army men. If you want to continue believing otherwise, nothing I say's gonna change that.