I like the over all feel of the game but ranked matches need some work, they just feels a bit random and anticlimactic when they finish making me say "Ah, thats it?" rather than being excited towards the end, I feel a few things need to be changed:

-MORE CLEAR INFORMATION ON WHO IS WINNING
At the current moment the only way you know you are winning is to look at rather dab looking panel to the right of the UI, this can be fixed by adding a countdown/scorebar like this:

Nice and clear to see, add in a few audio cues when the game is getting close and that is fixed.

-MAP CONTROL FEELS POINTLESS
With the great RTS games they managed to balance the need to be proactive and reactive, if a game is too proactive then it would be far too cut-throat not allowing any errors (like C&C:Generals) and too reactive would make it feel its punishing the player who feels like his is winning which Wargame feels like at the moment. Eugen went with a fairly odd system for a wargame as most wargames are all about capping points but they went for kills, which really makes you question why you should attempt to cap the map at all. Sure some reinforcement zones are great tactically but the rest of the zones? Feels pointless, why get HQ units when you can get tanks, lots of inf or helos? At the current moment HQ units dont feel like how much they are anywhere near cost effective...

At the current moment the game feels like one big game of Zugzwang, which is a chess term for being compelled to do a move which could end you the match, W:EE is about one mighty clash at the start of the match which is exciting but then both players have to turn into giant pussies only reacting to each other moves or else they could end up losing the game. Many a game I have pushed my opponent back to their starting zone, many a game I control more than opponent but the burden is on me to hold it, the opponent is not compelled to do anything as he is free to sneak around, to avoid me and forces me to hit him in the one zone he has which of course would be suicide. The closest thing to this game is that its like playing Company Of Heroes or Dawn Of War 2 without the victory points which just allows players to camp making the game much more boring than it should be.

The end to solving this problem is simple, basically having map control should force them to come to you and not the other way around as it like that in pretty much every other wargame, so what can be done? One solution I think should work is that having a zone under control gives you both deployment points and increases your victory score ensuring campers are punished for being too focused on minor harassment and forces them to fight you in force or face defeat...

I really do like the game its just that is rewards being passive a little bit too much...

For information i agreed... especially in replay to comment them...


But i dftly disagree with ranked issues... Good games are about small attack in these front, some their, and map control IS important...

_________________

Or maybe just a total annihilation mode?

I feel that would fix most issues with the kill system.

_________________
Thanks to all those at Eugen who delivered an awesome game yet again.

Please check out my Twitch channel at http://www.twitch.tv/CoreofexisteNz

For highlights of previous games and matches of Wargame: ALB please check out my videos page on twitch here

I don't know, I think it would buff artillery too much if you were forced to hold onto fixed positions on the map, and it would take away the feeling of mobile warfare.

There is plenty of incentive to increase your income. The problem people seem to have is their need to attack when they're up. While this can stop your opponent getting settled for a counter-attack it's tends to be that in attacking you just throw away more points. I've played games on both sides - up on income and down on income and I can tell you the difference is very noticable when it comes to trying to bring on reinforcements.

For me the problem is the points cap is too low and the game seems to be over before the fighting is even dying down. For me it either needs to be ~30 mins or 2000 points to win (1500 starting points) for 1v1 ranked.

One of the problems is that I have not played enough ranked games to be 100% sure that all games are like what I just said but from what I have played is mostly people sneaking about, under the current victory system the Nazis would have won Normandy if it was just done by kills. Having a alternative means of gains points I feel would only add depth into the game...


That would be hide and sneak...


If you camp then you loose, you cannot take zones with artillery...


Which feels going against the how the game feels and plays, as I said, I have played alot of war games and they all seem to be focused on points which you HAVE to capture. So its just odd how Wargame works...

Yeah - I think it'd work a lot better with a time limit or a higher destruction threshold. This would make securing resources a lot more important.

I bet I play a game with you and ask you to make a "full annihilation of my army". With only 2 units I can make the game last 30-40 minutes. Kill system is fine.

_________________

Completely agree. You need a way to end the game before we get to the "one infantry man in a forest" time. Kill system is fine, time system is fine, it's just slightly miscalibrated on default at the moment.

In RUSE when you lost all buildings, your troops becames visible whereever they were.