It came so close to being great but it was marred by shitty controls and some annoyances in gameplay. If it had better controls and a better campaign it would have been GOAT
The series in general needs more micromanagement and better maps.
>>332634324
I think if people hadn't been sick of ww2 games at that point it would have done better.
>>332634539
There are other ww2 sandbox games?
>>332634324
IDK man. I loved The Saboteur.
Actually I jut renstalled after watching Band of Brothers
>>332635387
Which is better, stealth or rambo?
>>332635592
The first time I played I did stealth with interspearsed ramboing. You can take a ton of damage, so don't be afraid of going a bit gung ho. After you get the silenced automtic rifle and remote explosives the game gets awesome.
>>332635387
Aw man, I remember taking an AA gun and blasting zeppeliners for mad cash, then being chased by the whole Wehrmacht through Paris and the French countryside, eventually losing them in a well outside a vineyard.
Fucking awesome game.
>>332633108
>more micromanagement
Really nigger?
Try a no casualties run of the campaign.
I had to stop playing after the west german campaign because the micro got too nuts trying to protect my retard allies from artillery and air attacks.
>>332636159
I'm meaning stuff like more formations, face commands and such. Things that allow you more and better control over your units.
The Legend of Zelda: Skyward Sword had a pretty great story but motion controls fucked everything up
>>332636240
That's understandable.
It's been ages since I played but I remember specific unit positioning was a bitch, like they'd always accidentally pop out of a treeline when you wanted a large group to just move up to the edge.
>>332636304
Skyward Sword has more gameplay problems than just motion controls.
Even with conventional controls it would still be a boringly linear, cutscene-riddled slogfest with too much backtracking and Fi telling you the answer to every puzzle.
>>332632990
I really wanted to like this game but the fucking mechanics of it were hard to discern a lot of the time and there was too much specific shit to deal with for me. Turning off your radar shit on units until enemy planes are close, dealing with units just slightly out of range firing at you, without advancing to engage causing more losses, or retreating, and losing your position, and them just advancing...
There'd be a lot of times where units would get absolutely decimated and I had really no real understanding why. Like a group of tanks advancing and completely decimating a group of my stationary tanks firing at them from a forest line, even when they are relatively evenly matched tanks.
Having air units wreck a whole shit ton of ground units when you got AA out the ass dispersed around, and killing no air units. Then the opposite, seeing no enemy AA, and then having all your air units wrekt before they even get close to the enemy.
I'm probably just garbage, but I just had a hard time grasping the mechanics of shit, there wasn't a lot of indicators or obvious signs of how some shit worked.
How is the singleplayer in Wargame: AirLand Battle?
>>332637541
Individual levels in EE were better but overall the campaign was much more enjoyable in AB.
Some of the EE campaign levels were really well made and interesting. The AB campaign is more like an extended skirmish/territory mode with lots of objectives. It's interesting, but there's very little in the way of pre-set unit positioning. Which adds to the replayability. But at the same time, there's no really clever use of terrain and such.
The AI tends to blindly zerg rush towards your shit, which is fun to counter don't get me wrong, but it's never cleverly placed by humans.
I still liked it.
But it wasn't good.
>>332636861
then the enemy tanks were just superior enough to wreck yours and/or they were more expereinced than your trainee tanks
>>332638597
Well, the combat is interesting so it's worth giving a go.
Too bad I missed out on the multiplayer scene when it was still new.
