ForumsGamesWarfare 1944

102 39289
GiNnJuice
offline
GiNnJuice
34 posts
Nomad

I have been keeping up on the site, http://conartistgames.com/ ,
and they are ALMOST DONE with the new WARFARE GAME!! i am such a huge fan of that game!
I even posted on ConArtist's Armor Profile and suggested to have different maps and more kinds on soldiers that call airstrikes, and guess what....those are included!!
Is it just me?? is anyone else excited?!

  • 102 Replies
Helix55
offline
Helix55
3 posts
Nomad

already played it, but the 1917 is better

CaptainSamoa
offline
CaptainSamoa
364 posts
Nomad

I found 1917 to be way too fucking difficult.
And I enjoyed '44 more anyway.

goumas13
offline
goumas13
4,749 posts
Grand Duke

i liked more Warfare 1917, I find boring and not very challenging Warfare 1944. I don't like also the thing with the many deployment lines.

goumas13
offline
goumas13
4,749 posts
Grand Duke

(Wouldn't be poor if I wouldn't have played 1917 first though)

I agree it's like a Disney sequel, all the changes ruined the game and knowing that the first was wonderful, makes it look even worst than it is.
samdawghomie
offline
samdawghomie
3,550 posts
Peasant

I have to disagree with all of you. I think that Warfare 1944 made a wonderfully excellent sequel to 1917. I don't see why you hate it so much. I love it!

dudeguy45
offline
dudeguy45
2,917 posts
Peasant

Warfare 1944, pardon my French, sucked. You have no control of soilders, and this whole "resouce" thing is crap.

TSL3_needed
offline
TSL3_needed
5,579 posts
Nomad

You have no control of soilders


You have twice as much control over soldiers then 1917.

I personally loved it. It actually requires a bit on tactical knowledge, however I HATE the one squad per wall rule. It makes machine guns and officers completely useless, and leaves mortars and bazookas unprotected. Overall, a 9/10.
Bug_Virus_Of_Olympus
offline
Bug_Virus_Of_Olympus
998 posts
Nomad

Just the new system was strange, but actually I found 1917 ridiculously easy and this one a bit harder

juiced
offline
juiced
2 posts
Nomad

i think that warefare 1944 is impossibly hard, poorly made, and unrealistic. the enemy always has reasorces, the can bomb you over and over. somehow my snipers never get anyone, but thier's can kill a whole squad in one shot (like i said unrealistic) and there units walk right past mine in the middle and they win. i spent almost and hour as the germans (i tried them because i thought they would be easier)on level four. but 1917 kicked butt.

kielzanie
offline
kielzanie
473 posts
Nomad

man why do ppl think that its so bad?? it waz great!!!
better than the last one, the resources waznt that good, but overall, INCREDIBLE, HARD, AND JUST PLAIN FUN!

jcrulez
offline
jcrulez
421 posts
Nomad

Seriously this is the 2nd copy of my thread.

TSL3_needed
offline
TSL3_needed
5,579 posts
Nomad

Seriously this is the 2nd copy of my thread.


Actually, this is the old 'Exited for Warfare' thread. It just got renamed.
Infantryman123
offline
Infantryman123
138 posts
Nomad

Yea, it was not bad, but it wasn't great either, so I'm in the middle. There are so many units! I think there must be eight (Warfare 1917 had six), I felt on some levels there were always units that really didn't need to be used. Like for instance, the bazooka team is pretty much only useful against tanks, and just created havoc when there was no tanks. The units made it less enjoyable. Well, I did like the flank system, but I felt like it got boring after a while. It was a OK game, but not a great one. Liked, Warfare 1917 way more.

Xcalibur45
offline
Xcalibur45
1,828 posts
Farmer

I cant play it! it wont load for me.

IceDrakeknight
offline
IceDrakeknight
348 posts
Farmer

whats the point its already been released and no matter you say interesting to con artist just to impress him,he just gets disapointed when people doesnt impresses his creation and i think hel pull it out unless we praise it

Showing 76-90 of 102