DOW2 Gameplay Supposition

[Mind Strike]

This thread is based mainly on one quote from here (http://forums.relicnews.com/showpost.php?p=2981840&postcount=85) but is also as a result of everything that was said in that thread (http://forums.relicnews.com/showthread.php?t=191297)

I expect to get a lot of stick for this so i have just put on my flame proof armour, also as this is just an idea i expect it to get deleted.

GET ON WITH IT WILL YOU :slap:


Wait wait wait.... if there are no resources, no tech trees and no buildings, then why are there droppods on the screenshots that they have already shown? wouldn't it lose sence to put something into battle abit later?
PLS.... MAKE DOW2 A RTS, NOT RPG!.... I won't buy it if it ends like this....

Here is my theory….I reiterate. got my flame proof armour on for this thread.

There are droppods in the screen shots because all space marine units are dropped in with droppods and tracked vehicles are flown in by thunderhawk gun ships. Period.
This could be adapted to any race, in any situation.

This explains why there is no need for buildings because everything is held on the battle barge and just dropped in – simple as that. Like said before, reinforcement will probably be linked to in game timers and map ownership

The “tech tree” is specifically linked to the map or mission. ie - map size.
A feasible example could be that you can only send in a juicy Landraider if you first control a certain area where you can land that dam thunderhawk. This will explain why there is no tech tree as it won’t be based on clicking tech tree research icons. It will be linked to the fog of war, ownership of level objectives and in game timers.

Also what troops you can use may be specifically linked to the map type.

Eg.
Jungle missions
Assault troops and infiltration absolutely no walker vehicles or long range wargear.

Urban missions
Vehicles, Assault Weapons, Devistator squads

Psyker Maps
You guessed it, highly strategic maps that really test the limits of psyker abilitys, infiltration and associated units.

Open terrain
You have access to all units.

Let me go off on a tangent a sec

1v1 match – space marines vs Orks
Fallen City

Both battle barge commanders are briefed on the strategic importance of a map, this is explained and interpreted by splitting a map up into sectors by having objective points based on the fog of war and level ownership.

Both teams start with 1 droppod troop unit (or equivalent) led by a commander.
Both teams start the game by rushing to the first objective which allows another droppod to be accessed or maybe a vehicle. Ok now it gets interesting.

One squad goes off the harass the enemys objective point to hinder further reinforcement and the other goes to another friendly objective point to access another droppod.

(This explains in a screen shot why there are not many troops envolved in the battle scenes and also why there are drop pods present in the map)

The aim of the game now is clear, you have to reach and secure different parts of the map to access new units whilst stopping the enemy do the same. This will eliminate the tech tree and resourses all together as it will be purely based on where you are in the map and how many objectives have been achieved.

Obviously the Imperium will not want to give you a landraider strait away so you will probably have to take a specific location before they will let you have it (possibly enemy held territory)…These areas will be extremely difficult to take but obviously the rewards will be great.

By taking an enemy objective point you may get a bonus unit to reward you for your tactical prowess.

And thats that :nervous:
be nice

[Imperial Dane]

Well it does sound interesting, with a Ground Control 2 ring to it, just with LZs being whereever there actually is space for it.. But i dunno, i prefer that there are at least some vital static points to fight for, LZs included. But again this is depending on how this turns out, but it could be that the space marines will be made markedly different than in DoW 1 while the other races will receive some rather unique additions as well, i mean the SM advantage might be not having any buildings but calling in the troops on the strategic points instead, leaving them a lot more flexible and mobile, with critical points or some other kind of large point needed for large vehicles, forcing them to be aggressive in the ways.

[Mind Strike]

with a Ground Control 2 ring to it.

Thanks for reminding me the name of that game, was racking my brain for ages.

However GC2 did spring to mind but was not what i was thinking of. GC2 was serverely critisised for the fact that it was overly complicated, took ages to play and the enemy would spring up in strange places to steal an objective point from you when DoW was praised because that never happend.

[Kapyrna]

Seeing Dawn of War II play like Ground Control 2 would please me. The squad system worked, and I liked the customization before battle as compared to the current system in the series. GC2 plays more like I would expect from a Warhammer game.

[LoneWolf666]

Why is everyone bringing up GC2 when this game is shaping more like GC1? :p

[Midgetus]

You have a strong point, Lonewolf. Judging from Kapyrna's post, I suspect he was thinking of GC 1 as well, since most of the features he mentioned got changed of removed in 2. I, for one, would love to see more RTS games learn from GC, especially since Massive themselves have shied away from some of the things that made the original GC so great in their subsequent releases.

On a side note, I had an interesting idea the other day based on the possibility that DoW2 might involve GC-style LZ control: All players start with no Landing Zones and 1 scout-type unit. (maybe scouts can drop without an LZ, providing a comeback mechanic for those who choose to buy extra scouts) This might be horribly unbalanced, of course, and depending on map design could lead to players getting wiped out before their army gets on the board, (as well as posing problems for armies like the Black Templars, should they be included) which would suck.

[Imperial Dane]

@Kapyrna: Squad system ? There was no squad system in GC2, just plenty of infantry mucking about, almost ant like being blown to pieces.. or not.

But just on a note with all this talk of GC2 (haven't tried GC1 i'm afraid) It was a great game and still is.. but i don't think it is the way to go with DoW 2 and removing all bases and moving to it LZs and VPs, i mean i would prefer seeing them stick to DoW in a sense and just improving greatly upon that instead of changing the genre from RTS to RTT.. and if they keep insisting on it, stop calling it DoW 2 but call it something else, like the RTS version of Warlords didn't just call itself warlords 3 or warlords x, but warlords battlecry.

[Kapyrna]

Er, what I meant was the pre-battle interface in the campaign of GC2. I liked that. Squad gear that you could switch out and such, and balancing teams for certain roles pre-battle, along with recorded team stats and so forth. I've never played the original GC.

[Imperial Dane]

.. Are we talking about the same ground control 2 here ? Because if we are.. i think i've been seriously screwed over.

[LoneWolf666]

GC1 had: squads; persistent units that gained experience and could be customised; bases, although you didn't build anything and they were mostly decorative, they did sometimes have defenses - powerful ones, too. There was a commander unit whose death meant failure. Units would be called to the surface via dropships.

DoW2 is similar in some aspects - or it appears to, anyway.

[Imperial Dane]

@Lonewolf: Again it is a bit hard to say as it seems so focused on the Space Marines so far, and we know so little besides that, not anything gameplay wise concrete, just that it will be a meta map campaign and all the races will be able to play through it.

[Kapyrna]

...Oh. It seems what I played was not 2 but was in fact 1. Disregard.

[aetertesia]

For some reason, this kinda feels like the direction they've always wanted to take the game in. Everyone remembers DoW's introductory video, what with the capture a point and drop pods raining down, and how cinematically awesome that scene was. I for one wanted moments like that more than anything. Seems like we'll now be playing more strategically with units, instead of "OVERWATCH SPAM".

[LoneWolf666]

@Imperial Dane: Indeed, when you think about it, we still know next to nothing about the game. The Ork campaign has barely been mentioned, let alone discussed, and it is entirely possible that it is completetly different than how the SM play.

The sight of drop pods in the screens probably means that some of your forces will arrive at predefined moments in the game, they are not necessarily called down by the player.

It's a little irritating that in spite of what, four previews? we still know, well, nothing about the game. :( The information in these articles can be summed up in "explosions, synckills and wargear", and vaguely hinting at a Dungeons & Dreadnoughts approach to character development - "pimp squads with cool stuff and blow other stuff up. Also, Orkz."

[Imperial Dane]

It's a little irritating that in spite of what, four previews? we still know, well, nothing about the game. The information in these articles can be summed up in "explosions, synckills and wargear", and vaguely hinting at a Dungeons & Dreadnoughts approach to character development - "pimp squads with cool stuff and blow other stuff up. Also, Orkz."

That ? Oh that is nothing, it is quite normal, you see it with internet previews as well, which is why one from a good site is usually enough.
But i dunno, i think i saw a danish gaming mag with Dawn of war 2 on it...

[kabriel]

Could n't the the techtrees be replaced by really huge comander doctrines . Like the ones in coh but alot bigger (not just 6 or so unlockables in each doctrine) .I think that would be a very good way of replacing techtrees.

Also , if you could garrison structures and transform buildings into something else , maybe we can transform them(buildings) into vehicle repair stations, headquarters and other stuff ... So if this was the case you wouldn't need any sort of base building .And this would make more sense actually .Moreover, i think thats how they actually do it in real life .

[Riess]

That actually sounds very good. Have a commander tree as replacement for a tech tree, and shift the building focus from building up the tech tree (production/research buildings) to actually shaping the battlefield to your liking and maybe a defensive base (turrets, walls, mines, bunkers, repair and healing stations, etc.).
That way, you'd actually build up a base that has a more imminent tactical role in the battle, as a fortified location to fall back on and use as staging ground.

You would still have to climb a tree of sorts, and have different strategic options open (instead of "where to spend my req/power", it would be "where to spend my command tree points"), but it would all be tied in with the fighting and troop management.
Plus you'd have to work with the terrain and think about ideal locations to fortify, anticipate the paths the enemy is going to take, where to form choke points, etc.

[auApex_01]

Well I've read the PC Powerplay article and here's my alternative, more simplistic prediction of how the game will work:

You start in your 'battle-barge' and pre-select your entire army and wargear before starting the battle proper. You drop in a set portion of your army at the start (up to the squad cap). As units die, your squad cap frees up and you can drop in reinforcements, up to your squad cap limit. You continue to do this until you either have no troops or reinforcements left or the enemy has no troops left. There could be variations such as not being able to drop in particular reinforcements until you have secured a particular objective.

The reason that this is feasible, is that it would be completely balanced. You pre-select your army based on 'points' (like it TT) so you and your opponent are always on a level playing field.

The problem with this, is that it would arguably be boring. It would reduce the focus of game purely to combat (which I believe is one of Relic's aims with this game) and greatly reduce the importance of map control (there could be certain advantages for controlling sections of the map but as there are no resources, these would probably be limited to things like cover and static defences).

I personally think that Relic are planning on making an extremely drastic departure from DoW and the traditional RTS and the information that they have trickled out has been an attempt to 'soften up' the fans to make it easier for them to except the changes.

Bottom line - I expect there to be absolutely zero base-building, zero resources and zero in-game unit 'building'/training. I think you'll pre-select your army before the fight and the only in-game decisions will be when/where/how to attack the enemy and possibly when to bring in your pre-selected reinforcements.

Anyone agree/disagree?

I personally love the resource gathering, base-building and research components of RTS and thus from what we've been told so far, I have some serious reservations about DoW2. Sure, scale back building, unit production and research to allow for more focus on strategy but don't remove these from the game altogether!

[Weavern]

As I have been trying to get across apparently to closed ears is that other previews have spoken directly contrary to this notion that there will be no buildings. Specifically one of the previews says (paraphrasing) that buildings will be on the scope of CoH. If there were going to be zero buildings, then they would have told us far far earlier and in explicit terms to have more then ample time to see reaction. Hell we even have previews of units using buildings to fight from and destroy. Why on earth would they have this mechanic and remove every single player build building? It doesent make any logical sense outside of some very narrow conditions such as the marine campaign. Similarly its almost inconcieveable that resources in all manner would be removed from all modes of play. There needs to be a method to you know get units in combat. How else do you get new squads? Oh wait people have already decided that there will be no reinforcement! Yah... that really sounds likely given other speculation threads and information.

While a battle barge campaign for marines works out perfectally as you have finite resources. This does not under any circumstance work for Orks, and I can think of no other race they could add which would work in the same manner. A multiplayer mode like quickstart where you select units works just peachy.

Seriously, people are most likely jumping the gun on this whole 'no tech', 'no buildings', 'no resources' concept. Akranadas said himself in a correction, that it was most likely an error on the reviewer or was speaking specifically to the space marine campaign. You also have to consider what exactly relic would be showing people in these previews.

The game cannot be at a stage where they are highlighting economic issues and building designes. Why? Because if they were the game would be practically finished and there would be no room for massive tweaking which will undoubtably happen towards the final stages of production.

So what are they showing people? Chances are they are showing people the space marine campaign, a single mission on that single gothic world against the orks. Where the marine player starts off with his battle barge screen which has the loot he's acquired (you know like the metamap wargear hud) and a list of what units he has (you know like honour guard?) then you see the planet below with varied objectives that he can select to continue the campaign as was explained there is a branching campaign where you cant accomplish everything (shows what they know! i will finish everything bwhahah!) Jokes aside, they also said that there would be a persistant campaign for the game. This is explained exactly by what others have commented on with finite pool of troops. Essentially like space hulk except you're not fighting a corridor but a full 3d environment with typical relic combat.

Why should there be buildings? Because there's no way they could render the orks without buildings! Think about it, almost all of the buildings marines had (techy buildings aside which might be vanished a la coh) were either a thunderhawk delivers the unit, or a drop pod lands and shortly there after a unit walks out of the building. Using CoH as an example they could work like gliders or other off map callins and thus space marines have fewer buildings. Orks you almost cant think of how they cannot include at least some form of building, because there's no mechanic for how orks just magically appear out of thin soil (yes i know their backstory) but it doesent work for the player to have an ork spawn ground where they grow from nothing. It makes much MUCH more sense that they will have buildings similar to CoH and units pop out of them. Marines on the other hand will have possibly like 3 buildings. One for drop pods, another for thunder hawks, and maybe a third something or other building. In single player you can easily avoid buildings because its a persistant campaign and every mission you just have them drop pod into the territory like gliders, but as the core mode of MP this is nonsense.

0 buildings and the like effectively removes annhiliate. Even CoH has annhiliate as the reserve victory condition. If as people said you have reserve units, all you would do is create a pure meat grinder mode where players with their pre selected choices drop planet side and duke it out. Bring more in and then what? You have no reason for strategic map, etc, etc. This creates a game thats almost far too shallow for relic to do. Given how much importance they placed on those critical locations, and victory points in both DoW and CoH. Scraps of land you fight to the death over is relic's mode of combat! Meat grinder where you have finite troops really isnt, and they would remove huge ammounts of the fanbase through this method. Because you know relic and THQ like to make money, and they would really design a game so alien to CoH and DoW that players cannot see anything they liked in either in DoW2. DoW3 might have no buildings, and etc, etc. But not DoW2!

But guess what! There is a multiplayer mode which utilizes the SP's battle barge! This is what people have been asking for since DOW came out. But you know they said explicitly it was a MODE. They did not say that the entire game was going to be using this mechanic.

So what does my rumbling and bashing with a 50tonn hammer accomplished? It helped to present an alternative view set that many of you will easily ignore and not read. But this is how I piece togeather the information in a rational manner without jumping the gun, believe me or not. I'm sure we'll get more information in the next review which hopefully shatters many of these flimsy views on such a radical change ot the game in my mind.

[zero rogue]

I would love DoW2 to be more like Ground Control. However something thats always ticked me off is the control points Placed in random locations that have no point. (Like in the middle of nowhere.) If there going to have control points at least have some bonus to get them(And I don't mean just being resource boosters) What I mean is placing them in special locations For instance a capture point surrounding factories increases vehicle production rate. One on a cliff grants a large view range. etc...

[Mardhyn]

I agree with you rogue. For example take the map in Dawn of war 1, blood river. It has 3 strategic points around the base for no real reason. There is one strategic point in negative cover that I agree definitely provides strategic importance.(If only for having a solid turret there) Then there are the two relics which provide cover for there respective sides and a critical location in the middle that warns you about the enemy trying to march quickly to your base. Then finally there are two critical locations on either side that are useless as hell, well they do provide slight LoS but even that is limited. So you have 2 relics, two strategic points, and one critical location that actually provide strategic value. 2 critical locations and 6 strategic points that are mainly nothing but some static defense for base defending on requisition rate. And n realistic terms those strategic points aren't strategic.

Right now I have to go, but if I remember I'll bring up some points on a RTT vs. RTS style.

[auApex_01]

I understand where you're coming from Weavern (duh, typed the wrong name) but I thnk there is indeed ample evidence starting to emerge that the game will be a radical departure from DoW - to the extent that 'meat grinder' (as you put it) gameplay is almost the sole focus.

Have you read the latest PC Powerplay article? I would type up the text (or pertinent selections) but unfortunately I'm not allowed to. Instead, I'll leave you with this quote from the cover of the magazine:

Dawn of War 2: The most radical RTS rethink ever

[Weavern]

Moe? Where's Moe? I dont see a Moe?

There is no ample evidence if you've been reading the other previews, then this one shows up and tries to turn everything on its head when the reviewer might be completely wrong in what he wrote. Or the more likely conclusion, he was speaking specifically to selective marine missions. As for the radical departure; it might mean that there's no reinforcing in combat, there could be pinning and supressing, there might be destructable terrain, hell there might not be gen farms and multiple HQs.

Hell if it isnt a carbon clone of dated RTS mechanics, its a radical RTS rethink.

You might not be able to quote word for word the article, but you are free to paraphrase and explain what the reviewer was commenting upon. And unless I am mistaken in my intrepretation of the article, he was talking almost exclusively about the space marine campaign in which case, everything works out just kosher. Where marines are finite and persistant (persistant confirmed, finite is fluffy), lack of buildings is also explainable for the majority of missions as you're sending in strike teams, not building a base for SM missions.

However in both of these situations you presume that it is only dealing with a very narrow space marine campaign. Whereby your battlebarge sends you into combat and you dont have much in the way of reinforcements.

There is no evidence to suggest that in multiplayer of all modes except a battle barge mode, that there are no buildings (because we have buildings you fight in, why wouldent there be buildings you build), nor has there been anything to suggest there's no economy. There is always some method fo bring units or reinforce units. Its inconcieveable that relic will remove reinforcement in all shapes and forms for every race.

Hell radical RTS rethink, can be explained by no builder units, no harvesting, and completely varied sides. You dont have to turn it into Ground Control, World in Conflict, etc. Similarly the introduction of wargear as a more critical facet of the game qualifies as radical rethink. None of these exclude buildings, tech, or resources.

[Vijil]

I like the more radical approach. No building = good, realistic and fluffy. No resources = good, realistic and fluffy. No magical reinforcement = good... etc.. I personally really like the ideas put forward in the first post.

Instead of relying on buildings and resources for strategic depth, DoW2 will have to increase what can be done with the units you do have. Units that can enter existing buildings and use them for cover, destructible terrain, morale, etc. etc. are all adding depth - and we have this in CoH. If this is expanded, we'll have a great game. And don't complain about it being bland - most RPGs just give you one dude to run around with.

There are definitely strategic points in DoW2, btw, there's one in one of the screenshots. Looks a lot like a CoH one. Different points will almost definitely give the player access to different units and abilities. Holding points will perhaps link to a victory counter type system like in, say, BF2. I for one am down with that, screw regular RTS. Time for an RPT (Role Playing Tactics). Rock on Relic :)

[Weavern]

Vijil what strategic point have you seen? The only thing remotely close to it was the gamesradar picture which is a flagpost given how it most closely resembles a lamp post and their placement around the terrain makes it appear like a doodad rather then as strategic point. Hell there's even a lamp hanging off of the structure in question in one of the pics :D

Or have you seen something I havnt?

[Imperial Dane]

.. how about the blood raven banner ? Not something you usually see on lamp posts, are they ?

[Desk]

@ Weavern: On 2 of the gamesradar's screenshots , there was a device in the middle of what I would call a bridge.One give a side view and the other a top view of that device.
I talked a bit about that device in another thread.
It look like a column , a bit less than 2 times taller than a space marine.
4 sides ( but can only see 2)
On each side , a computer screen , a small space marine banner , what could be a small lamp point a the banner below.
On top of that column , that eagle symbol you see on every space marine stuff.

[Sword_Monkey]

I do see this as a massive departure from the classic RTS scene, into something new and interesting. But as of yet I am shaking in my boots as to call this 'good', that's a scary word for me to pin on DoW 2. Yes it's looking amazing and all that, and the gameplay will I'm sure still be the same tactical fun I'm used to. It's just that to get into the fights all of the other stuff I used to enjoy so much has gone, territory control of points is gone, eco and base building has gone. Of course it may still be there, I count any info so far as rumour, but I can already see that DoW 2 certainly won't be conventional, and it scares me.

Yes it's looking to be more realistic (if such a word can be applied to 40K).
But at the expensive of game mechanics that I loved. I know not everyone is a fan of base building, but I am.

[Imperial Dane]

Again, there seems to be many other thing pointing to base building being in, and i hope so, i mean in an article in a danish gaming magazine, they wrote it would play a smaller part than in DoW, not that it wouldn't be there.

[Zaljin]

This game is toying with my emotions. I hope that Imperial Dane speaks the truth. Hopefully soon enough we will get info to clear up these conflicting magazine articles.

[Hirmetrium]

We don't have the whole picture late, and everyone seems to be pulling conlcusions out the air as to DoW2's true nature.

Wait for a gameplay video, or a full online article from gamespot - chances are its not much further off now.

[Imperial Dane]

We don't have the whole picture late, and everyone seems to be pulling conlcusions out the air as to DoW2's true nature.

Not everyone.. just a lot of people seem to.


Wait for a gameplay video, or a full online article from gamespot - chances are its not much further off now.

I'd say an article with a gameplay video, for a gameplay video by itself might end up saying nothing at all. Dunno how long until we see one though.

[Shadow'sTalon]

So...what do you guys think the actual buildable buildings will be for the respective sides (Orks and SM). It was brought up in this thread Base Building Here (http://forums.relicnews.com/showthread.php?t=191781) that there will be a minor role buildable buildings will play. So base building hasn't been completely eliminated which I find slightly relieving. This may be as minor I suppose as a Landing Pads, turrets, bunkers, etc....what you you think?

[Imperial Dane]

Well i would imagine something akin to CoH where there weren't that many buildings again, and then most of them served either a defensive purpose or was some artillery position of sorts, of course considering how different each race will be, it is going to be hard to say, i mean i don't think the space marines will have that many buildings compared to what the guard might have, i think that in this case buildings might become more entwined with tactics and strategy than before, although it is hard to say as all we can do for the moment is look at the articles and speculate.

[Vijil]

"territory control of points is gone"

Probably not Monkeh, see there's still a point in the screenie.

If there are buildings, it'll probably just be a landing pad and maybe mobile turret emplacements that can be packed up and moved. Personally I hope for nothing. If this continues, we might end up with the game that DoW should have been...

[Weavern]

Vijil i'm not convinced its a point. I'm convinced its a lamp post given 3 of the 5 you see in the pictures (the things with the blood raven banners) have a lamp on the end! Which makes it a doodad giving flavour to the environment that its a blood raven world being showcased. Or maybe the point is off map, and things like lampposts change flags when you capture it.

[Vijil]

To me it looks enough like a point to assume that it is one for now.

[Valorian]

In my humble opinion, I think that we will have to kinds of builds, ones which we can construct (and this ones might be a few, maybe with multiply functions) and the ones which we can take for cover (COH have this if I am not wrong, note that I don't have COH) or other uses (I am only guessing on that).

[Draconus-365]

I agree with Valorian, due to the fact that apparently DoW2 uses the same engine as CoH and OF.

[darkpriest99]

After playing CoH a few times, I've found that one ability could improve it's gameplay, hence possibly DoW2's gamplay as well. Setting up rally points to which your troops would retreat, once you would hit 'retreat' button. I really find it sometimes annoying and distrupting action, when you have a forward base or some halftracks with few armors set up some distance behind the place where combat takes place, and once you hit retreat, infantry runs all the distance back to base, just to return to battlefield. Brits have similar ability, just by placing a captian in the place where you wish your infantry to retreat to, and then hitting, retreat to captian's location. It also does not make great sense to me that they alwasy have to run back to your base instead of forward base for example. Maybe add a second option to do "tactical retreat to previously set location" in DoW2, so that could make battles more dynamic to those of CoH, and no instant reinforcment would be ok with that option, as you wouldn't have to wait till your forces will run back and forth half of the map, because you hit retreat button, once the arty strike started or you've ran into a source of pinning fire.

[ninjahax]

the only person making any logical sense in this thread is weavern, as for the rest of you, some of your ideas may be possible, but i think you are looking too far into it. a combat only aspect warhammer 40k where the army was predetermined etc etc etc already exists, and its shit and boring, much like playing actual warhammer 40k with n00bs.


as for this elusive 'point', it is def. a lamp post anyone who says any different should be slaughtered for acts of heresy. this is not to say that they wont have SPs, but they def havent shown one in any of the 3 screenshots. from the info we have it is safe to say that the gameplay will be more like a live action warhammer 40k, which will be epic, because its what the original DOW series is missing. i mean cover system, various wargear, character like development. but as aforementioned this is all campaign detail, which is great, because like in ACTUAL warhammer 40k, the campaign gameplay plays out a lot differently to how standard "multiplayer" like gameplay does.

instead of jumping the gun, go buy the latest manual for warhammer 40k and read it cover to cover, noticing the campaign layout, i think this will clear up any issues about why the details they have given us so far are leading to such wild and drastic changes. (i.e. each squad has a combat card where u tally up kills etc personal detail such as name rank wargear and xp are also recorded. rolling campaigns depends on previous mission outcomes. several mission types, with varying degrees of difficulty, etc etc etc u fkn read it i cbf'd listing everything)

accept the fact that this game will be epic, and that they wouldnt change it to the extent in which map control is no longer valid

peace