RTS Thread

File: map.jpg (3MB, 3456x1944px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 3456x1944px

>>376793451

>>376793451
More like Steel Divihon

File: Honhonhon.png (4MB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 1920x1080px

>>376793640
They'll keep on getting nerfed I think, along with the general Allies nerfs. Hopefully they'll be kept in check without being killed off entirely as a division

>>376793837
And more nerfs coming to the UK divisions. HON'd

File: 20170511140233_1.jpg (590KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

590KB, 1920x1080px

>>376793940
I don't understand why they keep nerfing 15th Scots, there haven't been particularly overpowering since their initial nerf. Is this because of Agincourt?

>>376793451

Yes. Steel division is very good, and getting better.

I already enjoy it much more than Red Dragon

>>376794105
>make the French division really stong
>""""""""""""""nerf"""""""""""" the french division
>nerfs the scots harder
really makes you think

Have they fixed the shit game modes?

Red Dragon was great, but the game modes encouraged the worst kind of play. If it was destruction you rushed to half the map and then sat on your points and just tried to snipe. There was literally never any reason to ever assault or attack or take any kind of risk.

If it was conquest you rushed half the map and then just sat there and slowly won, or if you were the other team you launched futile assaults because defending had such a massive, massive advantage.

It really needed a push-type game mode where you have a base and they have a base and you win by destroying the enemy base, so both players have to attack and defend. The fucking camping zones was so bullshit and ruined the entire fucking game.

>>376795073
And I don't mean basebuilding, I just mean that you win by decapping the home fucking zone or something. Maybe there's a HQ bunker you have to cap with infantry or something to prevent CV sniping deciding games.

>>376795073
>>376795127
Right now conquest is how much of the map % you own. Allies are really strong early game but Axis can make a big push late game.

File: steel division11.jpg (3MB, 3456x1944px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 3456x1944px

>>376795127
>>376795073
Conquest has changed. There's a frontline now to push, so every single part of the map is equally important, not just certain strongpoints. You gain points over time if you're above 50% ownership, and you get more and more the more territory you own so the winning player is incentivised to keep pushing harder.

>>376795194
>Right now conquest is how much of the map % you own.
Dropped.

Nobody should be able to win by sitting on their fucking ass. I can see Eugen still don't understand how to make a good game. Just autistically fill spreadsheets with 1400 units.

I was so fucking excited for Wargame. I LOVE the Cold War setting and equipment. It's so much more interesting than yet another WW2 game, and it's not even that I'm tired of WW2 it's just so uninteresting in terms of the technology used. The only difference between a WW2 tank and a fucking tractor is the armour and the gun, whereas late Cold War tanks had ERA, IR, stabilisers, and could do 60 or 70km/h. Not to mention planes, anti-air, missile defence, radar, radio, ATGMs, and so on.

Nope. Instead we get "literally everything is a gun, just of varying size".

>>376795347
None of that fixes the problem. In fact the most annoying thing about conquest is that the winning player actually wins harder the more he's winning. Conquest is the stupidest fucking thing. At least with a home base victory point to cap/destroy it means that the loser gets the defender advantage, which then shifts to the "winner" if the winner fails to actually win and starts getting pushed back himself. It naturally balances.

I fucking hate Eugen for ruining my dream game.

>>376795437
>sitting on their fucking ass
It's a bit more nuanced than that although you are for the most part correct. It's more of a both sides making a push on different times.

Phase A is when both sides do what amounts to force reconnaissance. Allies would more likely push harder while the Axis just makes sure that they get a defensible position.

Phase B is when most Allies teams make a push and maintain their advantage. Phase B is the hardest phase for the Axis.

Phase C is when the Axis team gets their toys like vetted panthers and the KT and then recoup their lost points from the punching bag.

I don't blame you for dropping the game. Arty spam is a huge thing and is FUCKING ANNOYING. Also,, HONHONHON tier balance

>>376793451
The only thing that worries me is morale, of what I've seen shit routs way too quickly. Have they fixed that?

>>376795437
>It's so much more interesting than yet another WW2 game, and it's not even that I'm tired of WW2 it's just so uninteresting in terms of the technology used. The only difference between a WW2 tank and a fucking tractor is the armour and the gun
Yeah nah fuck off, Cold War has too much focus on airforce, SEAD memery, and fiddling with anti-air. Then there are the ATGMs with insane range and accuracy hiding in treelines, not to mention the MANPADS. Everything ends up being super squishy and it's all a game of who can snipe the most radar AA with their SEAD (and who can micromanage the radar on/off on their AA).

Cold War is a pain in the fucking ass.

I'm in wait and see mode. Steel Division looks beautiful, but all I care about is the gameplay. Remains to be seen if they can make it great or not.

>>376795862
>Infantry protection when taking cover takes less time to be effective, resulting in a global decrease of lethality.
From the patch 2 days ago. They recognise its an infantry issue at least, and they're tweaking it for other units.

They're also tickering with HE + Supressions value, but I'm not sure which direction they want it to go in.
>Planes MG damage vs ground targets reduced (suppression remains the same)
>Tank guns' HE power set according to real-life converted TNT weight + shell speed (the faster the shell the less effective the explosion)
>37mm guns' suppression & HE power decreased
>Allied 75mm guns' suppression & HE power increased
>Allied 76.2mm guns' suppression & HE power slightly decreased
>17-pdr guns' suppression & HE power decreased
>KwK39L/42 and L/60 (50mm) suppression & HE power slightly decreased
>KwK40L/48 and L/43 (75mm) suppression & HE power slightly increased
>KwK42L/70 (Panther) suppression & HE power slightly decreased
>French Beutepanzer's 37mm and 47mm guns' suppression & HE power slightly decreased

MGs and Mortars have also been nerfed which will stop them routing units as quickly too.

>>376795862
The most ironic thing about your post is that shit in WW2 was exactly as squishy if not more than the Cold War in real life, it's just that the never ending stream of RTS games depicting otherwise has completely misinformed you.

>too much focus on airforce
Yeah, God forbid that 90% of winning a war actually be represented in a fucking war game.

>>376796472
What a terrible opinion.

>>376796472
>it's just that the never ending stream of RTS games depicting otherwise has completely misinformed you.
Nice baseless assumption anon.

>shit in WW2 was exactly as squishy if not more than the Cold War in real life

No, it was not. Infantry AT was short-range and for quite a while in the war could do very little even at that range (AT rifles were woefully inadequate). Infantry AA was non-existent (unless you turned the AT against a low strafing airplane, doubt there's even records of that though). Tanks and guns in general were relatively inaccurate at range, and many tanks simply could not penetrate eachother from the front at a large distance (relative to their effective gun range), unless we're talking heavy tanks engaging medium tanks.

Then there's the airforce. Bombing runs were a lot less precise than cold war air to surface missiles, dropping bombs on a tank was a lot harder, especially when even tank turret mounted MGs could make it hard on you, let alone actual AA. There was no SEAD bullshit either with SEAD planes and radar AA playing around seeing who can lock onto who first. If you wanted to take out AA with your airforce, you had to get in there up close and personal (same goes for bombing ground forces). Oh and no helicopters popping out from behind a mountain and destroying any sort of armoured vehicles from several kilometers away before going down again.

Finally artillery was a lot less precise as well as slower and more vulnerable. No fucking high precision assrape memerocket fired from one side of the map to the other.

>Yeah, God forbid that 90% of winning a war actually be represented in a fucking war game.

Yeah and everything being decided on the airforce makes for shitty gameplay, I'd like for other stuff to be relevant too, not just everything being either "post-aiforce cleanup crew" or "pre-airforce softening crew".

>>376797570
>Infantry AT was short-range and for quite a while in the war could do very little even at that range
Wow.

Just like man-portable AT weapons today,

>muh ATGMs
Literally fill the exact same role at anti-tank guns, and are only marginally more portable. Sure you can load an ATGM up on three or four guys but walking around with one is going to be barely faster than lugging an AT gun around. ATGMs and AT guns are the same type of weapon - you pick a place before the battle, dig them in, and leave them there.

>muh tanks can't pen from the front
Neither can modern tanks, doofus. British Challenger 2s have fired on each other a couple times by accident and done sweet fuck-all. Modern tanks are even more resistant to infantry weapons because of their superior protection against chemical penetration, which is what all infantry anti-tank weapons are.

>weapons were more inaccurate
That's true, but the mechanical accuracy of a weapon hasn't been the most relevant aspect since the widespread adoption of rifling.

>muh air force was less relevant
Absolutely fucking nope. It might have been less effective at causing casualties on the ground, (protip: all weapons were), but that doesn't make it less relevant at ALL. Advancing against shittier machineguns with shittier tanks while being bombed by shittier bombers is just as hard as advancing against better machineguns with better tanks while being bombed by better bombers.

>no man-portable AA
You literally just said that a fucking turret machinegun was a significant threat to bombers. The Soviets used to use volley fire with bolt action rifles as marginally effective AA for fuck's sake.

>no SEAD
ell fucking emm ayy oh
Do you even know what SEAD stands for? SEAD has existed for as long as AA has existed.

Anyway, the point is that everyone having shittier guns didn't change much about tactics. They still study WW2 at West Point because we still fight that way. Just with better weapons. You're dumb.

red dragon is better in pretty much all aspects.

>>376797570
>Yeah and everything being decided on the airforce makes for shitty gameplay
Fucking git gud then you fucking autist and stop forgetting to turn off your 150pt radar AA and losing them and then bitching about unstoppable planes.

For fuck's sake. You can effectively shut down enemy planes without a single plane of your own.

>but flicking radar on and off is HAAAAARD
Wow, it's almost as if you have to actually play the fucking game and can't just sit and watch a fucking movie. If they're using SEAD then move your radar AA behind your front line and use infra-red MANPADS and SPAAG (or even radar SPAAG if you REALLY want them dead) to hit the planes when they fly over your front line to get to the juicy points pinatas you are baiting them with at the back.

>>376798071
You know nothing about WW2. Stop posting.

>>376798071
/his/ related question, but how big is the impact from stabilizers when comparing ww2 to today?

>>376798396
Gripping rebuttal you fucking idiot.

What's wrong, have 15 years of RTS games and movies not prepared you for the real world? Who could have fucking guessed.

I think the most telling flaw in your "argument" is indeed the part where on one hand you say that there was no effective infantry AA and on the other hand say that a simple mounted machinegun was a credible threat to bombers.

>>376798429
The role of a tank is basically to make an opposed crossing of open terrain to engage with the enemy and displace them. Without stabilisers this is much harder because the tanks can either be moving or shooting, so at any given time half of the assaulting unit is not contributing to suppressing the enemy. Stabilisers made tank assaults more effective, basically. That's the big contribution. You can use less tanks to get the same volume of fire during an attack.

In terms of how much of an impact it had, it's hard to say. Not enough of an impact to drastically alter the role of a tank, that's for sure. Tanks today are the same as they were a hundred years ago in terms of purpose - to make an opposed crossing of open terrain to engage with the enemy and displace them. Better equipment lets them do that better, but it doesn't really change what they're for.

>>376798661
Ah, thanks

>>376799021
No worries.

I forgot to mention that in WW2 all tanks were effectively unstabilised. The stabilisers that did exist were unreliable, only worked vertically, and barely did that even when they did work. Most gunners never bothered with them because they made it impossible to keep their eye on the gunsight in operation

>>376793451
King Tigers are pretty useless in this game if you're not already winning (or playing 10v10)

>>376798661
>the real world
t. armchair general

>>376798071
>Just like man-portable AT weapons today,
Are you going to compare ATGMs to fucking WW2 AT rifles and recoilless shit? Seriously?

>Literally fill the exact same role at anti-tank guns, and are only marginally more portable. Sure...
>only marginally more portable

You gotta be baiting. Even fucking 37mm AT guns were a lot less portable than just about any ATGM, and those 37mm didn't do fucking shit to (most) medium or heavy tanks, especially at long range, while ATGMs on top of being more portable and longer ranged (and having much better accuracy) could fuck up the vast majority of armoured vehicles. Bigger AT guns were fucking TOWED, that should tell you how much less portable they were compared to ATGMs.

>Neither can modern tanks, doofus.
Not every tank is a Challenger 2, nor are we talking about modern tanks, we're talking Cold War.
>British Challenger 2s have fired on each other a couple times by accident and done sweet fuck-all.
Killed two crewmembers, that's "sweet fuck-all"?

>That's true, but the mechanical accuracy of a weapon hasn't been the most relevant aspect since the widespread adoption of rifling.
Overall accuracy has greatly increased, that fucking affects things a lot.

Fuck you post limit, 1/2

>>376798071
>>376799543
> It might have been less effective at causing casualties on the ground
So, exactly what we're talking about. Also, strategic bombing != tactical bombing.

>You literally just said that a fucking turret machinegun was a significant threat to bombers
You carry a tank turret with you?

>The Soviets used to use volley fire with bolt action rifles as marginally effective AA for fuck's sake.
You want to compare that to MANPADS?

>Do you even know what SEAD stands for? SEAD has existed for as long as AA has existed.
Retard, here let me quote you even just fucking Wikipedia:
>Prior to the Vietnam War, SEAD was an undefined mission: although attempts to destroy enemy air defense sites were undertaken, they were done so on an individual aircraft basis and in relation to specific targets or operations rather than as part of an overall strategy or doctrine of defense suppression.

You know damn well that the rise of SEAD as a complete strategy and doctrine in cold war is the main thing I'm stating as being shit for gameplay. You can not compare WW2 SEAD to Cold War SEAD.

2/2

>>376799543
I'm going to leave aside the technical question of the relative effectiveness of an ATGM vs an M1 compared to a Pak 38 vs an M4 because I'm not interested in a weapon-by-weapon comparison of dick length which ultimately goes nowhere.

You are a fucking retard, and here's why:
>say on one hand that a mounted machinegun is a credible threat to bombers, and then on the other that there is no infantry portable AA
>say that helicopters are a massive, incomprehensible danger, and then say that every infantryman is equipped with a MANPAD of impossible effectiveness
>say that ATGMs are "more portable" than AT guns (which is true, though for some retarded reason you think I've ever said opposite) when both of them are designed to be fired from fixed and ideally emplaced positions, both being virtually impossible to move under fire, thus rendering portability the least relevant property of the weapon
>say that artillery is super accurate, highly capable, and long-ranged (thus making counterbattery fire easier than ever), and then complain that artillery is way too mobile for counterbattery to be effective
Your entire argument is retarded contradiction, and to top it off you can't even use Google properly. If you had you'd have realised that the Challenger 2 incident you refer to, one of many, was one where the commander's hatch was left open and that this upright hatch was what was hit, and the resultant detonation sent fragments down the cupola. The hull was never penetrated, and never has been by friendly fire.

Tanks are tougher than fucking ever. They have been designed for the last seventy years for the sole purpose of defeating chemical infantry anti-tank weapons, something they do very very well, and yet you think that a fucking RPG will pop them open because they're "squishy".

>muh SEAD
I find it amusing that the game-ruining thing you complain about is that you can't remember to click a button on three or four units. Wargame doesn't even have real SEAD.

>>376795073
sounds like you were never good at RD. Attackers have the advantage in conquest if you're sitting at a +1, and you always need to push further

>>376803528
>and you always need to push further
No, you don't.

That is the fucking problem.

In neither conquest nor destruction should you ever push, ever, unless you're losing in conquest. There is no reason ever to push. Pushing in destruction is always dumb because units are more efficient on the defence. Pushing in conquest is dumb because you're already going to win and it's just a big risk because you expend your forces inefficiently and expose yourself to counterattack when those units would be better sitting in your zone being more efficient on the defence because you know they will assault because they must.

The only time you should ever, ever assault is when you're losing at conquest, and in that situation the game does damn sure to give you every possible disadvantage.

>>376803828
that's absolutely false. Sitting passively on a +1 is an immense disadvantage as your opponent can pick one flank to overwhelm.

>units are more efficient on the defence
they're not. They lack any synergy when used as speed-bumps.

>>376804061
>Sitting passively on a +1 is an immense disadvantage as your opponent can pick one flank to overwhelm.
Overwhelm is the right word because the only time an assault will ever succeed in Red Dragon is when you have massive local superiority, which you will never have due to the fact that you will be in a disadvantaged position because you already lost the initial clash, and it is literally impossible for you to catch up in points. The opposition would have to play abysmally for you to win.

>they're not. They lack any synergy when used as speed-bumps.
Wrong.

Have you even played the game?

The only time an attacker and defender are on equal footing is when two infantry squads bump into each other in a forest. Otherwise the defender always has better accuracy, the advantage of cover and concealment, reconnaissance, and unless he's retarded he will have better air defence as well as be using air likely outside of most of your air defence bubble.

Assaulting well-prepared positions is
l i t e r a l l y
impossible in Wargame. The defender has every conceivable advantage. I don't even know what you're referring to when you say "synergy" but it sounds retarded and deliberately vague.

Wargame is a massively flawed game, and that is why it is not popular.

>>376804412
>when two infantry squads bump into each other in a forest
in that situation it's not equal footing, it's the attacker that has the advantage.

>Have you even played the game?
I've won multiple tournaments, but whatever. Can't even think of one game where our opponents were retarded enough to sit on a +1.

Spam cheap fire support, screen your heavies, drop some smoke. Attacking isn't difficult, even with the motorized decks that I mained.
Alternatively, buratino/m270/uragan any static position to fully invalidate a defense.

>>376804903
although I must admit that buratino/m270/uragan are just as useful defensively.

File: its all so tiresome.jpg (48KB, 492x449px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 492x449px

>>376804903
Oh look, it's a retarded faggot who thinks that because he managed to shove some token resistance off a point he thinks he pulled off a masterful Barbarossa.

Yes, if you ram enough heavies down the throat of an undefended zone the defender will get railed. Like I said, overwhelming local superiority will allow you to win assaults. But use your fucking brain
>you can just just spam centurions to screen your heavies
>you can drop napalm or rocket arty
So can they. And when they do it, it will be more effective than when you do it. That's the fucking point. That's what efficiency means. Do you even know what efficiency is? You attacking units have worse accuracy because they're moving, you had a harder job reconning his forces, and your troops get no cover and no concealment, and can even fuck themselves up in difficult terrain leaving one of your two heavies in the bush you parked it in while massing for 40 seconds. Your planes are moving into his bubble, and his bombers can work with impunity unless you move your AA up to where he can see and snipe it.

There is never a reason to assault, because defending is always more efficient than assaulting.

>MUH TOURNEY VICTORIES
I don't give a shit. Wargame is a ded game and beating the five remaining Vietnamese peasant farmers who play it does not impress me.

>>376805262
EVERYTHING is MORE USEFUL defensively.

That's why you should always defend.

File: maxresdefault.jpg (586KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

586KB, 1920x1080px

>>376793451
playing cossacks 3 once in a while

>>376805397
Does it has the same dreadful pacing of the first games?

File: Steel Divisions.jpg (1MB, 1832x1827px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1832x1827px

>>376793451

>>376795073

Conquest is perfect right now.

There are no 'cap points', just a continuous frontline

>>376805645
Is Luftlande good now?

They got a bunch of buffs

>>376805576
yeah its literally cossacks 1 - HD

>>376805289
>noise
>attack-move
concepts that seem alien to you
>cover
that limits your avenues of fire?

I don't understand one thing though. You say that the player with +1 will also have the advantage in units. Does that have to be the case? Why not open conservatively and overwhelm the passive defender who's spread himself thin.

>>376806114
>attack-move
Yeah, so you're stopped in the open where everything and everyone can see you just so you can have the same accuracy as the tank that's in cover that you may not even be able to see while you shoot his partner/screen. I'd often either switch off my heavies or leave them a bit back into cover until enemy assaults engaged my shitty screen tanks on the other flank of the frontage I was defending and then rail the enemy tanks that were halted in open fields with 24AP.

>cover limits your avenues of fire
Also limits the avenues from which you can be fired at, as well as providing a malus to enemy accuracy IIRC. Any tank firing from the open at a tank in cover can be fired back at with better effect by the tank in cover. And the tank in cover will in all likelihood get the alpha strike anyway.

>Why not open conservatively and overwhelm the passive defender who's spread himself thin.
Why take the risk? Why put yourself at such a massive disadvantage and force yourself to play from behind in an uphill battle? There's no benefit to overwhelming anyway. It's not as if a breakthrough actually means anything because you have nowhere to push. No zone is any more relevant than any other zone outside of points value. So what if your overwhelm their left flank if they've got the centre and the right flank left? They still control most of the map, and the maps in Red Dragon are so big you'll have to pause to refuel and rearm while they reinforce around your assault.

Sure you can do it, and you might even win, but against the same opponent you'd have won easier and harder just by playing conventional, taking 51% of the map, and then sitting on your hands progressively reinforcing your front line and building a quick reaction force to contain any successful assaults.

>>376806605
>stopped in the open
not if you smoke
>malus to enemy accuracy
cover does no such thing
>Any tank firing from the open at a tank in cover can be fired back at with better effect by the tank in cover.
cover slows you while smoke doesn't. Smoke's also more "dense", making it better for breaking LOS. If you micro well, your heavies aren't tied to forests.

>Why take the risk?
exactly. Why risk it all on an opening when you could strike later to push through right into the 2pt zones.
To win by points from a +1, you'll be playing til the time limit. If someone overwhelms it and takes the 2pt zone behind it, they'll be ticking at +5. That's enough to outright win in 7 minutes.

>>376807796
>not if you smoke
Can't shoot through smoke.

>cover does no such thing
Pretty sure it does. It's harder to hit units in cover than in the open, I'm 99% sure. Don't make me boot up that shit game to check.

>cover slows you while smoke doesn't. Smoke's also more "dense", making it better for breaking LOS
Cover conceals your units and is also permanent. It doesn't matter if it slows you because the tank will be stationary anyway picking off enemy attackers. And if the defender wants to/needs to he can drop smoke as well - because like I keep saying, there's nothing that the attacker can do that the defender cannot do better.

>Why risk it all on an opening when you could strike later to push through right into the 2pt zones.
Because like I keep saying it's about a billion times easier to stop a push than launch one. It only takes 300 points of helicopters zooming over to reduce 1500 points of assault to a collection of smouldering hopes and dreams. You'll say "well I'll just bring sufficient AA" but that AA will be easily seen when it crosses open terrain during the assault, targeted, and then blown up. Or alternatively you'll bring enough AA to defend your assault, and then not have the overwhelming superiority you need to smash through their lines.

There's a reason players would just leave the game if they lost the first five minute rush to the centre points. You can, by some small miracle, salvage a game. But not often, and never easily.

>>376793837

Rip elite french tank snipers. You will be missed

>wreck king tigers by simply bombing them from the air, then taking them out by the side when the tanks turn while panicked.
>you will never know such satisfaction again from the feeling of killing those monsters.

Been playing a bunch of grav team tatics mius front. Once you figure out the UI playing it is a blast. I had a few infantry companys and a repair company with a pz4 attached wreck a few dug in Russian infantry. They way the other units work with the lone tank is very fun to watch.

Lots of suppress and move without having to tell my units too much. Just 'assault in this direction' and they move into lines and allow armor to move up first.

>>376808393
>there's nothing that the attacker can do that the defender cannot do better.
they can have a much higher concentration of force, but continue ignoring that. 600 points will wipe out 300 while taking much lower losses. That's why you want to keep pushing while winning, to prevent such a build-up.

>>376810445
>they can have a much higher concentration of force
Sure, but you need a massively higher concentration of force. And the defender needs to be retarded enough not have a mobile QRF of choppers and planes to blunt your attack.

600 points can quite easily lose to 300 points. The best micro'd, best supported heavy tanks with screens and smokes will still lose to a 35pt ATGM team you didn't see hiding in the treeline, or the attack chopper that they fly over from where it was twiddling its thumbs out of sight, and once the pair are sniped that's GG on the entire fucking assault as your screens just get mopped up and the infantry never even make it across the field as their transports pop.

Not to mention that because the defender has the points advantage it's even harder to actually get a sufficient local superiority anyway unless you're playing uber high income.

Wargame is badly designed. The game encourages sitting on your ass. Everything else is just what you do because you're bored and don't want to wait for the match to time out. You can win games (and I have won games) by never moving an inch from your initial positions for fifty minutes, and that is TERRIBLE design.

It should have been a "capture the enemy base" game, with the rest of the map just being the playfield. Conquest and Destruction are the two most retarded game modes I have ever seen. They are the worst I can even conceptualise. I cannot imagine a less fun gametype than "control 51% of the map and wait to win." Who fucking thought of that shit.

Even if you believe what you believe, which is fine, whatever, you can't deny that there are a million better alternatives than fucking conquest and destruction. I mean I get destruction because it's a holdover from actual tabletop wargames that Wargame was modelled after, but fuck me.

Wargame is my greatest disappointment. It took me 350 hours to realise I fucking hate that game.