World in Conflict

[Husar]

To elaborate, though:
* the programme runs a lot slower than the July multiplayer beta
* multiplayer only features one map (Pine Valley)
* single-player skirmish features only one map (the same Pine Valley)
* single-player campaign portion features only one map (guess which one)

Perhaps I missed it but I hadn't noticed any other 'vailable map. The worst thing about this demo, however, to me, is the fact that it runs too slow compared to the beta AT THE SAME SETTINGS. Now, for single-player it is somewhat understandable since the CPU player(s) actions must be calculated and so forth, but even in MULTIPLAYER?

I can't comment about performance, just ran the benchmark and my average fps were higher than in the beta.
About the maps, the secret is to have a preorder code also called "access code", I saw three maps in MP, that desert map from the tutorial, the one you mentioned and another one.

[Mikeus Caesar]

Well, after leaving my computer on for many hours and probably leaving a carbon footprint of 20 tonnes, the demo has downloaded. I'm off to get my new graphics card, yay.

[Husar]

Wow, what can I say, I just played the campaign mission included in the demo and when I finished I was just happy....

[Bijo]

And as usual there are people on servers who would rather play an unfair unbalanced game as they then cheapily say "gg" as if it was a good game. Or people who still capture strategic points alone instead of joined (as performing it joined will give both players tactical aid points).

During my few beta days and one or two evenings of online demo activity, I hardly encounter a match that is TRULY balanced and tough. A game in which the oppositions kill each other off mercilessly instead of one finishing the other. A balance of power as the domination gauge stays roughly in the middle and the victor wins with a close call. Regrettable.


It seems the USA faction is still underpowered. Especially their heavy artillery is almost worthless. It looks cool, but it's worthless.

[Husar]

It seems the USA faction is still underpowered. Especially their heavy artillery is almost worthless. It looks cool, but it's worthless.

People on the official forums say it isn't if you know how to use it. I myself usually don't bother with any form of artillery.

And the unfair matches aren't really new to me, I've played Americas Army before. I can have fun in both teams. Sometimes it's fun to be winning easily, allows you to try something dangerous and have some random fun. Then being in the losing team can be fun if you're a decent player and are able to annoy the winners with little things like taking out their artillery guy who felt safe camping somewhere in the woods.
It's also quite a challenge trying to beat a superior team, after a while teams may also even out as players leave and new players come.

I also like the fact that you and come and go pretty much like you want, in other RTSs you have to get some players together, then start a game and when you leave, you cannot be replaced. That can put a lot of stress on you and you have to have time to play. Not to mention quitters. I just like to be able to just start the game, join a server and start playing as long as I want.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

Played the demo, and I might try infantry in MP some day. No spoilers, but a very fun little mission.

Didn't notice any slowdowns though. I might run the benchmark some day.

[Bijo]

People on the official forums say it isn't if you know how to use it. I myself usually don't bother with any form of artillery.

It may be true that if you know the tool well you may maintain security, but even then... I have used the USA arty well before in the beta, but still... The thing is that it takes much more effort for American rocket artillery to be effective.

The first problem is the smoke effect upon firing which immediately betrays your position in an inviting way.

Another problem is that they seem to inflict less radius damage than the explosive USSR artillery limiting easy use (or at least I have noticed they seem to do less damage or there is some kind of "handicap" compared to USSR arty).

They also seem slower as they take more time in their animation.

Then there is the problem that due to these reasons and their potential results it is more difficult for your heavy artillery units to gain experience to be more effective, faster, and such.

The good thing about them, it seems, is that you can pound a specific area hard with many many rockets.

Looking at the Soviet heavy artillery, they give good explosive radius damage, fire faster, they will gain experience more easily, they are more difficult to detect by their fire due to very little smoke as they normal shells instead of rockets, etc., etc.

Choosing between a difficult-to-use arty that isn't so effective and an easier-to-use arty that is more effective, I know where my betting money goes.

One simple scenario would be:
* USA arty fires
* its smoke is detected
* USSR arty quickly (re)turns fire to area
* USSR inflicts damage and remains mostly undetected himself

Surely relocation is possible, but then still the positives of Soviet artillery outweigh those of the American one.


By the way, I had a good game here. I never say 'gg' because it's stupid and usually not applicable but as you see it was a close call.

Ah, those are the better matches :)

[Csargo]

Downloading now