Jump to content


Photo

Armored Warfare


  • Please log in to reply
720 replies to this topic

#1 jwduquette1

jwduquette1

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,018 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:USA

Posted 25 December 2014 - 1120 AM

Signed up for the beta a long-long time ago. Didn't hear anything about it until this morning. Had an Xmas email offering me a free "commander" and the opportunity to sign up for the beta -- again? Which I went ahead and signed up for. No idea what the commander does, but I apparently have one in my account now.

Edited by jwduquette1, 25 December 2014 - 1121 AM.


#2 jwduquette1

jwduquette1

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,018 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:USA

Posted 25 December 2014 - 1124 AM

In case anyone is interested, here is the news page for AW:

http://aw.my.com/us/news

I think you can sign up there as well for a free "commander" and beta test candidate.

#3 Fritz

Fritz

    Master of Panzer

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 7,598 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:WW2, armoured combat history, 3D CGI, motorsports

Posted 31 January 2015 - 1615 PM

http://ftr.wot-news....st-impressions/

 



#4 bojan

bojan

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 9,773 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Belgrade, Serbia
  • Interests:Obscure tanks and guns.
    Obscure facts about well known tanks and guns.
    Obscure historical facts.

Posted 31 January 2015 - 1700 PM

I don't like modern tanks but will try it if it comes free.



#5 Harold Jones

Harold Jones

    Shaken but not deterred...

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 8,263 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Armor, History, Fishing and Beer

Posted 31 January 2015 - 1920 PM

Same here, if it's free I'll give it a shot.  Wish it didn't have playable arty.



#6 Skywalkre

Skywalkre

    Garry F!@#$%g Owen

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 7,770 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Phoenix, AZ
  • Interests:military history, psychology, gaming (computer, board, simulation, console), sci-fi

Posted 31 January 2015 - 1925 PM

Wish it didn't have playable arty.

Agreed.  Fortunately it's early enough in their development cycle that they could still drop them. 

 

I don't even know why devs release stuff for games this early in development.  So much can, should, and will change that often the final game looks nothing like it.



#7 bojan

bojan

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 9,773 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Belgrade, Serbia
  • Interests:Obscure tanks and guns.
    Obscure facts about well known tanks and guns.
    Obscure historical facts.

Posted 31 January 2015 - 2003 PM

...I don't even know why devs release stuff for games this early in development....

 

Pushed by producers so ADHD generation can remember something is in development. "If it ain't on Tumblr it does not exist" in a words of someone born 1995.



#8 Fritz

Fritz

    Master of Panzer

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 7,598 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:WW2, armoured combat history, 3D CGI, motorsports

Posted 07 February 2015 - 0617 AM



#9 Harold Jones

Harold Jones

    Shaken but not deterred...

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 8,263 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Armor, History, Fishing and Beer

Posted 07 February 2015 - 0859 AM

Well it's pretty, but I have to say that it looks and seems to play like WoT with modern skins.



#10 Fritz

Fritz

    Master of Panzer

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 7,598 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:WW2, armoured combat history, 3D CGI, motorsports

Posted 07 February 2015 - 0915 AM

So far, absolutely. Mind it's an early alpha test.

 

One thing I'm curious about is how are they going to have sufficient variety of vehicles, considering that most modern armored vehicles are much more similar compared to WW2. Say what you will about the fantasy stuff in WoT, but it allows quite a bit of variety. Take the TX heavies, you have some decent all-rounders, you have barely moving land battleships, you have glass cannons with 150mm guns... the spectrum is just so much wider. Put M1, Leo2 and Chally2 next to each other and what do we have? In terms of gameplay they'd be almost completely identical. 5-10% difference in this or that stat is irrelevant.



#11 JasonJ

JasonJ

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 7,693 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 07 February 2015 - 1604 PM

Any word on Japanese, Chinese, or Korean tanks?

#12 zaarin7

zaarin7

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 764 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 08 February 2015 - 1002 AM

I'm agreeing with the above post, WoT with modern skins. The scoring data you see in the upper left and right corners will be in WoT 9.6. I first saw that in World of Airplanes.



#13 Harold Jones

Harold Jones

    Shaken but not deterred...

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 8,263 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Armor, History, Fishing and Beer

Posted 08 February 2015 - 1055 AM

The other thing I see and yes I know it's alpha is that the maps don't seem to be much bigger than WoT maps.  Maximum engagement ranges of 400-500 meters make some sort of sense for WW2 era vehicles but it seems awfully restrictive for modern era tanks.  I don't think a trained crew on a fully functioning modern tank  would have less than a 99% 1st round hit probability at those ranges and if they raise it to 1000 meters I'd still expect 90+ percent 1st round hits. 



#14 Fritz

Fritz

    Master of Panzer

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 7,598 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:WW2, armoured combat history, 3D CGI, motorsports

Posted 08 February 2015 - 1116 AM

The other thing I see and yes I know it's alpha is that the maps don't seem to be much bigger than WoT maps.  Maximum engagement ranges of 400-500 meters make some sort of sense for WW2 era vehicles but it seems awfully restrictive for modern era tanks.  I don't think a trained crew on a fully functioning modern tank  would have less than a 99% 1st round hit probability at those ranges and if they raise it to 1000 meters I'd still expect 90+ percent 1st round hits.


You're forgetting that like in WoT basically YOU are the gunner, so it's kinda meaningless to talk about hit probabilities :)

#15 Skywalkre

Skywalkre

    Garry F!@#$%g Owen

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 7,770 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Phoenix, AZ
  • Interests:military history, psychology, gaming (computer, board, simulation, console), sci-fi

Posted 08 February 2015 - 1238 PM

Closed 'bee-tuh' and open 'bee-tuh'? 

 

Anywho, it's extremely disappointing to see the devs of AW implement an arty system that's the exact same as WoT with all the issues and poor game design that mark it.  I understand a lot can change.  I don't understand the reason to put something in that should never be there in the first place when your competition has already shown how bad that element of their game is.

 

Also surprised to see a TD class.  How many vehicles since WW2 can really be called TDs compared to all the light and MBTs?

 

Jingles brings up some great points at the end.  It'll be real easy for them, given what we've seen, to screw this up.  Also, it's not enough to be just a bit better than WoT.  WoT has the playerbase and all their investment of time and money.  You need more than slightly better to pull them away.


Edited by Skywalkre, 08 February 2015 - 1251 PM.


#16 FlyingCanOpener

FlyingCanOpener

    Kakistocrat

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 8,872 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:New Iberia, LA USA
  • Interests:Geomatics // Naval History // Soccer // Teaching

Posted 08 February 2015 - 1241 PM

 

Jingles is an idiot. Most Western MBTs are essentially the same for gameplay purposes, save the Merkava, Challengers (Just the gun really), and South Korean K2 (Reliance on active defence like modern Russian tanks).

 

That's going to end up being the rub: People complain about Soviet clones at high tiers in World of Tanks, but what are they going to say about literally entire lines of MBTs consisting of evolutionary upgrades of 60 kph top speed, slabs of composite-armoured tanks armed with a Rheinmetall 120mm gun firing APFSDS-DU ammo.

 

Also I love how he calls Armoured Warfare a "Western" game. Didn't know mail.ru was a western company. ^_^



#17 bojan

bojan

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 9,773 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Belgrade, Serbia
  • Interests:Obscure tanks and guns.
    Obscure facts about well known tanks and guns.
    Obscure historical facts.

Posted 08 February 2015 - 1735 PM

Ah, mail.ru, they were already sued (and lost) by Wargaming for something, don't remember what exactly.



#18 Harold Jones

Harold Jones

    Shaken but not deterred...

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 8,263 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Armor, History, Fishing and Beer

Posted 08 February 2015 - 1953 PM

 

The other thing I see and yes I know it's alpha is that the maps don't seem to be much bigger than WoT maps.  Maximum engagement ranges of 400-500 meters make some sort of sense for WW2 era vehicles but it seems awfully restrictive for modern era tanks.  I don't think a trained crew on a fully functioning modern tank  would have less than a 99% 1st round hit probability at those ranges and if they raise it to 1000 meters I'd still expect 90+ percent 1st round hits.


You're forgetting that like in WoT basically YOU are the gunner, so it's kinda meaningless to talk about hit probabilities :)

 

Well they seem to have some kind of dispersion mechanism, the aiming circle goes from huge to small, which implies some kind of RNG affecting the placement of shots.  At the ranges the maps in the video allow modern tanks really don't have much chance of missing assuming a merely adequate crew.  I'm assuming that like WoT crew skill will be taken into account and do things like cause the aiming circle to shrink faster and to a smaller size but while it sort of works for WW2 era tanks I don't think it will translate well to modern stuff.  They should spend some time coming up with a better way to model gunner and crew skill interaction.  Granted it's alpha, but it strikes me that most games tend to stick to the concepts they hit alpha with if not the actual interface elements.


Edited by Harold Jones, 08 February 2015 - 1954 PM.


#19 Skywalkre

Skywalkre

    Garry F!@#$%g Owen

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 7,770 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Phoenix, AZ
  • Interests:military history, psychology, gaming (computer, board, simulation, console), sci-fi

Posted 08 February 2015 - 2210 PM

Granted it's alpha, but it strikes me that most games tend to stick to the concepts they hit alpha with if not the actual interface elements.

 

The bolded bit concerns me and the more I think about the more I'm really disappointed with this initial showing. 

 

Instead of showing us a WoT clone with modern skins they should have showed us a game with much larger maps so the increased range and speed of modern vehicles could have come into play.  They should have shown realistic looking terrain where arty as used in WoT isn't needed to break up turtles at chokepoints in organized play.  They should have shown us lighter vehicles with arty and air strikes as a consumable rather than, again, a copy of a horrible game mechanic WoT still clings to. 

 

None of the above had to be perfect because, obviously, it's an alpha.  All they had to do was show us that was their vision.  Instead right now it just looks like a cheap knockoff going after the WoT cash cow.


Edited by Skywalkre, 08 February 2015 - 2212 PM.


#20 Stefan Fredriksson

Stefan Fredriksson

    Goldmember

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 6,304 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Sweden

Posted 09 February 2015 - 0205 AM

WoT unique selling-point is the huge number of vehicles.

 

First impression when looking at Jingles' video;

It does not make me want to try Armored Warfare, but it made me remember how good Battlefield 2 was.

Ie, the video looks like BF2, but without infantry, boats and air-power.

 

 

Topic moved out of WoT.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users