Comment on What is a game that you know is bad but really enjoy(ed)?
tal@lemmy.today 4 days ago
The Close Combat series up through maybe Close Combat III really wasn’t incredibly-well balanced. Like, if you’re playing on defense, a lot of the game basically consists of having a badly-outnumbered force, setting up an ambush with as much of your force as possible, opening up all at once when the other side is badly exposed and doing as much damage as possible. Then watch the game, and maybe once things have mostly died down, one moves a few units to reinforce.
In III, retreating as far as possible without losing an operation to get a ton of reinforcements, then pushing back through, is advantageous.
A lot of the game is about sticking heavy tanks on hills with good lines of sight.
I mean, there are just ways to play the game that the AI does not deal with well.
But I still had an absolute blast playing it.
The AI for Wargame: Red Dragon is pretty disappointing, and I generally don’t like playing games multiplayer, but I like the game enough that I was willing to just play against the AI. There were major improvements by Eugen in Steel Division 2 — it’s a far better game to play single-player. So…as a single-player game, I’d say that W:RD is a pretty bad game, but…I still really enjoyed playing it single-player.
mech@feddit.org 4 days ago
Those all sound like legit realistic tactics though
tal@lemmy.today 3 days ago
Well, to some extent.
For the “fighting on a hill” thing, they didn’t implement hull-down, which would be kind of an important factor in the real world. And a lot of the drawbacks to heavy tanks, like logistics issues, didn’t really apply.
For the ambushes, you get to pre-position your forces, knowing pretty exactly where the enemy forces are, and both sides basically transport a substantial mass into place at one time. Kinda like teleporting two sides together into close proximity, and the computer not sending out reconnaissance units to feel out the other side, just starting a rush over open ground.