Is this like World in Conflict?

[Loaded Glove]

I played World in Conflict many years ago and recently wanted to replay it. Come to find out, it no longer works because Ubisoft closed down the servers which I'm pretty sure would need to be up for authentication purposes. In looking for something similar, I saw this and am wondering if I can find the type of gameplay I'm looking for with this game.

For anyone who has played both World in Conflict and this, can you please give me your opinion.

Thank you!

[TRIUMPH]

The game has the same theme, cold war era but WG has the depth and complexity of a table top wargame. So definitely look at tournament game play before purchasing.

[IvanChe]

Buy it you wont regret it if u like this type of games! Best rts game I ever played, just give it a chance. Need steep learning curve, but once u learn it u will see how entertainment it is. This can be very helpful guide for begginers http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=247884292
Didnt play World in Conflict but i have a need to recommand this game.

Have Fun!

[Rocha]

no

[Loaded Glove]

Ok I figured it probably wasn't the same. Looks like World in Conflict is simpler and has better graphics. Depth is good, but I want something very easy to jump into so I'll just have to figure out a way to play my old favorite. Thanks for the comments anyway!

[TRIUMPH]

The only easy sorta RTS on the market right now is 8 bit armies. Look at that if you like RA2.

[ThingGoBoom]

Originally posted by EPIC TRIUMPH:

The only easy sorta RTS on the market right now is 8 bit armies. Look at that if you like RA2.

8 Bit Armies has significantly less depth than any C&C game though.

Comparison WiC vs Wargame:
Wargame has a moderate skill floor, but a very high skill ceiling. Units are a lot more valuable and need to be kept alive, so it isn't as forgiving. Maps are larger and most good players play zoomed out, so it is a very different experience to most RTS games. Balance is assymetric where as in WiC a T-80 has the same stats as a M1.

The experience vs AI is also extremely different to playing online, to the point that it is near pointless to practise against the computer. This is not an issue with most RTS games including WiC. The AI also only has 1 tactic, so it will either crush you, or you will crush it (happens 95% of the time).

In terms of single-player, skirmish is what you would expect, but the campaigns are terrible. They are mostly made up of skirmish maps and play out exactly the same, but with limited unit selections. W:RD doesn't have a tutorial either.

[Dr. Claw]

As someone who has over 2k hours of WiC and 800 of W:RD, I can definitely say yes and no. The similarties include an emphasis on vision/recon, the importance of combined arms (infantry+AA+tanks), and an interplay between large scale assaults and micromanagement of individual units. In both, proper use of terrain and firing lanes was/is often the deciding factor between victory and defeat. And because of these factors (firing lanes, recon, etc) both games are very unfriendly for new players in multiplayer. You see the equivalent of noobs suiciding tanks in WiC and W:RD pretty regularly. Partly related to the game's unfriendliness to noobs (and partly related to the nature of human beings) both communities are/were awful and cancerous and full of pub stomping cowards (see below). Unit veterancy plays a similar role in both games - elite units (stars in WiC) will usually crush rookie (unranked) units, other things being equal. Contrary to the above comment, keeping high-value units alive was/is the way to win in both games.

As far as differences, the most profound is that WiC feels much more like a video game while W:RD feels much more like a simulation. Accompanying this, the GUI for W:RD is very poor and not user-friendly (I didn't know you could rotate the map for over 200 hours of gameplay). There are tons of units, that serve to give each faction their flavor (an M1 Abrams is actually different from a T80) but also contribute profoundly to overwhelming new players. Both artillery strikes and air strikes in WiC are generally abstracted into the tactical aid system, whereas in W:RD they are directly controlled by players themselves. At times this results in feeling like artillery and airstrikes are being spammed, when in reality they were spammed just as much in WiC, only from the TA tab (this can be mostly avoided, see below). Another difference is that the W:RD campaign is not especially fun because the AI is spammy and boring and completely devoid of story (WiCs campaign was really engaging). A final warning for WiC veterans - helicopters (and planes) are fragile, die easily, and are generally not that good until you learn how to use them. You cannot moonwalk, flare, and kill 4 heavy AA without losing a chopper in W:RD (you kind of have to do the pick overextended units strategy). RIP WIC.

My advice is to buy this game, play the beginner campaign to familiarize yourself a bit. Then read a guide and jump into RANKED multiplayer 1v1 with a deck downloaded from the reddit weekly deck building thread, and tweak it as you go forward. Almost any lobby game you play will be heavily stacked against you and ruin the game for you (despite what they might claim, project awesome, george's world, irish rage, and all the other so-called communities are even bigger stackers than the randoms). Most of these stackers' bread and butter is spamming artillery and airstrikes, resulting in 10v10s feeling like all that ever happens is your units being spammed to death until you lose.

[Fhyng]

I've played WiC in the ESL and have to say, no. It's totally different.
In WiC there where only a bunch of units per role. in WG: RD there are rather no roles. You have always a large army, depending on what your deck is like more or less effective.
Thus the gameplay has a much bigger scale. But that isn't a negative point.

Also the game modes are different. The often played "rush" mode from WiC is not implemented in Wargame. Neither are the special abilities fron each unit. in Wargame there are only "special abilities" like a smoke granade from artilleries or a fast move button.
But this is also not a negative point. You simply have to set up a deck which compensates nearly every situation. And that's the big point of Wargame. You will never ever have a perfect deck! You will always try to get it better but have to rethink on your tactic; you will have decks for each map; you will watch more often replays in Wargame then you have it done in WiC.
Wargame is just a drug much more dangerous then Crystal Meth! ;-) If you are addicted you will Play just to get the nearly perfect deck and beat the ♥♥♥♥ out of the enemies forces.

[Black Baron]

Most ppl that played WIC moved on on wargame.Don't expect good campaign since this is focused on multi.

[Nero]

Originally posted by Fhyng:

I've played WiC in the ESL and have to say, no. It's totally different.
In WiC there where only a bunch of units per role. in WG: RD there are rather no roles. You have always a large army, depending on what your deck is like more or less effective.
Thus the gameplay has a much bigger scale. But that isn't a negative point.

Also the game modes are different. The often played "rush" mode from WiC is not implemented in Wargame. Neither are the special abilities fron each unit. in Wargame there are only "special abilities" like a smoke granade from artilleries or a fast move button.
But this is also not a negative point. You simply have to set up a deck which compensates nearly every situation. And that's the big point of Wargame. You will never ever have a perfect deck! You will always try to get it better but have to rethink on your tactic; you will have decks for each map; you will watch more often replays in Wargame then you have it done in WiC.
Wargame is just a drug much more dangerous then Crystal Meth! ;-) If you are addicted you will Play just to get the nearly perfect deck and beat the ♥♥♥♥ out of the enemies forces.

Pretty much nails it apart from the "totally different". Thats just true when you go into details which he goes. They are both RTT and therefore share quite much.

[Commander Jonathan Archer]

Originally posted by Loaded Glove:

I played World in Conflict many years ago and recently wanted to replay it. Come to find out, it no longer works because Ubisoft closed down the servers which I'm pretty sure would need to be up for authentication purposes. In looking for something similar, I saw this and am wondering if I can find the type of gameplay I'm looking for with this game.

For anyone who has played both World in Conflict and this, can you please give me your opinion.

Thank you!

World in Conflict is 100x better then this one here.
I play WIC since Years + really love this.

And play this one here for 1h and deinstall it.
Because :
- you need to "resupply" your Troops with "Ammo" and so ...

thats the Main Point for me ..
And some other smaller one
- like grafic
- no points ( for nuke or other stuff ... and so )

[Nero]

Originally posted by Jerry:

Originally posted by Nero:

Pretty much nails it apart from the "totally different". Thats just true when you go into details which he goes. They are both RTT and therefore share quite much.

To me, WiC was always more fun, but when it comes to complexity, option and diversity, this game is more advanced and just " bigger ". I think the term " big " just suits this game.

However, I would pick WiC above WD:RED DRAGON all the time, not only because of the campaign, but also because of the gameplay itself, WiC matches felt way more rewarding, not only because of the achievments you could gain, no, also because of each role and the skill you really needed to be good in a specific role. Besides that, I prefered WiC design much more than this. This game is more of a simulator rather than a game. WiC was a game. And of course, it's campaign was totally amazingly enjoyable and unique on it's own way. I will probably remember playing the campaign of WiC the rest of my life, same goes for the beautiful WiC maps.

Oh..and the tiny part that will make WiC always better for me were the whole airstrike and stuff you could order in when saving enough points, it just felt good to have a big amount of points and air-strikes to order in, air-strikes you could not just shot down the planes that deliver them. And the NUKE was absolutely one of the best features. I wish there would be a nuke in this game..it worked in WiC, it would work in RD.

Indeed the campaign in WiC is great and I also prefer its airforce over how airforce is implemented in Wargame. That you have to EARN the planes first. I played the campaign and bot matches plenty and really enjoy it to this day. BTW MP still works but there's no one around.

I doubt that you have ever played Wargame on a level where you can appreciate its design decisions. The matches may not have felt rewarding to you because you haven't had a good high level match yet. There is no rewarding feeling when you blow something up with a Nighthawk or win a 10vs10.

What makes Wargame way better than WiC is how it isn't just Rock Paper Scissors where one unit is way more powerful than the other because its rock and the other is scissor. Being a player who drives around with 3 heavy AA pieces or someone with 3 heavy tanks isn't the same feeling as leading 15 diverse units into battle positioning them and all. Also Wargame has unit morale and i like its hitpoints and armor mechanics way more than the arcade WiC design. it comes down to a matter of preference.

Back when I was 12 and playing Command and Conquer I liked superweapons and nukes and all that stuff. But that doesn't belong into Wargame. Kind of like how firearms ruined warfare for the Samurai it would ruin the game.

President-Dante-Wallace quits after an hour because his tank ran out of ammo lol.

Wargame isn't WiC but it tickles the same spots. Cold War military units with cover and recon fighting over a map with no base building. There aren't many others like that.

[Graf]

Nope they are completely different, and I like Wargame much better for the reasons that this game had more depth and is much less arcady than WiC, although you don't get the nukes, you get a whole bunch more nations, your tanks actually feel to be firing at a more apt range in comparison to IRL. Red Communists and Blue Capitalists also feel to have a whole lot more difference in terms of unit capabilities, oh no neigh invulnerable call-ins, everything in Wargame cost something and every unit can be shot down easily had you not been careful enough.