Steel Division 1944 (by wargame red dragon devs) in game trailer and unit stream

[Yskonyn]

So, do you suggest holding a line for quite some time in phase Alpha until you have more units on map before starting maneuvering and probing out the enemy?
Not advised to rush towns, for example, and dig in there?

[JasonPratt]

Kind of depends.

1.) Is the match destruction or conquest? Area control boosts buying capability (and thus more/better units on the field faster) for the former, but is utterly necessary to winning the game in the latter. If you don't get that established early, you may lose, especially in a short timed match (like ours, 30 minutes last night. We were pushing back into the enemy's final quarter of the field but lost on points when the bell rang.)

2.) What's your initial pool of funds? If you're playing a match with enough cash to plop most or all of Phase A on the ground at the start, then that's going to make a difference how far you can push forward with strength. If you're starting with 250 points (which I tend to favor), then you'll only be able to put a couple of relatively weak groups on the map, or else a wide but very thin probing screen that can't feasibly hold ground -- but which could end up scoring you serious early points in a conquest match, because your enemy may be too concentrated in a few places to deal with your sacrificial front-pushers.

3.) What does the terrain look like, both on your side and on your enemy's side? Jarhead and I (I think, or maybe Barth) played the exact same map (Pegasus Bridge) only I had the airborne troops (my Luftlanders) and I was the one who could fort up in a forest. If your side starts with control of the bridge, then the middle of the map is super-open on your side up to the enemy's side; the right side has some towns and forest groups edging well into the enemy's territory (where I deployed with my elite infantry at first); and the left side is pretty steadily fields with treelines breaking up long-distance fire but still with lots of medium ranged killing fields -- but without much way for infantry to advance forward under cover.

In our earlier match, we had chosen destruction I think, so... uh... JarBarth set up a long line of anti-tank cannons deep in our backfield to just murder everything trying to come down the wide central section, while I rushed infantry up the right side to fort up behind enemy lines in a forest area. I also sent air power to help him safeguard our left wing, but the enemy spent most of the game controlling a lot more of the map than us (including on either side of my forted troops, which eventually threatened my unusual ingress point on the lower right side). Sure we slaughtered massively, and won, but they were earning more cash to spend on units for us to shoot at. Had that been a conquest game, we would have lost for setting up a defensive turkey shoot and ceding most of the map.


4.) Another factor is, how fast are your reinforcements likely to make it to your advanced position? If you're holding a position with infantry, their trucks and APCs (and especially Jeeps) might get there pretty fast but your tanks won't -- and your infantry may not depending on how threatened the road network between your ingress and outpost areas has become.


On balance, though, I do prefer to run for defensible areas just across into the enemy's area, even when I'm starting with minimal points.

[JasonPratt]

Note: even last night with Jamus, I created two small task forces (one of them a pair of anti-tank guns) and ran them up to small defensible areas with good fields of fire, left and right of the center area. I got flanked on all sides quite quickly, and (as I was expecting) I had to create more task forces to push those encroachments back. I got tempted into superstacking an armored fist rather than moving with a handful of units there, and that took too long -- but of course I also expected the enemy to be throwing fairly hard units at us even with its probes (since I knew what decks I had assigned them).

[jamus34]

And really I lost the game by underestimating the Opfor speed to get to a certain point on the map. They beat there and chewed up my initial force which put us deep in the hole.

That said I'll probably be around tonight if anyone wants to give it a go.

Also FYI the add friend function was not working yesterday. Not sure if Eugen was having server issues.

[glen55]

Anybody who is actively playing have any comments on the new patch? Haven't dipped my toe for a while, but it's only a matter of time. I dig this game, and love the fact that they are still tweaking it.

[Boggit]

@Jason

It sounds a bit like Company of Heroes, but with the Red Dragon engine instead. Is that a fair characterisation?

[jomni]

@Jason

It sounds a bit like Company of Heroes, but with the Red Dragon engine instead. Is that a fair characterisation?

No.  It's not even similar to Red Dragon except for the engine.
It's a unique game.  Squads don't die easily, they flee to regroup more than die, and the pace is significantly slower.

[Destraex]

Yes, we were using Discord for our voice coms.

Jamus drew the 101st, which is among the best infantry in the game, and can fort up in trees and buildings very well -- which Jamus was trying to do on the right side of the map, in forested area a little advanced into the enemy's side.

I drew the Polish, which I thought was pretty great since (1) I had thought about building a Polish deck for my first Allied (but hadn't gotten around to it yet) and (2) they had a very respectable mix of everything, including some strong early armor support.

One thing neither of us did well in that fight, was use our artillery, I think. I was super-late bringing any out. The enemy didn't bring a lot either -- I don't recall how much I gave those two decks -- but the AI used what it did bring very well.

I spent probably too much time setting up a super-stack of armor to march up field, clearing out our center (and aiming eventually for the far-left enemy ingress point); and I didn't have quite the attention to advance it in a steady overwatch pattern. But I did do okay creating strong points in the enemy area, and small task forces for securing various wing areas. Also, I think we both did okay supporting each other in different areas on the map. Overall, I thought it was a fine match: the computer won by doing something the AI has been taught to do very well, which is sacrifice single units to establish extended control zones in the early and midgame. Hunting and clearing them out isn't hard, but it takes time, and attention, and if the computer can keep us busy meanwhile then those ceded areas just rack up the points.

There is a grog discord channel then? If so are you open to inviting Destraex (My discord name is the same as my forum name).

[jamus34]

Yes, we were using Discord for our voice coms.

Jamus drew the 101st, which is among the best infantry in the game, and can fort up in trees and buildings very well -- which Jamus was trying to do on the right side of the map, in forested area a little advanced into the enemy's side.

I drew the Polish, which I thought was pretty great since (1) I had thought about building a Polish deck for my first Allied (but hadn't gotten around to it yet) and (2) they had a very respectable mix of everything, including some strong early armor support.

One thing neither of us did well in that fight, was use our artillery, I think. I was super-late bringing any out. The enemy didn't bring a lot either -- I don't recall how much I gave those two decks -- but the AI used what it did bring very well.

I spent probably too much time setting up a super-stack of armor to march up field, clearing out our center (and aiming eventually for the far-left enemy ingress point); and I didn't have quite the attention to advance it in a steady overwatch pattern. But I did do okay creating strong points in the enemy area, and small task forces for securing various wing areas. Also, I think we both did okay supporting each other in different areas on the map. Overall, I thought it was a fine match: the computer won by doing something the AI has been taught to do very well, which is sacrifice single units to establish extended control zones in the early and midgame. Hunting and clearing them out isn't hard, but it takes time, and attention, and if the computer can keep us busy meanwhile then those ceded areas just rack up the points.

There is a grog discord channel then? If so are you open to inviting Destraex (My discord name is the same as my forum name).

JP was just direct calling me...I have my own discord (for what it's worth) but it's not like it's an official Grog channel.

[Boggit]

The Germans had whole units of captured French tanks in normandy. However iirc most were withdrawn and their units re-equipped with german kit.
I think this game for the sake of variety and what if includes the original french tanks, but I am not sure if the original french equipped german units included charB1s. However the Germans did use them in many places.

21st Panzer Division - newly reformed as it was destroyed in Tunisia. Very much having to make do with what they could cobble together from old French kit, they were quite imaginative getting together a reasonable number of tanks .

http://spearhead1944.com/gerpg/ger1.htm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/21st_Panzer_Division_(Wehrmacht)#1943

[Destraex]

In the mean time I could just invite you all to my clans discord which I administer? Until Jarhead decides if he wants to do an official one.
I'd need discord names.

[jamus34]

That works for me. Also note SD's servers have been down the past 2 days. Of course right when I get the game

[Destraex]

Indeed. Sent you a PM invite.

[JasonPratt]

I think to add you on Discord, Destraex, I'd have to know your four-digt suffix number. It isn't usually part of your service name, but printed under it (down at the lower left of the Discord main usage screen if I recall correctly).

@Jason

It sounds a bit like Company of Heroes, but with the Red Dragon engine instead. Is that a fair characterisation?

No.  It's not even similar to Red Dragon except for the engine.
It's a unique game.  Squads don't die easily, they flee to regroup more than die, and the pace is significantly slower.

Differences from CoH (1 and 2) are so different as to be totally distinct. The first and biggest difference being, no base building. The game is closer to Sudden Strike and Men of War, I'd say.

Other differences: no active special abilities, whether for the units or on the map generally (partial exception, for calling off-map arty, which is a limited-shot recharge special ability for some units);

no way to upgrade abilities and experience (although being around a leader adds one temporary 'star' of experience, up to a maximum of three);

the battlefield is much larger even on 1 vs 1 maps;

air power loiters and can be retasked (and also legitimately shot down), then returns when bingo fuel/ammo or evacuates under pressure to repair, refuel, and rearm, before being on call again;

buildings are less destructable;

area control is more fluid;

grouping is more basic (and wonky);

zoom out is, naturally (and necessarily), much better;

no specialization tweaking while in-game.


If you want a game that better mixes Red Dragonesque engine with Company of Heroes, go for R.U.S.E. (but be aware you'll have to deal with the UBISOFT server nonsense). It's the same engine as SD and "Wargame", but an earlier version with some base building and (if I recall correctly) special abilities -- certainly on the map. It also has a more cinematic campaign, again like the CoH games.

[jamus34]

Server back up per Eugen but chat and friends list disabled which makes multiplayer more of a challenge.

Had a great chat with Dest yesterday evening (my time). Looking forward to seeing if we can get a full group together on this.