PDA

View Full Version : Lots of new EndWar info!



pyosnka
04-28-2007, 11:52 AM
From the upcoming EGM:

EndWar
-Directed by Michael de Plater (formerly of Creative Assembly, where he worked on Total War)
-Inspired by... Madden
-No explicit multiplayer or single-player modes. 1 global campaign map for both game types
-Three factions: U.S. Joint Strike Force, European Enforcers, and Russian Spetsnaz
-Persistent Risk-like online campaign map. Everyone plays in this single, global campaign. The war ends when one faction conquers the majority of territories and then a new campaign starts.
-Each campaign can be different. They give the example that if America is conquered in one campaign, they can start the next campaign "to liberate U.S. soil with a massive new 'D-Day' landing on the East coast."
-"[The Battle for Middle-earth II] was a test case for exactly what we didn't want to do" (Referring to them taking a traditional PC RTS and re-mapping the controls"
-"The first thing we did was ban any reference to the PC. We were determined to design it from the ground up for console."
-Camera is always attached to a unit. The idea is to remove the god-like vision found in RTS games by having a more realistic line of sight.
-You can, however, toggle a full battlefield map where you can give your orders.
-Voice-command system that can control every aspect of the game
-7 unit types: Riflemen, Engineers, Tanks, Transports, Helicopters, Artillery, and Command Vehicles
-Limit of 12 units/squads in battle
-Unit costs are all equal
-No "magic", meaning for something to get to the battlefield it needs to be delivered, etc.
-"Everything is destructible"
-On units: "It's a battalion that you own. You can personalize it. You can customize it. You can choose its motto and its heraldry. You can change its compositions and abilities.
-If your soldiers die, they are gone for good along with their upgrades. If they live they gain experience & medals.
-"Nothing in EndWar seems more detailed and obsessed over than the surprisingly varied way soldiers act (and react) on the battlefield."
-For example: "Squadrons of heavily armed soldiers, when ordered to a cluster of firebombed cars, will automatically take cover in different ways, periodically taking potshots at the enemy through windows and over hoods. If a soldier gets shot, one of his squad mates will drag him back to safety"

Link: http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=153012

I will be posting the full scans at high res as soon as I get them.

pyosnka
04-28-2007, 11:52 AM
From the upcoming EGM:

EndWar
-Directed by Michael de Plater (formerly of Creative Assembly, where he worked on Total War)
-Inspired by... Madden
-No explicit multiplayer or single-player modes. 1 global campaign map for both game types
-Three factions: U.S. Joint Strike Force, European Enforcers, and Russian Spetsnaz
-Persistent Risk-like online campaign map. Everyone plays in this single, global campaign. The war ends when one faction conquers the majority of territories and then a new campaign starts.
-Each campaign can be different. They give the example that if America is conquered in one campaign, they can start the next campaign "to liberate U.S. soil with a massive new 'D-Day' landing on the East coast."
-"[The Battle for Middle-earth II] was a test case for exactly what we didn't want to do" (Referring to them taking a traditional PC RTS and re-mapping the controls"
-"The first thing we did was ban any reference to the PC. We were determined to design it from the ground up for console."
-Camera is always attached to a unit. The idea is to remove the god-like vision found in RTS games by having a more realistic line of sight.
-You can, however, toggle a full battlefield map where you can give your orders.
-Voice-command system that can control every aspect of the game
-7 unit types: Riflemen, Engineers, Tanks, Transports, Helicopters, Artillery, and Command Vehicles
-Limit of 12 units/squads in battle
-Unit costs are all equal
-No "magic", meaning for something to get to the battlefield it needs to be delivered, etc.
-"Everything is destructible"
-On units: "It's a battalion that you own. You can personalize it. You can customize it. You can choose its motto and its heraldry. You can change its compositions and abilities.
-If your soldiers die, they are gone for good along with their upgrades. If they live they gain experience & medals.
-"Nothing in EndWar seems more detailed and obsessed over than the surprisingly varied way soldiers act (and react) on the battlefield."
-For example: "Squadrons of heavily armed soldiers, when ordered to a cluster of firebombed cars, will automatically take cover in different ways, periodically taking potshots at the enemy through windows and over hoods. If a soldier gets shot, one of his squad mates will drag him back to safety"

Link: http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=153012

I will be posting the full scans at high res as soon as I get them.

alexm105
04-28-2007, 12:43 PM
Looks like a good RTS... Too bad I'm just not into them. I tried the Command & Conquer 3 demo a few days ago and fell asleep...

pettyofficerj
04-28-2007, 01:44 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by alexm105:
Looks like a good RTS... Too bad I'm just not into them. I tried the Command & Conquer 3 demo a few days ago and fell asleep... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm on the fence with this one..

After Vegas, alot of us was probably looking for another FPS squad-based game, instead we're getting a RTS...

I liked Rome: Total War and the way you moved your army around a map and pretty much engaged the enemy anywhere because your army was a persistent entity. When you moved them down a road, there was a chance they would run into an enemy group and have to duke it out like in real life. When the enemy attacked one of your towns, you had to defend them with whatever you decided to build as a garrison force.

If this is like that, I may be interested. As for why they kept this off the PC, I have NO CLUE....

imagine rome total war with a gamepad...

pettyofficerj
04-28-2007, 01:54 PM
good find btw..

thanks

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

pettyofficerj
04-28-2007, 02:05 PM
You know what, another game comes to mind when thinking of RTS warfare....

Full Spectrum Warrior...

You controlled 2 four-man fireteams (hooah) and during some levels you controlled a bradley (bushmaster cannon fire pwns all) fighting vehicle. You moved the guys around like you would with an RTS, but you were "down" on the streets on the grunt level and not using god view. You only saw what they saw and you kicked some a$$ ( i'm hyping myself up so much I may turn on my xbox to get some ). You did not have direct control over them as you would in a first person shooter, but you guided them and provided aiming sectors.

You could also split them up into two-man teams and have them using bounding overwatch techniques and all sorts of whacked-out 11B shiet

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

now...if ENDWAR is like that....plus adding in choppers and all that other stuff, that may be worth picking up....

if you want to see what this game MAY be like, download the Full Spectrum Warrior:Ten Hammers demo from fileplanet...

late edit - Like Endwar, Full Spectrum also emphasized cover. When you did move your men, it was in your best interest to move them along walls and made sure they stayed around corners out of direct fire. If you moved your men down a street without using cover ( cars, blocks, etc ), they would be cut to pieces....

Like endwar, your guys were capable of dragging out their wounded by picking them up and moving with them on their shoulders. They would not fire, but that allowed you to get them to a casualty evac station. If my memory serves me correctly, you could also drag them out of the line of fire when they went down. You had access to smoke and the sorts. Pick a spot on the street and have your guy toss one like a RTS.

Pretty Sweet..

Endwar is borrowing some elements from that game now that I think about it.

hangtime8705
04-28-2007, 03:41 PM
You know, that totally skipped my mind. I was not even thinking about EndWar being a souped of Full Spectrum Warrior. I loved that game. Now with all the new hardware they got on the 360 and PS3 there is no telling how'd they do this. But I'd go even further and talk about Brothers in Arms. That was like FSW but you got to control two squads. Mind you, these squads were larger than those in GRAW. You got to control two teams, of four men and switch between them, not to mention calling in tanks for support. Why the GRAW crew didn't allow us to switch to the lead control of various fireteams, I don't know. But now that you mentioned Full Spectrum Warrior, I am not as worried about the RTS mode. Hopefully all the fanboys on this site will just stop whining and cut the people at Ubi some slack. I think all there games are great. Could they do better, hell yeah. But I'm not gonna view the glass half empty.

CrazySunDog
04-28-2007, 04:09 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by hangtime8705:
Hopefully all the fanboys on this site will just stop whining and cut the people at Ubi some slack. I think all there games are great. Could they do better, hell yeah. But I'm not gonna view the glass half empty. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

*ahem* not all fanboys are bashing Ubi, and I wager that the folks bashing Ubi are most likely posers, that couldn't handle being a real TC fanboy. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Anyway, good subject for discussion; has anyone here played Chromehounds? (i'm a diehard 360 man.) It also had a persistent massive battle with 3 factions fighting for control of land, risk-style. The capitals were the best places to fight, with most clans/teams trying to face off there for more ex. points. I think a game like this would be a nice break from all the TC titles currently in mass production. I feel that although I really like the TC games, the gimmicks (around the corner view, RS:V) and the concessions to the mainstream public (turd person view in GRAW) are cramping the gameplay and immersiveness the TC games were originally developed to cater to.

bumontheroad
04-28-2007, 05:31 PM
Endwar sounds like it's gonna be pretty good. Only thing that bothers me is that the U.S. and Euros are against the Russians, so there may be more American/Euro victories in the campaign that Russian ones. Maybe they'll make up for that by giving the Russians more numbers...who knows

ObssesdNuker
04-28-2007, 05:41 PM
Or maybe its a three way war between the Russians, the Europeans, and the US?

pettyofficerj
04-28-2007, 06:08 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ObssesdNuker:
Or maybe its a three way war between the Russians, the Europeans, and the US? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm thinking along the lines of 3-way as well...
It will probably be like chromehounds where you take your "battalion", in my case a US battalion ( http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif ), into a room and join the other players with US battalions against another team (euro or russian) and it's battalions. The only question I have is how many players will it support. Chromehounds hosted 12 players ( I think, I rented it ).

Another simliar game would be battlestations:midway, but you didn't control infantry. You got to move your units in real time or by using the full-screen map.

Once we see some in-game screenshots and not some dog 'n pony bulls***, we'll be in a better place to make judgements..

:P

late edit - It would be cool if they had 3-way fights....then you would probably see the ruskies gettin gang-banged by us and euros...

also...we have yet to see if this game will have join-in progress...

if a team loses a player(s), will other people be able to join in and reinforce their respective sides..that would be cool as well

ObssesdNuker
04-28-2007, 06:13 PM
Hmm, three way battles would be awesome. Although I am an American, I would probably play as the Russians for the heck of it.

pettyofficerj
04-28-2007, 06:22 PM
-Each campaign can be different. They give the example that if America is conquered in one campaign, they can start the next campaign "to liberate U.S. soil with a massive new 'D-Day' landing on the East coast."


I would like to see how this works out in multiplayer fashion...

If you have thousands of players that belong to the US faction, how in the h3ll would they accomplish that task on one server with a persistent campaign?

Do they wait in like and circle jerk each other until it's their time up to bat, or what?

There are some possibilities tho. They may have multiple servers to host the players, the same way MMOs have "realms" to accomodate literally millions of players (world of warcraft). Endwar may do something like that with each server running it's respective campaign.

20 bucks to the guy who scans and uploads that issue of EGM http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

pettyofficerj
04-28-2007, 06:24 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ObssesdNuker:
Hmm, three way battles would be awesome. Although I am an American, I would probably play as the Russians for the heck of it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

we know how 3-ways usually go...one side gets banged on by both teams....

nothing a few marines can't handle tho..

on that note...I wanna see what kind of units we'll have access to..

most games have a special ops class...will ours have a "ghost recon" force along with the regular GI Joes

hangtime8705
04-28-2007, 06:37 PM
Yeah playing with the Ghosts would be fun, but I've used them too much. I wanna play with the SPETSNATZ. Like I said in one of my posts b4, I've always wondered what happens when the bad guy wins. As a matter of fact this reminds of the Red Alert 2 storyline. A resurgent Russia attacks the US. Except I think this storyline will be a lot more realistic than the cheesy one Red Alert 2 had.

pettyofficerj
04-28-2007, 06:51 PM
...we also have to see how a RTS type game bearing the clancy moniker handles health and weapons..

will there be one-hit kills or will guys be able to soak up bullets before dying..

or will their health magically regenerate if they duck and cover after being shot in the head

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

this is a console game..so i'm going with being able to absorb alot of punishment...

i'm playing a game called Theatre of War (pc rts) and it's pretty deadly...for the most part one hit kills are common...even when it comes to tanks...one well placed shot from an at gun nukes it...

nothing funner than playing as an airborne company with little to no armor against a dug in enemy with tanks...takes a real man to hustle a bazooka to the front to take one out...

takes an even harder man to watch as the first TWO bazooka rounds miss the tank by yards (wtf was he smoking), while the follow up shots land on target...

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

late edit- why did my bazooka man waste a rocket on one single german soldier, when there was armor and at guns that needed them more..

pettyofficerj
04-28-2007, 07:07 PM
"Inspired by Madden"

...do we have to listen to his witty quips after a guy gets blown up by a grenade?

"Boom!. He's on his back!"

"...............wow....That guy looks like he just got hit by a Mack truck!.."

or maybe we can get Di-ck Vitale style quirps...

after one of my rangers shoots a guy in the head from 1 klick out with his uber spr12, he'll yell...

"aaaaawwwesome baby!"

or..

after my 19 year old wipes out a veteran infantry platoon single-handedly with his vintage, nam-era m60, you'll hear..

"he is a true Diaper Dandy!"

Jackie Fiest
04-28-2007, 08:27 PM
Guys, I want to take this moment to say that you are not allowed to post scans on the forums. Ubi says no. Sorry. Any scans will be immediatley removed.

pettyofficerj
04-28-2007, 09:02 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TFS_Jackie:
Guys, I want to take this moment to say that you are not allowed to post scans on the forums. Ubi says no. Sorry. Any scans will be immediatley removed. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

...one day...the history books will note...this quote made by Jackie..which led the entire world...into World War 3...

*cue the doomsday musiq*

CrazySunDog
04-28-2007, 09:03 PM
All this talk gets me thinking; Maybe that ghost pow is being held by euros...

Anyway they slice it, I'm getting excited about this game.

Ibanez_821
04-29-2007, 02:06 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by CrazySunDog:
All this talk gets me thinking; Maybe that ghost pow is being held by euros...

Anyway they slice it, I'm getting excited about this game. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Would explain why the interface of the old website was all in English...then again if it were in Russian most of us wouldn't be able te read it, he he http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

pettyofficerj
04-29-2007, 04:59 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by CrazySunDog:
All this talk gets me thinking; Maybe that ghost pow is being held by euros...

Anyway they slice it, I'm getting excited about this game. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

all bets are off now dude...

unless...this game features alliance-making, somehow. You could be at total war with the reds, launching 40 mike mikes without discretion, all day at them, while having an alliance with the EU.

HOPEFULLY, EGM will have some better details on the multiplayer front.

JebsCross
04-29-2007, 05:56 AM
"ban any reference to the PC...designed from the ground up to be on console."

That lost me right there... WTF? So they say it's been "dumbed down"? I want to play a game on my PC; usually there'll be more options/commands, mods, etc. I will NOT get XBOX Live or SONY On-line; just to be able to upgrade a game. I used to think the new consoles would be an improvement, but, I have'nt seen the 'killer app' yet that'll make me spend $350plus on a nextgen. For that money, most tech-savvy people could really upgrade a gaming PC. The lowest commmon denominator rears it's ugly head again.

hangtime8705
04-29-2007, 09:05 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JebsCross:
"ban any reference to the PC...designed from the ground up to be on console."

That lost me right there... WTF? So they say it's been "dumbed down"? I want to play a game on my PC; usually there'll be more options/commands, mods, etc. I will NOT get XBOX Live or SONY On-line; just to be able to upgrade a game. I used to think the new consoles would be an improvement, but, I have'nt seen the 'killer app' yet that'll make me spend $350plus on a nextgen. For that money, most tech-savvy people could really upgrade a gaming PC. The lowest commmon denominator rears it's ugly head again. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hey Jebs I can understand your pain. But I think many of us would appreciate it if you would put your complaints about ubi in the why this game will suck thread. For the rest of us who simply are enjoying discussing the game without all the criticism, this negativity is kinda getting OLD and REAL quick. So would u mind just helpin' us out a bit. Thanx.

pettyofficerj
04-29-2007, 09:16 AM
to be realistic...this game will "probably" have less options as one on the PC...

doesn't mean this game will suck...just means it will be more user accessible instead of appealing to the hardcore crowd...

on a positive note, this game will have unit upgrades and I wonder if units will gain rank in the field like in some other rts's i know of.

in theatre of war, the game i'm playing now (rts), units gain experience points in battle. At the end of a battle, you can use those points to increase their rank (which in turn signicantly increases leadership ability), gunnery skills, scouting, and so on. Those characteristics make them more effective for the upcoming battles...

however..

if they die, you lose that dude forever and all of that work you put into honing his abilities..

all of your units have names as well ( in theatre of war), which makes me wonder if Ubisoft will keep with their traditional style of giving our guys names and making us become attached to them ( who can forget ding chavez, or deter weber! ).

Ammo is also limited in that game, as your men will run dry on their garands and .30 cals. Fortunately, you can order them to pick up a gun from a dead german or another teammate. If you can do that in Endwar, that would be cool.

late edit - would be nice if you could construct structures in the field like bunkers, mg emplacements, towers and the sort. You wouldn't have to, but it would be cool if you could. Maybe use some engineers for the job. Then any player on your team would be able to use those structures as well.

hangtime8705
04-29-2007, 09:51 AM
I don't know if you've tried OFP b4. But I remember this one guy made a MOD where u had to purchase things like weapons, and bunkers, and say where you wanted to place them. And of course things took time. I think the missions will respond to our actions instead of just us responding to the mission. For instance, if one of our men is hit and the only way to get him out is thru a helo medevac, we would call in the helo, but have to hunker down in a building and wait for the helo to arrive. Now lets say where in a nasty firefight and have to defend ourselves until the chopper arrives. That type of fluid unscriptedness would make the game really nice. Hopefully they can pull it off.

pettyofficerj
04-29-2007, 01:45 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by hangtime8705:
I don't know if you've tried OFP b4. But I remember this one guy made a MOD where u had to purchase things like weapons, and bunkers, and say where you wanted to place them. And of course things took time. I think the missions will respond to our actions instead of just us responding to the mission. For instance, if one of our men is hit and the only way to get him out is thru a helo medevac, we would call in the helo, but have to hunker down in a building and wait for the helo to arrive. Now lets say where in a nasty firefight and have to defend ourselves until the chopper arrives. That type of fluid unscriptedness would make the game really nice. Hopefully they can pull it off. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

MFCTI/RTS (real time strategy mod) are two mods where both sides have a player as their commander who places buildings, creates workers to build the buildings, and so forth. All of the other players have access to the buildings to buy armor, jeeps, and AI squad mates.

Was a pretty good mod.

Savage is another RTS/FPS type game as well. One play acts as commander and places things on a map or whatever (buildings, etc). He also issues waypoints, defense orders, and the such. If i remember correctly, he could also jump into the game as a regular player using the 3rd person view or FPS.

If Endwar was a hybrid...it would garner a bigger crowd in my opinion..rather than be a run of the mill RTS.

Battlestations midway is a hybrid. Check out the demo if you want to see how that would work.

Get on the ball ubi!!

robotchickengod
04-30-2007, 09:55 PM
Wouldn't having multiple players on each side in each campaign also allow for each player to play towards their strengths. For example, you could have 1 team mate that was really good with infantry, and 1 thats good with tanks or other support units. If combined and working as a team their unit focus then becomes strengths for the whole force, rather than each player stretching their allowed 12 units/squads to cover everything.

just a thought.

atacms2020
05-01-2007, 09:00 AM
I'm excited that there will be no "magic" in regards to delivery of units that you order. In other words it sounds like this strategy game is aiming for realism, no local factory producing a tank that would take months to create. This helps with immersion. Hopefully they don't have resource gathering either.

Cool thing too is that you have a ground persective so you'll be able to see things with a horizon view, but have overhead views via the map. Makes sense.

Also like the idea of intricate animations like troops dragging wounded comrades. Oops I mean battle buddies, comrades sounds too "Soviet" lol.

pettyofficerj
05-01-2007, 10:52 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by atacms:
I'm excited that there will be no "magic" in regards to delivery of units that you order. In other words it sounds like this strategy game is aiming for realism, no local factory producing a tank that would take months to create. This helps with immersion. Hopefully they don't have resource gathering either.

Cool thing too is that you have a ground persective so you'll be able to see things with a horizon view, but have overhead views via the map. Makes sense.

Also like the idea of intricate animations like troops dragging wounded comrades. Oops I mean battle buddies, comrades sounds too "Soviet" lol. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm still feeling odd about this game being an RTS tho..

I need to see some in-game footage and get some more details....

atacms2020
05-01-2007, 01:14 PM
I can't buy a single issue, I have to buy the full year?

pcsanch
05-01-2007, 01:34 PM
Article is kind of scant on details, but seems more like a true RTS as opposed to any hybrid that allows you to contol units FPS style. Units are persistent in terms of gaining experience and once gone experience is lost so there is an incentive to approach battles in a tactical manner. You control up to twelve squads/unit each having the ability to be personalized in terms of composition. Voice commands seem to be prevalent feature used to simplify controls. No "magic" in the game so structures do not appear just because engineer unit close(example: If re-enforcements called in they must be helicoptered in). Focus on tactical elements as camera is always attached to something like unit/squad meaning that there is no knowing what is beyond their line of sight. As commander you might have roughed out info on battles raging on larger scale world map but it appears that actual battles are less god-like and you cannot see or know beyond what information you gather from units in the field. Hope this info helps.

pcsanch
05-01-2007, 01:36 PM
atacms -yes you can buy single issue if you click on tab that says something like "check out these single copies too" and add only single issue into cart.

atacms2020
05-01-2007, 01:54 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by pcsanch:
atacms -yes you can buy single issue if you click on tab that says something like "check out these single copies too" and add only single issue into cart. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thanks you saved me about $15 bucks! =)

ChrisxLegend
05-01-2007, 03:39 PM
And what did you mean by inspired by madden or was that a joke? Sounds like an excellent game. This info you just gave this is a confirmed Tutorial correct?

atacms2020
05-01-2007, 06:44 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ChrisxLegend:
And what did you mean by inspired by madden or was that a joke? Sounds like an excellent game. This info you just gave this is a confirmed Tutorial correct? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thanks to PCSANCH! I got my copy.
In regards to the Madden comment, they're referring to how the game is similar because you choose your units ahead of time and then make your strategy or play just like the coach does. They go on by saying that in the first Madden games you had a top down view, but later the newer versions of Madden put you in the game at the tackler/or qb/or whatever from their perspective. So the developers wanted to recreate that same sensation, put you more in the game rather than floating above it. Give it a more personal feel to the battlefield. SOUNDS GOOD to me! There's lots more info I thought then what others have stated. the article is 8 pages long and filled with awesome screenshots.
I would definitely get the Xbox360 just for this game!!

ObssesdNuker
05-01-2007, 07:30 PM
CONFIRMED! There it's a three way war!

Apparently, in the EGM(which I bought off Zinio), the war is going to be US vs Europe vs Russia. Thats what they said, anyways.

Oh, and you can control your units via voice control.

Lampshade111
05-02-2007, 02:14 PM
What happened to China?

atacms2020
05-02-2007, 02:43 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Lampshade111:
What happened to China? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Maybe in an expansion, but it seems the 3 sides in this one are the ones that we've already mentioned US, EU and Russia.

hangtime8705
05-02-2007, 02:55 PM
Well I downloaded an online copy of EGM and they (Ubi) said they would be tweaking the campaign online when one campaign was finished. For instance, they said that if the US is captured in one campaign, then the online players will have to play a campaign to liberate the US. Recognizing this whats not to say that Ubi could give us a campaign to fight in China or against China. Besides, the 360 and PS3 do boast downloadable content. So I wouldn't throw out the notion of China being in the game at some point down the road.

atacms2020
05-02-2007, 02:57 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by pettyofficerj:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by atacms:
I'm excited that there will be no "magic" in regards to delivery of units that you order. In other words it sounds like this strategy game is aiming for realism, no local factory producing a tank that would take months to create. This helps with immersion. Hopefully they don't have resource gathering either.

Cool thing too is that you have a ground persective so you'll be able to see things with a horizon view, but have overhead views via the map. Makes sense.

Also like the idea of intricate animations like troops dragging wounded comrades. Oops I mean battle buddies, comrades sounds too "Soviet" lol. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm still feeling odd about this game being an RTS tho..

I need to see some in-game footage and get some more details.... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ok some more details, there is no resource gathering. Just like in the upcoming World in Conflict developed by Massive, which I'd highly recommend (I was in the pre-alpha test), you do no resource gathering, but capture strategic points on the map. This will give you points with which you as commander can request from higher command to send in the units you choose. Awesome!

Voice command as mentioned is in the game and is used to tell your guys, "capture this building" then they head out. Seems like they have a great idea in that you won't have to fumble with numbers on a keyboard instead you just say it and they execute. Gives you the sense of being a commander.

Line of sight is important because since you've got a ground view it also means what you can see you can hit if it's in your line of sight. That also means if you hide the enemy can't see you. If you've played RTS games before you'll know that alot of those games have always had issued with line of sight in their consistency. Anyway, this seems to solve the issue.

Some units in game: google NLOS-C and they've got this in the game to the exact detail.

Looks like they resurrect the Comanche stealth helicopter.

V-22 is in there and what looks like a future version of the M1 Abrams.

One thing I don't like and I might be misunderstanding it, is that you're limited to 7 types of units. I love RTS games for the wealth of units you can have. I want variety, lots of ways to cause destruction not just 7 types. =(

CrazySunDog
05-02-2007, 06:21 PM
The small amount of unit types kinda had me confused as well. I just hope that the high degree of customizing will make two of the same types seem like two different units. For ex: A helicopter gunship could have its guns removed and be used to transport troops.

I guess we'll see more info in the future...

CrazySunDog
05-02-2007, 06:33 PM
Wow, just googled the The Non-Line-of-Sight-Cannon;

"it will give the Army a key capability that it currently lacks: a cannon artillery system that is fully automated, highly mobile, and capable of launching multiple rounds precisely on target simultaneously. Moreover, unlike the Army's current artillery systems, the Non-Line-of-Sight-Cannon will be fully integrated into an advanced electronic network shared by Soldiers on the battlefield. This will make the Non-Line-of-Sight-Cannon much more responsive to Soldier mission requirements."

pettyofficerj
05-03-2007, 03:22 PM
i'm still on the fence with this one...

inspired by "Madden,", yet it's an RTS type title...

a couple of screenies and a gameplay vid can either make or break the deal for me..

if it looks like a traditional RTS, i'm stickin to pc games like company of heroes.

PrinceCaspian5
05-13-2007, 03:55 PM
does anyone have any idea how many players will be able to play in one multiplayer match. als oany idea how large each unit will be, i know you only get 12 units, but how many soldiers are in each?

pettyofficerj
05-13-2007, 07:21 PM
that's one thing that gets me too..

how many players will be able to go at it within the same game...

I would also like to know what kinds of plans there are as far as teamplay...

we know they have to work together to win games..that's a given...but HOW?

can they share ammo (if ammo is limited), etc....

PrinceCaspian5
05-13-2007, 07:42 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by pettyofficerj:
can they share ammo (if ammo is limited), etc.... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
You brought up a good point there, do we have to worry about logistics? They said in EGM that they didn't want anything to magically appear (meaning that if you get a unit, it won't just pop up it has to be brought in and dropped off) does that apply to ammo? Will we have to race out a hummer filled with ammo to a squad after it has been fighting for a while, or what bout artillery, will we have to send them shells before they can start a barrage? It would add a lot to the strategy, you could get a unit behind enemy lines and ambush enemy supply convoys, or you could surround an enemy cutting off his supplies and just wait until he runs out of ammo.
Another question, do you think we will be able to take prisoners?

pettyofficerj
05-13-2007, 07:51 PM
taking "prisoners" and incorporating them into your own army would be nice...

I think you can do that in Act of War for the PC. You can take people that you normally would not have and use them. You could find pilots and they would give your force a bonus, or something like that...haven't played it in a while..

As far as the jeep running ammo, that would be cool too. Basically, if they added supply features to the game, that could give players on a side something else to do, like in a regular multiplayer game. They would still fight but your squad would look to them to be "johnny on the spot with the ammo" when things ran tight.

As far as things not magically appearing on the battlefield...a game called "Drop Team" is similar with respects. In order for anything to get into the fight, you had to click a spot on the map and your troops, tanks, whatever, would be flown in via dropship. At this same time, the enemy can shoot missles or set up ambushes for your dropships and kill them before they release their cargo. This in turn, would chew away at both your dropships and your units, provided they fall into that scenario. You were given a certain amount of dropships as well..so when they ran out, NOTHING would be able to get into the fight regardless of that 400 man airborne battalion you have waiting back at base.

In this case, they would be using something like an osprey or c130 for flying in things. Whether or not they would allow you to shoot the cargo units down before they were allowed to reinforce your position, has yet to be seen as well, but would make things interesting.

pettyofficerj
05-13-2007, 08:04 PM
Long Post - Don't Look at if you have ADD or something called Ridilin in your medicine cabinet



Does anyone know if you can move other players units around via transport?

If player X has a blackhawk and player Y does not, but needs his men to reinforce player Z's position on the other end of that mountain, can player x scoop them up and sling them across the terrain?

Also..

What about Combat Lethality???

Does one hit kill or does it take multiple hits? Does this game have hitboxes? If a guy gets shot in the head, will he take more damage than a guy who gets shot in the leg (or ******)?

And what about Objectives FFS??

Will we have capture the flag, team deathmatch, or something like territory domination?

Those options can make or break a game. So far, I'm thinking this game already has something like team deathmatch where 2 sides go at it until one side has no more people..

What about Retreating from Battle???

This game has unit persistence and it looks like players would want to keep their veterans out of suicide scenarios..

For instance...

Your playing a 6 on 6 match as the Ruskies, and the US JSF wiped out the other Five Noob players. You are stuck alone but have some really elite guys that you spent alot of time investing in. Can you withdrawl from battle? You would obviously lose the fight...but spare your Ivans for later.

That would be nice. This would make sense for objective based fights. For instance, in Rome Total War, you had a town that you wanted to take. This town had a garrison of troops. So, you start the battle by marching your men up the hills and then start sling rocks at their walls. All of a sudden the gates go down and Roman Legions start slapping the spit out of your barbarian horde's collective mouth. You had 2 options. You could keep up this embarassing fight, or you could simply run away.

You would have failed to take the town, but instead of getting decimated, you spared some of your troops. Now, instead of starting from scratch, you had a foundation to rebuild your army around.

Make Sense?

They have a guy from Total War involved in EndWar, and I'm hoping he looks into that feature...

Whether or not hangtime and Inquistor will want to play with you again, after you ran away to save your men and left them to fight and get slaughtered, is another story.

PrinceCaspian5
05-13-2007, 10:17 PM
I agree, I wouldn't want to loose my best units pointlessly, I would like to be able to evac my veteran units and replace them with new units that are not as good or valuable (a.k.a. cannon fodder) when it looks like things can't be turned in my favor, otherwise, one bad battle and you have no veteran units, the only way you would have any vets is if you have an unbroken string of wins, then one loss, and you would have to start over again

pettyofficerj
05-13-2007, 11:14 PM
oh and yes...

if someone could find out when this game is supposed to be released....

piratefalcon325
05-14-2007, 01:14 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by pettyofficerj:
taking "prisoners" and incorporating them into your own army would be nice...

I think you can do that in Act of War for the PC. You can take people that you normally would not have and use them. You could find pilots and they would give your force a bonus, or something like that...haven't played it in a while..

As far as the jeep running ammo, that would be cool too. Basically, if they added supply features to the game, that could give players on a side something else to do, like in a regular multiplayer game. They would still fight but your squad would look to them to be "johnny on the spot with the ammo" when things ran tight.

As far as things not magically appearing on the battlefield...a game called "Drop Team" is similar with respects. In order for anything to get into the fight, you had to click a spot on the map and your troops, tanks, whatever, would be flown in via dropship. At this same time, the enemy can shoot missles or set up ambushes for your dropships and kill them before they release their cargo. This in turn, would chew away at both your dropships and your units, provided they fall into that scenario. You were given a certain amount of dropships as well..so when they ran out, NOTHING would be able to get into the fight regardless of that 400 man airborne battalion you have waiting back at base.

In this case, they would be using something like an osprey or c130 for flying in things. Whether or not they would allow you to shoot the cargo units down before they were allowed to reinforce your position, has yet to be seen as well, but would make things interesting. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

ugh.. if the Army is still dropping paratroopers out of C-130's in 2027 I think I am going to $hi+ a brick. *throws up in mouth*

fun fact - I was a US Army paratrooper for a few years, and those C-130's were older than dirt. (on one jump one of the forward doors - read: not the jump door - flew open as we were approaching the DZ, case in point C-130's are terrifying to ride in) I'd rather jump out of one than land in one, though...

Good discussion, btw.

pettyofficerj
05-14-2007, 01:46 PM
lol...

i was using a c130 as a realistic military reference, not some futuristic "dropship."

Air assault by helicopter is a more probable means of rapid infantry envelopment instead of jumping out of perfectly good airplanes nowadays....but the military may have plans for implementing a new fixed-wing bird for airborne ops...

geronimo?!?
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

atacms2020
05-14-2007, 02:03 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by pettyofficerj:
lol...

i was using a c130 as a realistic military reference, not some futuristic "dropship."

Air assault by helicopter is a more probable means of rapid infantry envelopment instead of jumping out of perfectly good airplanes nowadays....but the military may have plans for implementing a new fixed-wing bird for airborne ops...

geronimo?!?
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

One of the screenshots I say was a V-44 QuadTiltRotor (QTR), maybe this would be the aircraft for airborne insertions. Should be big enough to carry the Humvee replacement if I recall the specs correctly.

Inquisitor_Zeal
05-14-2007, 04:42 PM
ya i hope that you can either change what units ur using so the vets dont die in a noob charge or from a random lose after countless wins. But i guess the sadder, less practical and more sore loser alternative is to quit before the you unit dies(hopefully very few people do that if any). Also i wonder how people will be able to 'upgrade' vehicles, if it will be like change your MBT's ammo to DU rounds or add bulletproof cockpits to your helos. Plus i wonder if you can make your own patch for ur battalion, choose its camo scheme ect. with regards to their looks.

PrinceCaspian5
05-14-2007, 10:22 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Inquisitor_Zeal:
ya i hope that you can either change what units ur using so the vets dont die in a noob charge or from a random lose after countless wins. But i guess the sadder, less practical and more sore loser alternative is to quit before the you unit dies(hopefully very few people do that if any). Also i wonder how people will be able to 'upgrade' vehicles, if it will be like change your MBT's ammo to DU rounds or add bulletproof cockpits to your helos. Plus i wonder if you can make your own patch for ur battalion, choose its camo scheme ect. with regards to their looks. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I hope people don't just quit when it starts going bad, I think that to stop that from happening too much, if people quit early I think they should be punished in some way, the punishment can't be too bad because many people have a good reason to leave early, so it can't be too bad, but it should be bad enough that if you make a habit of quitting early it will hurt after a while, I don't know what that punishment could be, I don't know enough about the game (maybe you could loose whatever you use to buy units with when you quit)
As for your other points, if you can upgrade infantry I don't see why you wouldn't be able to upgrade other units as well.
And as for designing unit patches your self, I think I read that you could, not sure though.

piratefalcon325
05-15-2007, 04:05 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by pettyofficerj:
lol...

i was using a c130 as a realistic military reference, not some futuristic "dropship."

Air assault by helicopter is a more probable means of rapid infantry envelopment instead of jumping out of perfectly good airplanes nowadays....but the military may have plans for implementing a new fixed-wing bird for airborne ops...

geronimo?!?
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I was thinking the exact same thing a while back, when site was a couple of weeks old - there's references to a "combat jump" in Paris, but someone who had been to the supposed DZ said that it would not be good for a (conventional) airborne op. The flash video for the Paris battle also showed the osprey-like birds, so I thought it might be more feasible that the jump was done from either tilt-rotor birds or from helos.

I'd be willing to bet that that's one of your insertion methods in this game, rather than just pounding the groud into the AO.

pettyofficerj
05-20-2007, 05:07 PM
How many players does this mother support!!

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

most of the rts types that I seen with multiplayer supported around 4-8 players...

can Ubi up the ante and make it 6 vs 6?

the more the merrier....

i will be less likely to get cursed out by some 10 year old pimple if something gets screwed up during a battle with 5 other mates to account for..

unlike Company of Heroes, where I was the usual suspect when things went wonky in 2 vs 2 matches.

PrinceCaspian5
05-20-2007, 05:59 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by pettyofficerj:
How many players does this mother support!!

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

most of the rts types that I seen with multiplayer supported around 4-8 players...

can Ubi up the ante and make it 6 vs 6?

the more the merrier....

i will be less likely to get cursed out by some 10 year old pimple if something gets screwed up during a battle with 5 other mates to account for..

unlike Company of Heroes, where I was the usual suspect when things went wonky in 2 vs 2 matches. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I would hope that it is something like 6 vs. 6, but I think it should be at least 4 vs. 4, I don't like small games,
Another question is how many troops you will be able to command, i know that you can only have 12 groups at a time, but how many troops are in each group?

pettyofficerj
05-20-2007, 09:38 PM
If each player would have 12 groups of troops, i'm guessing some troop types would be more than one..

For instance, one infantry unit/entity would probably consist of around 4 to 5 men. If Ubi is uber, they will allow you to give each of those men within your individual groups different weapons. They may have preloaded infantry groups, for different functions. For instance, you would have one group for anti tank, one group for firesupport (mortars, mmmm), one group for mass casaulty production (heavy gunners), etc.

Personally, I would like to customize my groups right down to the tee...

One sniper with a .50 cal rifle, javelin, 2 ak47s, 5 satchels and 30 mags...FTW!

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif

pettyofficerj
05-20-2007, 09:41 PM
late edit..

it would be really keen of them to allow you to move individual troops within your groups as well...

For instance, that 5 man group of inf can be split into 2 to give yourself more options. Your field of vision is supposed to be limited here, so you would have one team staying put and supporting in an overwatch situation, since you will generally not know whats coming around that corner, or over that hill, while the other team moves to the next cover point..

something like that...a la Full Spectrum Warrior...

they're going to need anti air infantry as well, or I'll forsee alot of moaning and groaning over constant air rape in the future...

I would also like to see what speed this game plays at...

Traditional clancy games haven't been really speedy...they usually maintain a smooth pace, unlike other games where running seems to be an unlimited option...

I would like to see stamina attached to units like infantry, so that they could sprint for a while..

As far as armor, I would like to see realistic hit points..

If you use a javelin...well.....any tank is pretty much fooked because you have the option of shooting it so that the warhead comes down directly ontop of enemy armor, which is the weakest points typically. That usually ends up bad for the armor crew.. But if you were to use a RPG on a tank with a front shot, that wouldn't do as much damage as if you positioned your troopers at its rear, which usually has thinner armor.

I would also like some futuristic defense mechanism against those space based lasers...

Maybe some sort of unit cloaking that prevents the laser from acquiring targets, or some sort of electronic jammer to prevent special forces uplink signals if they decide to laser paint a target for the space based BFG (big $*%*#ing gun)

PrinceCaspian5
05-20-2007, 11:57 PM
I hope you can mix up what units are in each group, I would like to have some of my infantry groups have a Bradley or maybe even an Abrams (something with a big gun that they can hide behind for cover from small arms) in with them giving some support, not all, only one or two, having something like that would hurt their mobility, so most would only have infantry.
Also, I agree, I think most groups will probably have more then 1 unit, because they said in the EGM article that all units cost the same, it doesn't make sense that 1 infantry unit would cost the same as a tank, maybe a squad of infantry, but not just one
And on your point about the big space gun, you're right, it sounds too powerful to not have a countermeasure.
I wonder if you can have your infantry squads moved around by Bradley instead of having the walk all the way?

pettyofficerj
05-21-2007, 12:22 AM
^^^^which leads me to our next question......

how big are the battlefields??

1 square km?

5?

10?

or..maybe a 100 ft by 100 ft sandbox

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif

PrinceCaspian5
05-21-2007, 12:35 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by pettyofficerj:
^^^^which leads me to our next question......

how big are the battlefields??

1 square km?

5?

10?

or..maybe a 100 ft by 100 ft sandbox

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Good point, if it is a small map, you wouldn't need to move around in a Bradley, I would imagine they would be big maps, enough room to maneuver in, if they were too small you wouldn't have room to maneuver and it wouldn't be much of a strategy game, all you could do is charge headlong into the enemy and see who comes out on top.

pettyofficerj
05-21-2007, 12:17 PM
I wonder if this game will have fuel limitations for the uber units like the joint strike fighter or f22...( one of them HAS to be in this game ), along with the helicopters...

It would be cool for each faction to have a "base" on the map, where they could regroup, healup, rearm, etc, along with an airbase/strip that housed the various aircraft. When you wanted to use the planes, you would have it launch from the strip, and have it loiter around the combat zone, striking targets with its LIMITED ammo ( to prevent pure pwn'age ) until its' fuel ran out or something, then have it RTB ( return to base for ye nubs ). Rinse, repeat, so forth.

This is a Clancy game, so I'm having dreams of some level of realism, even tho it's geared towards the less-anal console gamers...

I also wonder if this game will have weather...

It probably wouldn't affect futuristic technology due to the simple fact that it's getting better and better with respect to all-weather terrain negotiating and targeting..but it would add some difficulty to the field.

pettyofficerj
05-21-2007, 12:20 PM
BTW...this idea of, you can customize your units, upgrade them, and so forth, along with lose them "forever", reminds me of the ORIGINAL days of clancy where games like ghost recon allowed you to spend points on characters, to make them more lethal on the field.

However, if they got killed, you would lose that buff character forever....

With rainbow six, when you lost an "A-class Starter", you were given some Joe Blow knucklehead fresh from the shooting range with craptacular stats who was likely to die in the next mission...

interesting

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

PrinceCaspian5
05-21-2007, 12:32 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by pettyofficerj:
I wonder if this game will have fuel limitations for the uber units like the joint strike fighter or f22...( one of them HAS to be in this game ), along with the helicopters...

It would be cool for each faction to have a "base" on the map, where they could regroup, healup, rearm, etc, along with an airbase/strip that housed the various aircraft. When you wanted to use the planes, you would have it launch from the strip, and have it loiter around the combat zone, striking targets with its LIMITED ammo ( to prevent pure pwn'age ) until its' fuel ran out or something, then have it RTB ( return to base for ye nubs ). Rinse, repeat, so forth.

This is a Clancy game, so I'm having dreams of some level of realism, even tho it's geared towards the less-anal console gamers...

I also wonder if this game will have weather...

It probably wouldn't affect futuristic technology due to the simple fact that it's getting better and better with respect to all-weather terrain negotiating and targeting..but it would add some difficulty to the field. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I hope ammo and fuel is limited for the planes, I think ammo should be limited for all units (especially artillery and aircraft, if they had unlimited ammo they would be too powerful), you would have to think of things like outrunning your supply lines, and when one side starts to be pushed back their supply lines will shorten and yours will lengthen, giving the defender an advantage, it would also add some more realism to the game, that way you could get a unit behind enemy lines and disrupt supply, not only would that stop frontline units from getting ammo (maybe it could stop their artillery from firing which could turn the tide of battle in your favor) I would also force them to take some units off the frontline to guard their supply lines, it would add more strategy to the game.
I hope they have weather, even though there is all weather tech it would still effect the battle, it makes it harder to see, it can make travel harder (and slower), wind can effect accuracy

pettyofficerj
05-21-2007, 12:55 PM
Will we have the CSMC ( Colonial Space Marine Corps ) from the movie "Aliens," to storm the space-based satellite facilities?

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

"Nuke 'em from orbit. It's the only way to be sure."

pettyofficerj
05-21-2007, 01:03 PM
I'm also interested in seeing how the prepping phase of battles go..

I do not think this will be the game where you magically produce units from a building during the game, but I could be wrong...

Keeping with this train of thought, players from any given side will be forced to come up with force composition strategies that would best suit their needs and goals before the battle even starts.

This could be very intesting as you and your mates will have to take into account such details as the terrain, urbanization, etc. If you were playing on a map that had lots of close fighting and tight streets, would you want to have mass amounts of armor and little infantry? Or, would it be wiser for some players to take considerable amounts of infantry and fewer armored vehicles to prevent congestion on the streets?

If you were in a mission briefing and seen that the terrain was composed of long stretches of desert, would you want more armor for long-range pwnage of noobs who preferred to bring along massive amounts of mid range infantry?

What about disciplines? Would you want one of your buddies to focus on airpower and coordinate air support needs for your ground troops via voice communications, so that you could maximize your efforts on winning the ground on the squad level, constantly watching your infantry and their maneuvers, while he is worried about getting air support at all the right places at all the right times...

this could be an interesting title..

but all of this is dependent on the type of players you are with. Some may talk more than others. Chances are you will always have that odd game where NO one is coordinating and just trying to do everything by themselves.

PrinceCaspian5
05-21-2007, 01:15 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by pettyofficerj:
BTW...this idea of, you can customize your units, upgrade them, and so forth, along with lose them "forever", reminds me of the ORIGINAL days of clancy where games like ghost recon allowed you to spend points on characters, to make them more lethal on the field.

However, if they got killed, you would lose that buff character forever....

With rainbow six, when you lost an "A-class Starter", you were given some Joe Blow knucklehead fresh from the shooting range with craptacular stats who was likely to die in the next mission...

interesting

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I am just wondering about how they will make it so that you can keep the units even if you loose the battle, I guess that if the objective is to take some points on the map, you could just fall back, loosing the battle but saving your men, or maybe you could get your good units out and call in some new inexperienced units to replace them, otherwise once you lost a game you wouldn't have any good units left.
Another question is how many units can you have, I know that you can only have 12 out on the battle field at a time, but I was wondering if you could create a bunch of groups and just select which ones you want to go into this battle, that way you could have different units for different types of fighting ex. Have mostly infantry but some armored vehicles for urban fighting or for fighting in heavy forests that armor can't get through, or groups with lots of armored vehicles for when you are fighting on mostly open ground.

PrinceCaspian5
05-21-2007, 01:28 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by pettyofficerj:
I'm also interested in seeing how the prepping phase of battles go..

I do not think this will be the game where you magically produce units from a building during the game, but I could be wrong...

Keeping with this train of thought, players from any given side will be forced to come up with force composition strategies that would best suit their needs and goals before the battle even starts.

This could be very intesting as you and your mates will have to take into account such details as the terrain, urbanization, etc. If you were playing on a map that had lots of close fighting and tight streets, would you want to have mass amounts of armor and little infantry? Or, would it be wiser for some players to take considerable amounts of infantry and fewer armored vehicles to prevent congestion on the streets?

If you were in a mission briefing and seen that the terrain was composed of long stretches of desert, would you want more armor for long-range pwnage of noobs who preferred to bring along massive amounts of mid range infantry?

What about disciplines? Would you want one of your buddies to focus on airpower and coordinate air support needs for your ground troops via voice communications, so that you could maximize your efforts on winning the ground on the squad level, constantly watching your infantry and their maneuvers, while he is worried about getting air support at all the right places at all the right times...

this could be an interesting title..

but all of this is dependent on the type of players you are with. Some may talk more than others. Chances are you will always have that odd game where NO one is coordinating and just trying to do everything by themselves. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I like the idea of having a group of friends with each one having a specialty, I think people will do that, everyone will like doing one thing more then the other, so they will do that, and instead of having everyone do everything, each person has a job to do. It will work out much better that way
Also, I wonder if you could save different armies, I know that you can save groups, but can you save which 12 groups you want to use in certain situations, that way you could have one army for urban fighting etc. it would be faster then going through all of your units because you would have a group of 12 already made up.

and you're right, you will get some games where no one wants to talk, and if you are in a game with a team like that against a team that coordinates, you will probably loose

Corvette_Mike
05-22-2007, 12:36 AM
this just better be a good RTS if RTS, and nothing liek full spectrum warrior liek someone mentioned. ill puke.

pettyofficerj
05-22-2007, 09:38 AM
full spectrum warrior was hot..

I never got tired of hearing "i'm tossing a fu*king frag," while the dudes where under fire..

I also liked their movement system...

you had the option of moving them along walls slowly while maintaining 180 degree security...

Ten Hammers upped the ante by allowing you to go deeper by splitting up the fireteams into buddy teams...

you could have one team positioned to cover the rear, while having another buddy team covering the front, all the while having the second fire team trying to move up to the objective with rear and front protection...

those little details, for me, made one h3ll of an impact...

it got repetitive as the AI was usually in the same scripted place once the engagement started, whereas when you're playing with humans, the situation goes truly dynamic...

as far as Endwar, and being able to save force compositions, it would be in ubi's best interest to allow us to do so...

it would make the gaming a bit more user friendly for one thing..

as far as specialties, I only addressed that because many times in the RTS that I play, I have a hard time managing infantry, armor, etc....

Infantry units are more vulnerable and tend to die with one shot in a game I play called "Theatre of War." So, I usually spend alot of time practicing flanking manuevers and making sure the knuckleheads are lying prone when I leave them alone to manage armor, so they won't get shot at from across the map....

I'm sure the same frustration will pan over to Endwar. After spending so much time investing in your units, it would be sad to see some go down in tactical situations that you were not aware of, due to the fact that you were trying to move a column of armor down a street across the map or something...

Instead, you could have full, unadulterated control over your infantry, while having a buddy shadow your guys with his armor...You could move your men down a street, slowly and cautiously while having your buddy constantly on the armor trigger for when things go bump...

you can constantly manuever into a better position while watching their health as another teammate screams through with some tank gun lubbing, or something....

Voice Commands will probably alleviate some of the stress with managing multiple groups as well, but some guys who form internet bonds may prefer to work tightly together like that...

atacms2020
05-22-2007, 10:35 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by PrinceCaspian5:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by pettyofficerj:
I'm also interested in seeing how the prepping phase of battles go..

I do not think this will be the game where you magically produce units from a building during the game, but I could be wrong...

Keeping with this train of thought, players from any given side will be forced to come up with force composition strategies that would best suit their needs and goals before the battle even starts.

This could be very intesting as you and your mates will have to take into account such details as the terrain, urbanization, etc. If you were playing on a map that had lots of close fighting and tight streets, would you want to have mass amounts of armor and little infantry? Or, would it be wiser for some players to take considerable amounts of infantry and fewer armored vehicles to prevent congestion on the streets?

If you were in a mission briefing and seen that the terrain was composed of long stretches of desert, would you want more armor for long-range pwnage of noobs who preferred to bring along massive amounts of mid range infantry?

What about disciplines? Would you want one of your buddies to focus on airpower and coordinate air support needs for your ground troops via voice communications, so that you could maximize your efforts on winning the ground on the squad level, constantly watching your infantry and their maneuvers, while he is worried about getting air support at all the right places at all the right times...

this could be an interesting title..

but all of this is dependent on the type of players you are with. Some may talk more than others. Chances are you will always have that odd game where NO one is coordinating and just trying to do everything by themselves. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I like the idea of having a group of friends with each one having a specialty, I think people will do that, everyone will like doing one thing more then the other, so they will do that, and instead of having everyone do everything, each person has a job to do. It will work out much better that way
Also, I wonder if you could save different armies, I know that you can save groups, but can you save which 12 groups you want to use in certain situations, that way you could have one army for urban fighting etc. it would be faster then going through all of your units because you would have a group of 12 already made up.

and you're right, you will get some games where no one wants to talk, and if you are in a game with a team like that against a team that coordinates, you will probably loose </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is actually the approach that they've taken in World in Conflict, the upcoming RTS on the Soviet invasion of the US set in the late 80's, early 90's. I was in the pre-alpha and the specialization of roles really increased teamwork and made you feel like you were part of something bigger than a battle, like a campaign.

pettyofficerj
05-22-2007, 11:09 AM
I was checking out World in Conflict also...

but I came across a reference to it being like "Battlefield 2 as an RTS."

Then I started thinking about crazy tank zergs, infantry getting pwn'd by everything else...then I got turned away from it..

the problem with RTS games to me, is that, usually as the game would progress and as players gained access to stronger equipment, the basic infantryman got phased out along the way..

UBI can help with this if they make objectives only capturable by dismounted infantry...

you would still have tanks, planes, and lions roaming around the concrete jungles, but to give infantry a more solid role, why not bestow upon them the sole ability to capture whatever needs to be capture, for the sake of winning the mission/battle/wtf ever

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

I'm tired of seeing the role of the infantryman and close street fighting reduced to nothing because of big giant tanks that run over softies and spit fireballs, you know...


this is a CLANCY game afterall...

pettyofficerj
05-22-2007, 11:21 AM
late note...I still think this game would have been groovy if it was a hybrid FPS/RTS where you could lead an army, then jump into the role of one of your units or whatever, and have some direct control over their aiming, moving, and the sorts, then jump back out....

atacms2020
05-22-2007, 02:33 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by pettyofficerj:
I was checking out World in Conflict also...

but I came across a reference to it being like "Battlefield 2 as an RTS."

Then I started thinking about crazy tank zergs, infantry getting pwn'd by everything else...then I got turned away from it..

the problem with RTS games to me, is that, usually as the game would progress and as players gained access to stronger equipment, the basic infantryman got phased out along the way..

UBI can help with this if they make objectives only capturable by dismounted infantry...

you would still have tanks, planes, and lions roaming around the concrete jungles, but to give infantry a more solid role, why not bestow upon them the sole ability to capture whatever needs to be capture, for the sake of winning the mission/battle/wtf ever

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

I'm tired of seeing the role of the infantryman and close street fighting reduced to nothing because of big giant tanks that run over softies and spit fireballs, you know...


this is a CLANCY game afterall... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I was in the pre-alpha for WiC, I can't recommend it enough. Great game so far, infantry only got pawned if they were out in the open, it's very dependent on how you use terrain. Close quarters these guys were lethal.

Anyway, back to Endwar, hopefully they go to the level of detail and control that you have in GRAW 2 where you can as team leader specify what the field of fire should be for your team, are able to call in support. If they can use all the pluses of GRAW, Rainbow 6: vegas and from reading SC: Conviction it would be cool if you had that level of physics and interactive environments in Endwar.

Read this to see what I'm talking about:
http://xbox360.ign.com/articles/790/790217p1.html

PrinceCaspian5
05-26-2007, 11:52 AM
I was just watching an interview on gametrailers.com, and they said that multiplayer will be 12 players in a match, so it will be 6 vs. 6, they also said something about there being 1000 troops on the battlefield, so that means that each person can get about 83 troops, so that means that each group would have about 7 units (I am sure that the number would be different for each unit type, maybe less then 7 tanks or artillery pieces in a group, but more then 7 infantry, unless we can customize each group adding whatever unit type we want, in that case, who knows). They also said that you could have about 500 upgrades for your units. They also said that in the battles you are going to be fighting for strategic points like satellite uplinks and early warning radars for the missile shield.
And they said that it would come out in February 2008

PrinceCaspian5
05-29-2007, 05:29 PM
I was just reading an article on eurogamer.net (here it is http://www.eurogamer.net/article.php?article_id=76854 ) and they said that you can mix up which units you have in each group, so you can make a group with a mix of infantry and armor

zsorrell
06-20-2007, 05:14 PM
A unit of infantry will definitly be more than 5 people. In one interview DePlater said there would be thousands of guys on a battlefield even if that is collectively between sides, that means if there are 5 man units the most you can have is 60. No, I think the units will be squad sized not fireteam sized. About twelve people would probably be the case. Although to me that seems small. Probably the units of infantry will be in the thirties based on the men piling out of transports in the beginning of the trailer. Also if you didnt notice in the trailer the commander selected and moved about 15 helos at once indicateing that they were in the same unit.

HawkBird343
06-27-2007, 07:43 AM
And you know what stinks ONLY 12 UNITS PER MAP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_mad.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_mad.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_mad.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_mad.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_mad.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_mad.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_mad.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_mad.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_mad.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_mad.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_mad.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_mad.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_mad.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_mad.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_mad.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_mad.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_mad.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_mad.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_mad.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_mad.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_mad.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_mad.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_mad.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_mad.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_mad.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_mad.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_mad.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_mad.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_mad.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_mad.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_mad.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_mad.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_mad.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_mad.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_mad.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_mad.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_mad.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_mad.gif :

LordTenacious
06-27-2007, 10:44 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HawkBird343:
And you know what stinks ONLY 12 UNITS PER MAP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_mad.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_mad.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_mad.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_mad.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_mad.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_mad.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_mad.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_mad.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_mad.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_mad.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_mad.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_mad.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_mad.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_mad.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_mad.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_mad.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_mad.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_mad.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_mad.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_mad.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_mad.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_mad.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_mad.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_mad.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_mad.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_mad.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_mad.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_mad.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_mad.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_mad.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_mad.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_mad.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_mad.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_mad.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_mad.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_mad.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_mad.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_mad.gif : </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Someone hasn't played the total war series. Sure the max unit amount was twenty. Thing was, each unit had like a hundred men in them. Major body pileups galore in city sieges. On a side note, i re-fallen in love with rome:total war.

KJ_White
06-27-2007, 06:24 PM
hi 5's for rome total war great game. but this game wants to imerse you into the fighting so. with the battle map only being europe and US as far as we know, i don't think it would take that long for one side to wn if they really have as many people in one war as it sounds like they want. which means everything would get reset within a week which means just as your starting to get imersed you lose that imersion as it all starts again and ur left with cruddy fresh troops and lose your experienced ones.

KJ_White
06-27-2007, 06:35 PM
late add in lol, in an interview with de plater he is quoted as saying "Also in EndWar, you don't actually micromanage individual characters, but you do give orders to Platoons of soldiers, Companies of Tanks" lets hope that its multiple platoons in a single unit though.

Dutch_Jester
06-27-2007, 08:48 PM
oh man i hope they dont reset ur units experience they should keep it the same cuz otherwise it would get boring fast always having to lvl up units.

KJ_White
06-27-2007, 11:30 PM
i agree there but then you have ur new players who would get hammered when just starting out, unless they have a unit crossover with campaign where u can use the units u use in single player etc.

Dutch_Jester
06-28-2007, 12:09 PM
to solve that problem they could put in a rank system so a beginner would have a low rank and would play with lower rank ppl, like how they had it on chromehounds

snapkracklepop
06-29-2007, 05:10 PM
I think the units would stay into new campaigns. Since its campaigns not winning the whole thing. One example being used was if the U.S. was captured the next campaign would be to retake the U.S. in that case the units would stay with you. They could use Trueskill on the 360, so you don't face somebody who has way better units.

LastAXEL
07-28-2007, 02:42 PM
when it says twelve units, does that mean twelve units each or six units each?

LastAXEL
07-28-2007, 04:06 PM
nevermind.. and sorry for double post

it wouldnt let me edit that last one for some reason....

PrinceCaspian5
07-29-2007, 12:05 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LastAXEL:
when it says twelve units, does that mean twelve units each or six units each? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
i think it is 12 units each, and also, it isn't 1 vs. 1, it is 6 vs.6, so each team would have a total of 72 units

Crimson96
08-03-2007, 03:45 AM
Given what has been said in the interviews, it appears the game is centered around being a Battalion Commander. This could mean either 3 companies of 4 platoons, or 4 companies of 3 platoons. Either way, it appears that the 12 "units" you will command will be platoon sized units. (Pure speculation) So you might have 4 platoons of armor, 4 platoons of IFVs (with their own inf perhaps?) and 4 platoons of aviation. It's a guess, but it seems to match up with the interviews and screenshots.

This would make 6 vs 6 multiplayer matches the equivalent of division-size engagements. WOOT!

pointandlaugh
08-03-2007, 06:31 PM
It would make sense for the units to be platoon sized (4 tanks, 40 infantry, 4 helos, etc...). And 6 battalions is the equivalent of a large brigade or a small division.