• Please make sure you are familiar with the forum rules. You can find them here: https://forums.tripwireinteractive.com/index.php?threads/forum-rules.2334636/

Ww2 games today

Developers are short sighted in thinking that it has to be one or the other.

For instance i would like to see a game that covers several periods of time, offers mission editor to let the normal player create scenarios to play online as well as a terrain editor to create maps without having to be a level designer. To pick military units and equipment from various time periods to play authentic scenarios.

They also under estimate the entertainment aspect of immersion into history.

A game that would let you be in Bastogne one night, and at Inchon another night, and so forth.

There was a game in development like that not long ago. Something like "world of guns" or something. Took you around the world from ww1 to modern to different scenarios. It had an impressive list of weaponry.

But I haven't heard anything of it in a long time.
 
Upvote 0
anyone here play the original close combat?

close combat yep. own em all
own combat mission normandy (and all the other shock force games)
own kharkov and got operation star demo - although the clumky mouse annoys me no end!
own cliffs of dover and sturmovik

RO2 is my favorite FPS in the ww2 genre. I got into roost too late when their was no population and RO2 for me has a great future. So many great features. Other ww2 games are all gun n run or just silly ballistics wise. The only other things that came close was hidden and dangerous which was good coop with friends.

The modern era does not interest me as much because apart from ARMA there is not really any game that is not a gun n run fest. Also historically its all hypothetical and almost in the sci-fi region of what if.
I am also into older eras. Modern though is just such a question mark. You need it to be like janes guides. A game that updates every year according to what hardware and forces are available to each country. Otherwise its pure fantasy.

Especially when most modern games are simulating conventional warfare when its simply not happening like that on the ground.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
GI combat and eric youngs squad assault were very ambitious. Pioneering for their time. Ahead of their time with the tech and resources they had available.

A bridge to far was my first PC game. I bought my first PC just for that game. Was well worth it in the end. Never even heard of Squad Assault. Looks kinda rustic.

*shameless plug activate*

Have you guys checked out the upcoming WWII
PC FPS Heroes and Generals...

Looks great.
 
Upvote 0
*shameless plug activate*

Have you guys checked out the upcoming WWII PC FPS Heroes and Generals...

Looks like most MMOs. Mediocre graphics and the game play especially in first person does not look like an RO2 beater for FPS realism? I really have to doubt it will have the landscape detail that RO2 has?
the way the guy reloaded in the trailer, he was so damned quick and reloaded while moving, made me think gun n run.

Detail in the tanks will be hard to beat RO2 on aswell.

Is this an attempt at ww2 online? If its like ww2 online with no bots. They will struggle to get numbers.

The campaign looks like what I hope RO2's online campaign will be like though.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
It's because the world 5-10years ago was slower paced. Now we live in a world of 4G where you can open a page in 1 second. 10 years ago phones could barely text much less pull up internet. Most WW2 games are slow paced. Most MW games are fast paced. If you look at most of the MW games and compare it to real life. They use A LOT of "high speed" units. Special Forces, Rangers. Do you see anything about the 25th Infantry Division? 3rd Infantry? Nope. Why? Because they don't do anything "high speed", WW2 had a slower pace so you saw "slow paced" units. Even then the units you saw were the 82nd and 101st which were considered "high speed" then. So in reality it's nothing new. Just a different time with different games.
 
Upvote 0
It's because the world 5-10years ago was slower paced. Now we live in a world of 4G where you can open a page in 1 second. 10 years ago phones could barely text much less pull up internet. Most WW2 games are slow paced. Most MW games are fast paced. If you look at most of the MW games and compare it to real life. They use A LOT of "high speed" units. Special Forces, Rangers. Do you see anything about the 25th Infantry Division? 3rd Infantry? Nope. Why? Because they don't do anything "high speed", WW2 had a slower pace so you saw "slow paced" units. Even then the units you saw were the 82nd and 101st which were considered "high speed" then. So in reality it's nothing new. Just a different time with different games.

Infantry are the same speed as in ww2 when on foot if not slower. The main thing that has changed is transport TOO the battle and support units. Because the battles are soooo one sided you also do not really have the sames communications disruption or degradation of support and transport units or even organisational break down as you did in ww2. At least not on the NATO side!!
So yes battles are more like special forces strikes in the modern world.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
Played Close Combat Russian front and it was good

However your right gone are the days of a good WW2 FPS like MOH and origional COD and UO were great

However what kaizer posted looks great
heroes and generals looks fantastic

Also there is Iron Front in the making however not much info on it yet but like a Arma 2 style of WW2
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0