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

[Mikeus Caesar]

Bumping the thread for great justice, as i finally got it working. Looks spectacular on full graphics, i've never seen anything so beautiful. The shockwaves of explosions, the blinding flash of the nuke, the clouds quietly rolling overhead, oblivious to the madness below.

Most definitely pre-ordering.

Also, Bijo, because i know you'll be wondering, my name is FatmanFive.

EDIT:Some pictures. I'm linking them from my xfire profile on account of them being 1440x900.

These two demonstrate a tactic that required a lot of teamwork - napalm flame walls, for holding back enemy infantry just long enough for us to counter attack.

http://screenshot.xfire.com/screensh...50c958e047.png
http://screenshot.xfire.com/screensh...065504e6d0.png

The destructible chimney, included because it looks cool.

http://screenshot.xfire.com/screensh...786616633e.png

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

Tanking is really fun on that map. I do it exclusively. It's easier for me as the Soviets, for some reason.

My nick is Hellbender.

[Csargo]

My nicks the same on here as it is there.

[Bijo]

What I find very enjoyable about this game is when you play infantry and you encounter another infantry player in the field as you battle each other solo (sometimes with artillery support from team members). It usually comes down to who outsmarts the other. And boy... how I enjoy outsmarting them

I hid a small platoon consisting of riflemen and a sniper in the woods and sneakily approached a zone. The other squads approached from the flank a little later. The enemy tried to flee as he saw he would be destroyed and ran right into my hidden flanking platoon (as the already engaging forces rifled them down including my sniper rifle) while I had already timed my airborne troops to fall in and of course he called in light artillery but my forces were already in motion (while a support player's heavy artillery rained death upon his approaching reserve forces). Totally overwhelming.

Or I sometimes order a chemical strike exactly in the right moment and location. Sometimes I wish I could see the person's face as he is being outwitted

[Mikeus Caesar]

What I find very enjoyable about this game is when you play infantry and you encounter another infantry player in the field as you battle each other solo (sometimes with artillery support from team members). It usually comes down to who outsmarts the other. And boy... how I enjoy outsmarting them

I hid a small platoon consisting of riflemen and a sniper in the woods and sneakily approached a zone. The other squads approached from the flank a little later. The enemy tried to flee as he saw he would be destroyed and ran right into my hidden flanking platoon (as the already engaging forces rifled them down including my sniper rifle) while I had already timed my airborne troops to fall in and of course he called in light artillery but my forces were already in motion (while a support player's heavy artillery rained death upon his approaching reserve forces). Totally overwhelming.

Or I sometimes order a chemical strike exactly in the right moment and location. Sometimes I wish I could see the person's face as he is being outwitted

Aye, going up against a fellow infantry player is very fun. I tend to gas their defending forces, then distract them with airborne infantry which i drop in some nearby woods. While they mess around fighting off the airborne i bring my main forces and completely overwhelm them. And then the situation is reversed, and it'll go on for the whole match, outwitting each other.

[Husar]

The nproblem is when they havce five or six snipers and a scouting unit, the only counter is using TAs on the snipers or mass ordering snipers yourself.
At least when you face them on the beach.

[Bijo]

You people ever use napalm? I hardly use it unless I haev no other option; I would rather use light artillery strikes (or the gas of course). I find the napalm strikes too much depending on luck and precision while with light artillery you usually hit the enemy anyway. I would rather have guaranteed overall damage than fiery super damage based on luck and precision (as the area of effect is too thin or small).

I just managed to play two games and I owned the battlefield in it (or actually part of it). The following shot shows the second one (though in the first one my scores were higher and more versatile). In this game I actually peptalked the team by cursing and giving quick commands. "Defend goddamnit, defend!" "Fortify this goddamn position." "Hold those goddamn points!" "Yes yes... we giving em some." "Hah we got em."

The other team played a lot better, though we gave them a good beating and the tides turned. My defenses in the north of the city were hard to penetrate. Some heavy artillery took good care of them too, and such. In the end, our team was better for turning the tide. This was one of the most satisfactory matches I've played.

[Husar]

You people ever use napalm? I hardly use it unless I haev no other option; I would rather use light artillery strikes (or the gas of course). I find the napalm strikes too much depending on luck and precision while with light artillery you usually hit the enemy anyway. I would rather have guaranteed overall damage than fiery super damage based on luck and precision (as the area of effect is too thin or small).

Area denial my friend.
If I'm not infantry myself and/or find infantry hidden in forests (especially lookouts behind our lines), I use napalm to destroy the forest and the infantry within. This effectively denies the enemy their hising spot for future hiding, unlike gas or artillery. My tanks feel a lot more secure on an open plain fighting against infantry that cannot hide anymore(for some reason they still hover above craters).

[Bijo]

Area denial my friend.
If I'm not infantry myself and/or find infantry hidden in forests (especially lookouts behind our lines), I use napalm to destroy the forest and the infantry within. This effectively denies the enemy their hising spot for future hiding, unlike gas or artillery. My tanks feel a lot more secure on an open plain fighting against infantry that cannot hide anymore(for some reason they still hover above craters).

True and very effective it can be. However, by eliminating these hideouts the other infantry on your team, if applicable, could also be disadvantaged. Since I play infantry I prefer gas and light artillery to preserve forests and together with their effectivities and the overall gain of it they make quite potent and good overall tools with the most advantage to be utilized.

I quickly squeezed in and played one match, check out this picture:

Ya know what I particularly like about this one? The team suffered great losses and seemed to fall before the capitalist might, but then I entered the game and suddenly the tides turned quickly. I even "lol'd" (an expression I never use) as they fell before us with their previous domination severely reduced and ours greatly increased and even more when the end was nigh as some tried to take me out before I could reach the battle zone but they failed because I just ran alongside their airstrikes as I maneuvered unexpectedly, hah hah, beautiful

Take that, capitalists!

[Mikeus Caesar]

With regards to napalm, i use it quite a lot, especially when fighting against infantry in co-ordination with our armoured forces - napalm some command points, which gives your armour time enough to move in and secure it from enemy infantry.

And obviously burning down forests. Whenever i'm lounging around with my arty at the back i tend to burn down the forests near me so that enemy airborne can't drop in and pay me a visit.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

Gas has a lot more "Oh crap" to it than napalm. Enemy inf in the middle of it can't get out but they still have to try. And it drops faster than napalm which takes forever (or 5 more seconds ).

Any tips for Air? It seems to be really hard to accomplish anything with it...

[Bijo]

Gas has a lot more "Oh crap" to it than napalm. Enemy inf in the middle of it can't get out but they still have to try. And it drops faster than napalm which takes forever (or 5 more seconds ).

Yeah, I think napalm takes 20 seconds to arrive (which is too long for me, unless I am certain enemy infantry will stay long enough in one spot). The good thing is that it's cheaper than gas.

Any tips for Air? It seems to be really hard to accomplish anything with it...

How I would do it:

If you utilize only heavy choppers, just avoid anti-air and hit defenseless ground units swiftly and then leave (if you are or will be attacked) to repeat the same principle. Have all units selected of course and concentrate intensified fire onto one target at a time. If oppurtune, hit tanks in the rear (or sides). Light tanks will perish fast enough with just the standard attack, medium tanks could be given one (or two) special attacks plus continued standard attack, heavy tanks need two special attacks at least plus the standard attack for a quick death. Don't forget to space out your choppers by dragging more or less as it is used in TW and don't remain static too long because you may be suddenly hit by a strong tactical anti-air strike.

If you use medium choppers it is the same principle but now your more fitting task is anti-air support to destroy enemy choppers where the heavy ones are the most vulnerable and to provide light ground fire.

Using the terrain to your advantage is wise too. The aquatic part of the map is where ground units don't go (unless they are amphibious though I haven't seen it yet). Take the safest routes, hit swiftly for maximum damage, leave, repeat.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

I just feel under-gunned as air. If I take heavies the mediums get me (Soviet Mediums are extra nasty) and if I take medium I get jumped by two sets of mediums. Too much dancing around.

ARMOR SMASH!

[Bijo]

I just feel under-gunned as air. If I take heavies the mediums get me (Soviet Mediums are extra nasty) and if I take medium I get jumped by two sets of mediums. Too much dancing around.

ARMOR SMASH!

Hmm, I see. Then you require more creative thinking and solutions.

If you are being overwhelmed by medium choppers, and it is better if you foresee this, launch countermeasure decoys (to offset their anti-air missiles) and quickly retreat to a friendly location that has (enough) anti-air power: just lure them with you and when it's time the trap springs, you can engage them together with the friendly AA, and they will fall before you :)

Of course, my other recommendation would be to familiarize yourself with the infantry role and be a general-purpose combat power as you can counter virtually everything. Sometimes team members need anti-air and I happen to be near so I verify their request. It looks strange when someone who is infantry accepts an anti-air request because it's usually a support role that does it

Really, the infantry tree is the most useful and versatile choice (and the most difficult).

[Mikeus Caesar]

Aquatic part of the map...

Hmmm....

Are the amphibious transports from the beta still in the game?

[Husar]

They are and they can go there. They wouldn't really stop heavy helicopters or be able to make a decisive surprise attack though.

[Bijo]

As armour and as USA I tried using amphibious transports on the water part just to test. It is indeed not so profitable, unless you find a way to maximize effectivity.

I started my position near the sea but the small hills prevented quick access to it forcing a longer path. On the beach I was immediately exposed to heavy armour though I could still flee.

What is bad about amphibious transports is that they are empty upon arrival and that their anti-air weapons are weak and their prices are high (especially when you play infantry). Precise coordination with an infantry player could be beneficial if you manage to launch a surprise attack appearing behind them while they are engaged and distracted by other forces. Of course teamplay is not always something that occurs let alone precise teamplay involving transportation.

I haven't tried with the Soviets, though, but it would probably be more or less the same drawbacks. The starting terrain isn't much different on their side.

What is the point of allowing selection of empty amphibious transports for armour and not for infantry? Is it to encourage exact teamplay (which doesn't happen unless you are in a strict clan)? They should just allow infantry to buy these amphibious and armored transports for good prices which seems more obvious. It would be nice if I could launch infantry attacks from the sea

Or what about those transport choppers? Their argument would probably be imbalance. At the easy rate that infantry can be decimated, it would be good to have cheap effective transports, but nooooooo... bastards :P

[Husar]

Yeah, it's meant to promote teamplay and you could always use a microphone to tell some infantry guy to get into your transports.

[Mikeus Caesar]

With regards to teamplay, as much as i'd like to see it happen, we probably won't see it for a long while. The game is still relatively new and people are having to get used to the fact that they can't fight alone. As people become more battle-hardened they might become more aware of helping each other.

I myself can only recall one instance of someone using teamwork with me - a support player noticed my tanks were getting pummelled by choppers, so he followed me around with heavy AA. We completely owned the enemy and won the game.

[Lorenzo_H]

World in Conflict seems a lot like Company of Heroes. Am I right?

[Bob the Insane]

hmmm...

A bit... It is a slightly larger scale and there are no buildings to construct...

It is more like Ground Control, or Ground Control 2 really... Capturing ground equals resource points with which you purchase units, but these units are dropped in rather than built on the map...

[Boyar Son]

so is it any good???