View Full Version : Desired Gameplay
Well I thought since many people are wondering about the current gameplay of DoW2 maybe it would be nice to have a thread in which people say what type of gameplay they want in this coming game. I'm surprised there isn't one already. This is by no means a "I WANT [insert anything from DOW2] NOW!!!!11" thread, this thread is just for people to say what they would like the gameplay to be, just for fun. This has nothing to do with the actual DOW2 gameplay info out there but just a personal opinion on how you'd like it. So please no "forget about this it will never happen" posts. Alright? Nobody's gonna bite my head off over something I said or forgot to say? Nope? Good!
I'll begin this thread by saying how I'd like the gameplay to be.
Well me personally would like the campaign and the skirmish to play differently. In the campaign, for Space Marines, I'd like it to be on a smaller scale than the skirmish, at least for some missions. You'd have your squad do certain missions such as finding relics, destroying enemies, helping defend cities, etc.. I'd like my squad to be really strong, just as space marines are in "fluff", so I'd rarely need another squad of SM for help except maybe in large scale battles. I'd like to see IG getting killed all around me to make my SM squad feel more uber :P. And after every mission the SM squad would go to their ship where you can customize your troops and pick your next mission. I'd like to see the units very customizable, I'm talking different armor, wargear, and trophies (at least in the campaign). Also maybe each member of the squad can specialize in something, one in ranged weapons, one in melee, some in both, etc.. I think the campaign should be a mix of this and large scale battles.
In the skirmish and large scale battles I want it to play like WiC, you'd have the money and use it to drop pod anything into the battlefield anywhere. I don't know, the whole base building thing doesn't really appeal to me unless I'm making a huge city. So I say just drop units into the battlefield, and the more they kill the more money you get and when a squad or vehicle dies/gets destroyed you get some of the money used to drop it back. Now that'll bring up the inevitable question of "then how do you lose a skirmish game?", well my answer is that you'd have an objective and a timer so if you don't finish the objective (defending or attacking something) then you lose. Maybe also a last stand type map where you have to hold off somewhere against hordes of enemies for a time or maybe be in enemy territory and you have to get from point A to B while killing hordes of enemies, now that would be fun. It makes more sense then building a few buildings, spamming units, then going to attack some other enemy base that just happens to be right next to yours, pffft.
Did I mention how uber I want SM to be? How I'd like them to rip everything apart and be incredibly resilient? Oh alright. :P
Well that's all I can think of for now, maybe I'll put more later.
P.S. this is mainly regarding SM. I still didn't think much for the other races.
4th May 08, 5:33 PM
Whether it is rtt or rts based id like to see the models on screen acting more in line with what you'd expect, assuming you know what the unit is.
That is one of the aspects of CoH I liked most, it felt authentic and real. Less of an old c&c or starcraft game and more of a rts version of battlefield.
I dont want balance used as an excuse to make things seem 'wrong'. Such game design fits more to new unqiue ip's not when you base a game on something that already exists.
To make comparsions with dow, I dont want to see flak jacket armed imp guardsmen bouncing around the screen on the end of krak missles or being thrown a hundred foot under a barrage only to get back up then thrown again. I dont want to see terminators costing almost the same as tacticals and using the fact that they come later in tech tree balance as validation. I dont want to see karskins (lowly mere human imp guards) going toe to toe with terminators in range ability or wasting tactical marines. It might be balanced given their cost, it might make for good gameplay but o.O why base the game on 40k if your going to do silly stuff like that just make a new ip. That is like making a game based on golf and tiger woods is the caddy.
Such thoughts take effect whether the game plays as with original dow or with the prospects of no on map base building.
4th May 08, 5:57 PM
I, personally, would prefer to see a more "risk" oriented game than that of a "safe" oriented game.
A lot of what happened in DoW and CoH was that Relic implemented a form of "safety" buffer in combat. Tanks did ridiculously little damage to other tanks (in comparison to real life) and infantry could take an insane amount of damage before being killed. The theory behind this is that when damage is broken up into smaller clumps (so that it takes many hits to kill a unit) it gives the player more time to think. The damage safety buffer gives players time to think about withdrawing or pressing their units due to the lengthened times (and more predictable outcomes) of slugfests.
However, I would prefer a more "risky" type of combat system in DoW 2. This type of combat would entail more damage being done, even to the point where a unit may actually die in one shot, as they would in real life. Tanks, likewise, would die in one or two shots from other tanks like they would in real life.
I believe this system lends itself to more planning about combat beforehand rather than at the moment of, which is what a lot of strategy is about. You shouldn't have the time to say "dang, I guess it wasn't a great idea to attack that Predetor Annihilator with my Chimera," it should just be that you pay the consequences of not being strategically mindful enough to not run your Chimera into 4 Lascannons rather than being able to run away with 2/3rds of your health still standing.
That's my opinion on it anyways. I think it makes the gameplay more realistic and more planned than it is now.
variousgamesfan - I totally agree with you, games really shouldn't sacrifice the "feel" of the 40k universe for the sake of gameplay because one of the biggest appeals in a game is that it feels authentic to the universe it's set in, such as CoH as you said.
Buguba - I think your idea would be perfect for some races that I have in mind. It would add alot of strategy.
Exactly Bugaba, the sheer resilience of units as mentioned by KalX as well is one of the biggest immersion killers in RTS. They don't just do it in Relic games - most RTS's do it. Removing it does make combat less predictable and much faster, which isn't very good for fully competitive gaming where things need to be set up so that the best player will *always* win (as opposed to *most of the time* like in RL).
There are a number of other reasons why it's been done - one of the biggest ones is that until relic came along, there haven't been cover systems in RTS. In RL a unit right out in the open will be destroyed before it has time to say "Mommy", but in RTS til now every unit has effectively been out in the open, so combat had to be slowed down and weapon ranges reduced to make it work. Now that Relic have a good cover system with the essence engine and have said that units out in the open will be cut down quite fast, it looks like we're in for a tasty piece of realism candy! If we're lucky, this will also mean that the ranges on weapons will be made more realistic. A real tank can lob a shell a couple miles.
Beyond that, it's more fun! I want to spend time biting my nails while setting up an ambush, knowing that once the combat starts my setup had better have been good or else my guys will be nailed really fast. The same when on attack. If combat is harder and faster then it becomes less about micro during combat and more about setup, using the terrain and firing lanes, and target allocation, beforehand (just like tournament paintball (http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v226/vijil/chchafield.jpg)). In other words more realistic and imo more fun because it hasn't really been done before in an RTS.
6th May 08, 5:53 PM
Kalx I agree with you on the multiplayer aspect, that it should be more like WIC
Dropping in units seems like it would be more fun and more tactical than base building, as it would allow you more freedom to roam around the battlefield, attack from different angles, and simple use more tactics than straightforward defend the base and push forward in this one direction.
And Vijil - I totally agree with you also on the realism aspect, like if you don't setup right your screwed.
6th May 08, 8:30 PM
Great ideas, Vijil you did a great job describing that
if i had my way id go for realism over, haha i have more hp than yoooz!
6th May 08, 9:10 PM
Agreed with Vijil and Buguba. More emphasis on tactics and unit placement than watching hit point meters to determine the retreat time.
6th May 08, 10:41 PM
I want to see Ground Control II style fighting over landing zones for troops. I imagine that you'd start a match with a small number of troops, at a low tech level, who for fluff reasons were the only troops able to get to the battlefield straight off - tier 0 and tier 1, basically. You'd then have to capture strategic assets around the map to get other things: if you want to deep strike, you'd need to capture a recon building (for example, a radar tower, astropathic facility or a warp/webway portal), and to deliver vehicles, you'd need to capture a suitable vehicle landing zone. To get elite troops you'd need to find a relic to justify sending the most expensive troops down to hold it.
You'd get new troops based on your requisition (which you get a steady trickle of based on how much of the map is under your control, more like in CoH than DoW), your support cap, and the facilities you control, via an expandable sidebar like in Ground Control II, where you'd select the troops you want and (where applicable) where you want them delivered (for example to which landing zone, or if they can deep strike, anywhere suitable).
This would lead to exciting objective-based gameplay. Want to get tanks? You'd better take that anti-air gun your opponent is holding next to the landing zone, or else you won't be able to fly them in.
What would be very cool is if you could arrange for rapid transport of units between landing zones under your control; I have this image of space marines mounting a last stand at the landing zone while a Thunderhawk flies in, guns blazing, to lift them to safety and take them to another landing zone. I imagine each side would have access to a small number of aircraft like a blend of GC2's dropships and CoH bombers, where you could call in airstrikes, deliver troops (you could only deliver vehicles with aircraft, and it's cheaper to send troops via aircraft than deep strike, say) and even have hot landings on any piece of flat land, where it costs a lot and forces your aircraft to land under enemy fire, if you really want to deliver troops desperately.
You could only reinforce infantry squads at landing zones under your control, or in hot landings. Vehicles could only be repaired at repair stations or by appropriate characters (techmarines, bonesingers etc), who rather than being "builders" like in DoW would be minor heroes with combat abilities above normal troops, but less than heroes, and they would be able to deploy mines and turrets (you'd call them down from orbit like in DoW, and then they'd be assembled on the ground), repair vehicles and structures, and fortify structures under your control. Basically like CoH engineers, but without building any production or tech structures, and with serious combat attitude. I want to see techmarines/priests with mechadendrites with guns on the end of them fighting like Doctor Octopus from Spiderman.
Victory would be by destroying all enemy forces and depriving them of any means to get more (i.e. take their landing zones, or automatic loss if they lose all their troops AND have no requisition to build more). Alternatively, there would be objective modes, like capturing one or more critical locations, or even asymmetric ones where one side has to defend some structure/location and the other has to attack.
As far as combat goes, I want it to be bloody and rapid. Space Marines should survive a serious beating, but should be very few in number. I don't want to see them start to drop until they're under very heavy fire. On the other hand, Orks and (where applicable) IG, Nids et cetera should die in droves and be available in very large numbers. I want it to reflect 40k fluff, where things are either godly and few in number (marines, daemons, nid monsters, necrons, eldar aspect warriors) or there are thousands of them. When the really tough troops fight one another, it should be very destructive.
As far as the LZ model works, this is clearly how SM should operate, and Orks could do it as well (landing aircraft) or they could drive/charge onto the battlefield from roads at map edges like some troops do in CoH. Chaos would have use for LZs but in particular would like to use the warp, and Eldar would use the Webway where possible. Therefore every race would be able to use landing zones, but if they all had other means - roads, Warp, webway, drop pods - it would add strategic variety.
7th May 08, 12:42 AM
Shakrith you do bring up some good points there, but bear in mind that there may be no req in DoW2. Even if it doesn't, many of your ideas will still apply and I agree that they would work.
Only thing I'd take issue with is SM life times - they should survive a serious beating if under crappy small arms fire, but against eldar for example, a starcannon should completely mow them. That and plasma will need to be 1 or 2 shot kills against marines. I would *love* to see a system whereby units can be wounded - basically like having broken morale but with a different animation, and slow moving. Maybe apothecaries could fix them up at least temporarily. You'll want to get them back up to the barge ASAP because they're your imba marines and you don't have unlimited numbers.
That might sound too little damage for a kill but bear in mind that relic have a proper cover system going and suppressing fire may work, so a marine will survive for a long time by staying in cover and using his uber snap shooting skills to mow the fools.
7th May 08, 8:38 AM
By means of rational deduction, it can be assumed that there will be differences between single player and multiplayer.
For instance, the description of single player leads one to conclude that the gameplay will orchestrate around controlling a squad, or squads, on the map. There will be no tier advancement where you research technology you apparently forgot since the last fight. No building construction. Just your squad, you, and the mouse and keyboard.
The claim that you start with a select group of elite squads that you must keep the entire game, and that losing a member of that squad will have dire effects, means to me, that on the world map, you will have six different units. Imagine DC or SS, except instead of one commander, you have six squads. Those squads can coexist on the same region, and attack another region at once, if they share adjacency. Or, they can spread out and attack different regions. That's what I assume, just from reading the descriptions.
It sounds, then, assuming you have no buildings to construct, that there are one of two possibilities for single player:
*Remember those RTS missions in which you weren't allowed to build a base? The ones in which you started with a single unit(s) and had to either use stealth or roll the map in order to win? It's possible that the single player will play like that, and you will only have a single squad the entire time.
*It's also possible that the elite squad under your control counts towards the max population of 6 squads that can be used on the map. If you bring 6 elite squads to a mission, that's all you get. If you bring one, you are allowed to drop in additional, less experienced marines as you capture areas that allow such drops to occur.
I assume either of these conditions for single player because "micromanagement is dead," and the focus of "RTS 2.0" is real time STRATEGY, not real time MANAGEMENT. IE, squads will either have a very large amount of controls that will enable you to use a variety of abilities or moves, allowing you to play the game more closely to a FPS or RPG than a RTS, or that the management of units will be close to as it is in DoW1, but the focus will be on holding and protecting areas, even allowing NPCs to set up defensive barriers, etc, as you control areas.
Looking at it from that perspective, I can say two things about how the developers are perceiving multiplayer:
*Controlling a single squad using DoW methods would be boring on its own, both in gameplay and in terms of rewards. Imagine fighting battles in which no one ever dies. You shoot one another with machine gun fire for what seems like two minutes, until your health gets lower than the other guy's. You retreat. Boring.
*Having multiplayer battles based on eliminating a single squad, or even a maximum of 6 squads, could easily result in very short matches, or very boring matches of players simply spawning their mandatory elite squad(s), and rushing the opposition, and winning or dying in the span of no less than 5 minutes, every match.
Both of those things, I think, from a design standpoint, are obvious enough. So, I can assume that while SP and MP will share similarities, there will be necessary divergence.
Thinking to myself, I imagine DoW2 combat in SP and MP, both, playing out something like this:
1) You begin the game at either a static base or at least a starting location that is pre-determined. You have a single elite squad. This squad is both stronger and has slightly more skills than a normal squad.
2) Bases do not generate conventional resources or "build" new Marines. New material always comes from orbit (or from the warp, or from underground, etc). In order to obtain these reinforcements, you obviously can't build them, so you need to get them another way. The strategic point system, or something like it, fills this niche. By holding an area, you are alloted a new resource in the form of a new non-elite marine squad, or a rare vehicle. Or, possibly, by holding an area, loyal NPCs arrive and automatically deploy map-generated defenses in the form of small turrets or a wall of disposable soldiers. (You can't build, after all.)
3) The goal of the match is to either wipe out your enemy's entire military force, including their elite squad, or to push through the map, holding your resource zones to fill your cap of 6 squads, and capture the enemy's main base, hold an objective for a set time, or use a special map-specific unit in some unique way.
From reading the articles, it seems to me that DoW2 will be very focused on using troops rather than flinging them at the enemy. In that vein, battles will not be as epic as in DoW1, beyond Ork matchups of 6 Marine squads trying to mow down well over 50 Orks. Vehicles will be rare, but incredibly effective. Gameplay will orient around capturing and holding key installations that offer map-changing benefits or reinforcements.
Obviously, if losing a squad member is a big deal for your elite team, either in SP or MP, your forces aren't going to be dying very often. This means to me that the bulk of your fighting will be done between your reinforcement, low-grade units. Perhaps elite Marine squads won't get Marine reinforcements, but IG troops instead?
Something tells me there will be a single squad of great importance in MP, and that the map will play a huge role in combat, and that NPCs will be involved somehow.
The nature of how any fun game plays relies on things dying all around you. If you can't build units, and reinforcing your units ala DoW1 is impossible, and combat will orient around using 6 squads, this to me means there's either a huge gameplay mechanic that has yet to be revealed, or that the majority of what we're going to see will involve throwaway support units. There's no sense in having six Ork squads collide with six Marine squads and having one side come out on top in under a few minutes, and that be that. A RTT or RTS game is too necessarily action-packed for that.
It seems they're pushing for realism, so it would stand to reason that in order for that realism to be real enough, you need to orient around the fluff. That is, Marines just won't seem to die, and Orks are very numerous but fall constantly.
I don't see combat being as simple as it is in DoW1, where all you do is click for the squad to visit an area, use a special move or two and "dance" away from melee units. It's possible that battles will be long, and that you can use each unit in a squad as its own unique person that can do various interesting things that can both save the squad and turn the battle. It seems like these assumptions are one of only a few logical things that can happen.
8th May 08, 3:16 PM
Gannadene, keep in mind no one knows if the six squad thing will apply to any other
races besides marines.
For example, six squads of IG as your only troops vs. about the same
number of SM or Orks seems kinda, well, hopeless.
9th May 08, 1:04 AM
Depends on how many units come per squad, per race, amongst other things.
9th May 08, 4:50 AM
To me, DoW2 is sounding a lot like Chaos Gate but real time instead of turn based.
9th May 08, 4:53 AM
I like all the suggestions here.
But based on what I've read I think DoW2 will contain much of what I want in an RTS: less "sim base" aspects and more shooty. Faster, more tactical gameplay and less of the old "spend 20 minutes building a base and a massive army then 10 minutes rolling over your opponent".
DoW started this as it got you stuck in more quickly and encouraged tactical elements like cover, but if Relic sticks to what it says it will do in the previews then I think DoW2 will take this to the next level and probably feel more like true 40k...though I've never played TT.
9th May 08, 12:11 PM
I've seen strategic points in screenshots, so I think one way the no base-building approach will go is:
Your initial landing zone has a strategic point already captured. As you go out an capture more points, you can have them fortified with listening posts. Unlike DoW 1 there probably won't be any builders, so what happens is the point will probably have an upgrade to listening post icon. And perhaps as you upgrade listening post levels, you'll get the ability to fortify the position with fixed, self-building defenses dropped from orbit that you can position within the point's area of influence., kinda like in World in Conflict.
A player loses when all of his strat points are captured by the enemy and he thus has no landing zone. That could be one game mode. Another could be that a player loses if all his points are captured and all his ground units are destroyed.
Since there seems to be no tech tree, all you really need to do is make higher-tier units simply more expensive. The more points you capture, the greater your resource rate and thus more easily you can acquire expensive stuff. In the beginning of the game, this could lend you the option of building a small basic army in the start, or starting off with way fewer but more high-tier units.
10th May 08, 9:51 PM
That sounds like an amazing idea Shinova. Although I was very apprehensive about the whole no base building/ resources etc details, a system like the one you explained would be extremely interesting and always push people into fighting over points. It seems like it would be pretty balanced too, and slight advantages wouldn't lead to one person steamrolling the other.
11th May 08, 12:47 AM
I think the perfect DoW II System would be like this:
I will be talking about the campaign, because that’s what i’d like to be able to have as unique for each person as possible.
The first screen would be allowing you to choose a race and sub-race (Able to be created using a more advanced version of the color scheme creator). For this instance, if you choose Space Marines, you can select a chapter or create your own. If you create your own, it would come up with a pop-up screen.
That screen would have the name of the Chapter, the “Armory” (Allowing you to modify units on a level equal to Table-top, even allowing you to modify each and every soldier to your liking.). The Armory would allow you to choose the colors, the soldiers you will start off with, and what they look like/what armaments they have. A trait system would make all this more than eye-candy. After selecting all that, there would be a ‘done’ button, and it would come up with another screen.
This screen would show multiple slots for you to place the races which you want to have in the map.
After that, it would come up with a map similar to a 4x game, your force in a fleet. All the other races have the territorries generated based on a Fast-Foward system. The game right then would be in real-time, having you move to a planet, then a territory. While you are doing this, the other armies are still fighting eachother. In this case, the chapter (A made up one, a successor to the Space Wolves called the Frost Daggers) is assaulting an Ork base. The Orks had recently taken this territory from the Imperial Guard, so there were converted Imperial buildings modified to fit Ork needs. The first thing the chapter leader (the player) does is send down a pair of Tactical Space Marine Squads in drop pods at a patrol of Orks, killing them instantly. There is no Fog of War, because that just doesn’t make sense. The two squads move towards a nearby hill, spotting the fact that there are emplacements on top of it. The decision that they would assault it was near instant, and so they pull out chainswords and charge. A quick command sends down a flag bearer, who runs with the Marines up the hill. After taking loses, the Space Marines are commanded to set up some quick defences while the Bearer replaces the flag. Since the Orks decided to weld the flag to the stand, the Bearer cuts it off with a power sword, then quickly places the flag on, the still molten metal grabbing onto the flag’s pole. After multiple capturings of the surrounding countryside, The Space Marine forces assault the small area that is the Ork’s base, with minimal losses. The battle screen zooms out to the planet map, and a group of IG are now moving in to mop up and secure the area. Of course, if that was all, this would be no fun,so the Chapter Leader has inspired his troops to resist the Imperials. When they land, a barrage meets them, making them retreat to a hill which they heavilly fortify, making assault useless. Sadly, this allowed the traitorous actions known to all the Imperials. Repelling multiple attacks, the Frost Daggers’ base becomes stronger through salvage. After that, the player saves the campaign and starts a multiplayer version of the same campaign. It is still the same exact time it was in the single-player, the difference being that in the multiplayer, new armadas will come through the server, then, once they go offline, the AI takes over them, and they will be taken over. If they are not, then the player can continue from where he was.
Overall, this would be my idea of what the best DoW-style game could be like.
A couple of quick extra notes:
-Squads would be reinforcable by having soldiers come down in drop pods. (Space Marines, other races would be different, even sometimes unable to reinforce)
-Buildings would not actually create units, instead only storing units and items. The reason you would store units is because they do not succumb to the enviorment when inside, and also wounded soldiers can heal when inside.
-Trenches could be created by any basic Imperial Guard soldier.
-Injured organic soldiers can be carried to safety if unable to move.
-Commisars are allowed to kill the wounded.
-Prisoners can be taken, though it will take from resources.
-The resources are Food, Energy, Metal, Stone and Civillians. Food is used based on the number of organic creatures you have. Tyranids can consume other organics for food. Energy is used based on what buildings you use. Orks and Tyranids do not use the Energy resource. Metal is used to fix/make buildings, armor, weapons, and vehicles. Stone is used to create more natural looking buildings. Civillians are used to gain reinforcements (Imperial Guard), Slaughter (Necrons, CSM, Dark Eldar, Tyranids), Enlighten (Eldar, Tau,Imperial Guard), and exterminate non-humans (Space Marines, Imperial Guard)
-When enlightened, civillians will reason with the armies of the corresponing race to either side with you, surrender, or leave.
-Imperial Guard, Orks and Tyranids can do a charge move, which reduces all morale on your team to 100% and increases speed to 200% at the cost of being unable to attack until they make it to the enemy.
Will add more later.
11th May 08, 2:18 AM
Shinova, I really like your idea too.
The initial landing zone should be lightly fortified, just to make sure that if your first wave gets wiped, you don't immediately get trounced by the opponent, and to deter sneaky back-door cappers from sending a single, cheap unit around to get it while your troops are busy in the first battle of the match.
I believe it would add to the intensity of the game if there's a countdown timer on each checkpoint after you cap it, making sure you can't upgrade to an advanced LP immediately. Basically, you place the defenses, but aren't allowed to place certain defenses/implement certain upgrades for X seconds after capturing the point, adding on your last LP level, etc.
Also, they should probably retain the win by map domination rules, since few things are more aggravating than chasing the last few Eldar from place to place across a map...
11th May 08, 8:20 AM
I'm very keen on the concept of not building bases myself, but I wouldn't mind things like forward positions or landing zones and the like. I'm very keen to see what Relic will have in mind for this game.
12th May 08, 9:02 PM
One worry I can see with my idea is that if you have two players or two teams of skilled players, both sides could trade territory back and forth for a long, long time, perhaps for too long in some cases.
On the other hand, there will probably be very little time between one battle and the next. If reinforcement times are kept short and for all intents and purposes on-demand (like in world in conflict), then it will probably be a nearly-continuous rampage back and forth across the map. Which would mean less (if not practically non-existent) building and re-building up your forces and camping in your bases and more getting into the thick of it. It would really try some people's stamina for extremely long non-stop battles. But then again if there's no base management and reinforcement ordering is kept in a simple to use universal menu like in World in Conflict, it would be vastly easier to fight for that long since the fight will be all you need to concentrate on. :)
Since there's no bases and only territory, you could have situations where two sides end up switching halves of the map. You could have interesting strategies where you try to split people's territories and so on.
I think it's going to be a more free-form style of war rather than a strict "your base versus my base" kind of gameplay.
Of course this is all assuming this is what Relic has in mind. They could go a more CoH route, where territories only give resources if they're "in supply" with the home territory. I think having a home territory would be like having a base but without buildings though, so you'll still end up with the same-old "your base versus my base" style of gameplay.
12th May 08, 10:10 PM
Shinova, I'm not familiar with World in Conflict, but I can see what you mean. On the one hand having a supply line mechanic means that it could well devolve into bases, but on the other hand, if supply lines don't matter, it would be possible to hold random portions of the map without any connection between them. This might work, or it might not, depending on the level of accessibility of regions.
In GC2 it worked, because landing zones were the only accessible places. You'd fly between them and drop troops there and even if they were cut off from one another, you could meaningfully use them.
The question is whether the use of drop pods etc signifies that there will be a broader accessibility of parts of the map, i.e. by troops being dropped in or shuttled around, or whether the majority of the action must take place overland.
12th May 08, 11:46 PM
In regards to drop pods, I think at this point any theory can go. They can be dropped anywhere, or only in landing zones, or are limited by unit type (meaning stronger units can't be dropped just anywhere), and so on.
Corwin of Amber
14th May 08, 5:23 AM
The idea of occupation of landing/reinforcment zones is most appealing in addition with territory/strategic point control. Although I'm not to keen on base building, I'd like to see an option to set up fortifications, especially in those zones. Fighting for territory until totally, or nearly, wiped-out would be the way to go in my opinnion.
17th May 08, 9:41 PM
I would like a RTS style game like DoW I. but it apears this is going to be something different and not a really sequel. They should call it something else and actually make DoW II.
18th May 08, 2:28 AM
I have some suggestions concerning the very basic gameplay, especially combat and how advancing/retreating works.
Relic has made an incredibly refined game, CoH, and as much as I love DoW I can't help but think DoW's gameplay became obsolete, which is good, because it means Relic is willing to improve and take risks with new gameplay instead of staying true to one formula.
What I really wouldn't like DoW2 to be, is a better-looking DoW 1. Relic should have gameplay at least as good as CoH. Let me point out some important differences between CoH and DoW. Infantry combat in DoW feels like most RTSs, you send troops, the enemy sends troops, you micromanage them in a weird way, not ressembling anythin you'd see on a battlefield and then someone wins. In CoH, it all feels right, as variousgamesfan said in his post: your enemy has a HMG covering an area with an infantry squad. You only have two riflement squad. You flank the HGM from both sides, maybe finding cover as you go, the HMG will be caught flaked (in CoH cover doesn't do anything if you come from behind or from the sides), or maybe you use a mortar to shoot a smokescreen, because the HMG is in a house, and then advance and throw grenades. These scenarios are much more real, most RTSs up to CoH, as cool as they were, felt much more like sending troops and microing them in ways that make only sense in an RTS ("dancing" units in warcraft 3 for instance), units only had their life bar grow smaller and their attack animations loop over and over again, instead of animating according to the situation.
It's not only that though, the dynamic of gameplay in CoH is very good in that it doesn't allow the very annoying tactics from DoW 1 in the beggining, such as hellion rushes and all. I'm not saying there should be a "no-rush" barrier. That's stupid, but CoH doesn't allow harasses in early game and yet combat in that period is very dynamic, because every player is trying to control important point. Reinforcing units in all parts of the map is also very annoying, it just makes combat more of a sensless micro fest, there is no real tactic.
The addition of commander skills as in CoH could be good too.
Relic made excellent RTSs from the beggining, with HW and DoW, but they really achieved something amazing with CoH. I just hope they have something at least as refined as CoH, or even better, that they make me look at CoH gameplay as obsolete, just as I do with DoW 1 now. And to top it off, it's W40k, and not WWII :D.
18th May 08, 3:46 AM
I agree wholeheartedly with Belgerog. I've been playing DC a little recently, and it really surprised me how little strategic depth there is compared to CoH. Some people have said in this thread that they don't want to change the gameplay at all, but frankly, I fail to see the point, as vanilla DoW, although it is one of the best RTS games ever made, is far from perfect, and indeed far further than CoH.
That's not to say that DoW 2 should be exactly like in CoH, for instance -
3) Army customisation.
4) Uber units. 40k has them, WWII didn't.
18th May 08, 9:52 PM
What I truly feel that is necessary in whatever gameplay that is finally produced is adaptation. Have any of you had a massive army with armor and infantry all equiped and trained? You're so ready to take on the enemy, but your troops get stuck at some chokepoint, obstruction, hill path, etc.? Sure that's the point, but we're talking about armies. IG, for example, are orgainzed and rigorously trained, but get stuck? Under no enemy fire!? That's just sad. No realism in that.
What I'm thinking is expanding on the idea of stances. Not just your regular hold ground, melee, range, etc. but battle tactics and formations. With a click of a button the army smoothly reforms itself with armor at the front, etc. Now this is when units aren't in a full pitched battle. There are factors like morale, enemy fire, etc. to consider in fights and smooth transitions aren't going to happen that easily.
I'm also thinking about map-planned execution tactics. There's a pull down menu with terrain, paths, your army, and enemy positions picked up on radar like in CoH. You select a unit(s) and "draw" and place commands like attack, build defenses, movement, etc. However, this IS NOT executed immediately after input. (Ability to coordinate one or more actions/attacks simultaneously with eachother.) Save the plans and play the game regularly, then all of a sudden the enemy attacks. You press an execute tactics button and your plans from before are executed. If it was flanking, or setting ambushes we don't have to micro it when other pressing matters are evident. This would be like real war. Planning tactics and unprecedented co-ordination that IG, SM, Eldar, Tau, Ork(?), etc. are supposedly known for.
Now this is very rough and some fine tuning will make this an ultimate addition to gameplay, but if it doesn't go through... PLEASE don't make our own armor units become our worst nightmare.
19th May 08, 12:23 AM
Here's a small thing: I'd like all weapons to be treated as separate entities from infantry squads. This can allow every weapon to be picked up, not only for lmg or shrecks as is the case in CoH; say a shoota boy takes out a marine with his shoota, he can pick up whatever weapon the sm dropped. Also if knock back is implimented, when infantry gets knocked into the air they have a chance to lose w/e weapon they're holding and have to either find the weapons or go into cc with their fists or knife etc.
Here's another thing: damage to different parts of a body. CoH had destroyed engine, busted main gun etc, why not expand it to infantry? Say a guard gets hit in the leg, he falls to the ground screaming, when ordered to move he limps a little and moves slower, depending on where he got hit, until treated. If an infantry gets hit in the arm by a heavy bolter round or other races' equivalent he loses that arm and cannot shoot if it's a two handed weapon. When he gets treated he'd either get a bionic replacement or get a new one attached for orks. If some one get boom-headshoted by a sniper, death animation should show that he gets hit in the head, drops to his knees with blood spraying everywhere and then drops dead on the ground.
19th May 08, 9:07 AM
Although I'd like to see the realistic nature of getting shot in different parts. It's also kind of annoying. Remember that it's squad based. One guy limping around is gonna slow down the whole squad.
For tanks and other vehicles, its a must.
19th May 08, 1:23 PM
beware long post:
My desired gameplay:
Some key points:
1. no „ressource gathering“ in the traditional sense since it doesn’t fit 40k well
2. no base building since it doesn’t fit 40k well (the point isn’t that for example IG wouldn’t build buildings/bases…. they would…. but not DURING battle in a matter of seconds like in DOW/other RTS…. )
3. smart use of environment (cover, occupying/destroying buildings, bridges etc) plays a key role – and isn’t just a “gimmicky side kick”
4. no “fixed” armies (like mark of chaos, i.e. you start the game with your full army and lose if its killed off) – you can get reinforcements during battle and most importantly you don’t start a battle in “full force” but get more troops as the battle advances
5. no unit customization “during battle” (i.e. popping out a lascannon in a matter of seconds)
How I d imagine something like this:
First off lets start with the army editor, in my desired DoW2 gameplay it wouldn’t just be a colouring tool but fit a gameplay-relevant purpose: unit customization.
Since I want unit customization to happen before the troops are in the field, it would obviously be a huge pita if you had to click through dozens of customization options each time you order a new space marine squad onto the field when around you everything is exploding and your other troops are massacred…..
The idea instead is that clicking on “call in SM squad” would open another menu where you could chose between 1-X profiles for said unit….. profile number 1 beeing an SM squad with only bolters and no extras for the lowests price, profile number 3 being an SM squad with AV specializion , profile number 4 being pimped out veterans with all goodies for highest price … etc. etc.
Relic could ship each unit with 1-4 profiles, but the player himself could make even more in the editor and use them quickly during battle, being able to give them own names and possibly icons. Obviously each profile would have a different point cost, based on what has been equipped. And even more important: what stuff and how much of it can be assigned to a unit would be limited, hopefully as close as possible to TT: please no 500 point units consisting of one single hero with the uberest of the uber equipment.
Ok, how do I start with the basics ?
1. Requisition. That could be (again:p) the name for the “points” I was talking about.
It’s the “currency” to purchase your units and unlike most other RTS it isn’t generated from harvesting or capping points - it isn’t generated at all but simply granted.
Your “counter” for requisition would consist of 4 numbers x / y / z / q…. when starting a mission it could look like 500 / 500 / +0 / 10%
X (500) is the amount of AVAILABLE requisition that can be used right now to call in troops.
Y (500) is the MAXIMUM amount of requisition you could have.
Z (+0) shows you how much requisition is currently “regenerating”.
Q (10%) shows you how FAST your requisition is/would be “regenerating”
More in detail:
X is basically your “money”, purchasing new troops will reduce X by their point cost.
Y is basically how much “money” you COULD have available, if you didn’t have any troops.
Z is your “income”. Anything in Z will be slowly converted into X, i.e. if you have +40 in Z, it count down 39,38….,2,1 until its at 0 again and those points all go into X.
Q determines how fast Z is converted into X. example (don’t nail me on that number): at 100% speed every 1 second Z would be lowered by 1 and X raised by 1 until Z is at 0 again.
If Z is at 0, nothing happens.
I guess I m writing really confusing stuff right now, so lets lighten up with an example:
You start a basic skirmish take and hold mission and are immediately granted 500 REQ to bring your first troops into battle. Counter looks like this: 500/500/0/10%
Now you ordered all your beginning troops but have some points left over. Counter looks like this: 30 / 500 / 0 / 10%
The battle moves into the second “tier”, for a take and hold mission that would simply mean either player has capped another sector (important: note the “either”; if you wanted, you could simply ignore capping sectors and would still get the benefits of moving to a new tier, more on that later). Counter looks like this 30/700/200/10% (20% if you capped that sector, more on that later).
If you (and your enemy) did nothing but watch the screen from there on…. The counter would tick that way: 30/700/200/10%, 31/700/199/10% ….. 230/700/0/10%
Now you could buy a new squad for lets say 200 points…. And we d be at 30/700/0/10%
Ok, enough sitting around, your tactical squad suddenly comes under fire and loses 2 marines which costed (for example, incl. equipment) 20 pts each. Counter goes: 30/700/40/10%
Now the counter would tick 30/700/40/10 , 31/700/39/10 …. 70/700/0/10.
I hope its understandable but I m simply saying that the only way to get more “money” to buy troops is a) moving to another tier or b) having casualties. the point however is that you re not getting more “money” then your enemy. you both benefit from moving to another tier and obviously getting points slowly back from losses is nothing all too positive, considering that this gives the enemy a timeframe in which he has more “points” in the form of troops on the field than you…. possibly making your losses even bigger in the process.
So you re probably asking right now: “well whats the point of capping sectors/moving to another “tier” then, if it benefits the enemy just as much ?
It all boils down to “Q”. the more sectors you hold – the higher your regeneration rate will be.
In the extreme example of you holding 9 sectors vs the enemy holding only 1….. your lost requisition regenerates 9 times as fast as his…… so unless he s causing you 9times as many losses as you do to him….. you have quite an advantage there.
Turtling isn’t flatout impossible in this system – but if you do so, you better make sure that your turtling well enough to overcome how much faster his reinforcements are coming in then yours.
2. Troop Types
I d love for DoW2 to be closer to Tabletop and think TTs “troop categories” would fit DoW2 really well. For those who don’t know tabletop … basically any unit belongs to one of five different troops types, those being: (I include one Space Marine unit each for example)
HQ (commander), Elite (terminators), Standard (tactical squad), Fast Attack (assault squad)and Heavy Support (predator )
An army MUST have (for a standard mission, different missions have different setups)
1 HQ and 2 Standard troops.
An army CAN have up to 2 HQ, 6 Standard and 3 each of Elite/Fast Attack/Heavy Support Troops.
How does that affect my desired DoW2 gameplay ?
Think of Troop Types as sort of a mix between caps and limits of DoW1.
Each standard mission would start with you having 1 HQ and 2 Standard Troop Types available from the start. You cannot purchase any elite,fast attack, heavy support at the begin of battle, nor can you call in more than 1 HQ or more than 2 standard troop choices.
Instead, more Troops choices would unlock (for all players) upon entering new “tiers” (like said, for a standard mission that would happen when (any) player caps a new sector (that was previously uncapped)
troops HQ Standard Fast Attack Heavy Support Elite
0 3 1 2 - - -
1 4 1 2 1 - -
2 5 1 3 1 1 -
3 6 1 3 1 1 1
4 7 1 4 2 1 1
5 8 2 4 2 2 1
6 9 2 5 2 2 2
7 10 2 5 3 2 2
8 11 2 6 3 3 2
9 12 2 6 3 3 3
The numbers for each category show how many troop choices of that type you *could* have at that tier. Obviously you aren’t forced to, i.e. at tier 9 you could easily still have zero elite troops but in trade off 3 Fast Attack 3 Heavy Support, 2 HQ and 4 Standard.
One thing to note however is that you cannot order any non HQ/Standard troops for as long as you don’t have the mandatory 1 HQ and 2 Standard Troops on the field….. so when your commander dies you need to get a replacement asap or you ll be limited to standard troops only. Likewise, if you have less than 2 standard troops you cant order anything but more standard troops until you have 2 in the field again.
3. “Entry Zones”
You no longer have a base but an entry zone which is a piece of the map neighbouring the border. Its from here where your reinforcements will come if ordered (unless they have special rules like deepstriking, summoned demons etc…), they ll simply walk / drive into the map from “off-screen”. Even if the entry zone is occupied by an enemy…. reinforcements will still arrive here…. its of important notice that reinforcing into an enemy-occupied zone obviously can be quite dangerous if he has some deadly troops in good positions there….. one good idea in that case other then taking the zone back…. would be to NOT reinforce your troops “one by one” but amass enough requisition to order multiple troops at once – so when they arrive in the entry zone they stand a chance to survive (and possible take the zone back).
Quite a few troop choices have options to come into play anywhere on the map (that you can see) naturally from TT but unlike tabletop many “ordinary” units that normally don’t have such rules… can get them as well (note that this costs extra points though). An example would be a Predator tank dropped by a thunderhawk.
Just keep in mind the extra point costs are only worth it if you really need the unit quick…. else you just spend valuable points on that unit that do nothing for its actual combat performance and are only gained back if the unit is destroyed.
Unlike in DoW1 your squad of marines that just lost a member cant magically bring him back from the dead…. that squad will always be down 1 member. Note however that special/heavy weapons from a dead squad member will be picked up by the next marine… so you don’t lose these before you have less squad members than special weapons.
Still, squads under 50% of their max soldiers aren’t really that effective anymore so you have the option to let them “regroup” (unlike in DoW1 you CANNOT “suicide” your own troops)
When you chose “regroup” the squad will leave the battlefield towards your entry zone in the fastest way possible (it will try and take cover if it encounters enemy troops on the way) and once it moves off the map….. the point costs of those troops who made it out alive will be immediately restored (i.e. unaffected by regeneration ) – so of course thats a better solution than suiciding your badly hurt troops. (where the lost points will only regenerate slowly instead of instantly)
Attached Commanders/special characters can obviously simply join another squad and don’t have to regroup (infact, they d only get that option if they re below 30% health)
Just like most RTS there would be different win/lose conditions from “Assassination” (i.e. each player has one HQ unit that must survive, else he lost) to “hold X sectors for Y minutes” …… something I d like to see as well would be a “limited troops” condition where there s a point limit of many troops you can lose before you cant reinforce anymore.
(obviously "regrouped" squads wouldnt count as losses )
6. “Tech Trees”
Gone for good.......
……..Instead there could however be stuff like “doctrines” (but then again, I played very little of CoH, only the demo …. I believe it’s a great game but unfortunately WW2 scenario really bores me to tears these days ….. so I m not sure how close my ideas are to COH)
Basically it would resemble a “talent-tree” from MMORPGs/hack n slashs that consists of either passive abilities/bonuses or triggered special abilities that have a cooldown. isnt CoH working that way from what i remember from demo ?
Everytime you advace a tier you get X points to spend in that “doctrine” tree but obviously there s much more options then you have points, and certain abilities require points in others etc
So you could spend points in that ability with an X minute cool down that will call in an aircraft strafing run..... and later on even more points to lower the cool down. or you spend those points in some passive bonuses for certain infantry types.
could write a lot more but time s running out ^^
i think despite lacking base building, resource gathering (mind you managing your requisition correctly is still pretty important) and tech trees you would still have your hands full of stuff to do to beat the enemy. and for once in the RTS genre it would feel " realistic " (as realistic as games featuring aliens can be :p), least certainly more so than an attacking army raising tons of buildings to produce/train troops in in a matter of seconds ^^
21st May 08, 11:21 AM
I'm with Versian here. I don't much like the idea of units getting injured, and then limping around (Who says bullets hurt, anyway?)
Rico: O_O... holy mackerel, Batman! I did read through your whole epic mega-post, and agree with your 5 key points. I think your resource idea is a bit complicated, though. A simple system, like a cross between the CoH system and WiC system would probably work better. I also prefer everyone dropping from a barge instead of just strolling onto the field from an edge, a la TT. As for regrouping, why not just shoot down generic troops to replace the dead custom ones from orbit?
Edit: Shoot down as in drop in via drop pod, and not shoot dead... just making sure...
22nd May 08, 8:00 AM
I think we all agree that we want it to feel more like battle and less like a traditional RTS game. We want more tactical abilities and more interaction with the environment.
But how would this pan out practically? I know DoW had different Stances and Orders but ultimately they weren't very important to gameplay. So how would the controls for "Take Cover" or "Destroy Bridge" or "Occupy Building" pan out without being too complex?
22nd May 08, 11:07 PM
Well, I think if the troops were at least given more options than those strictly related to combat, depending on their equipment...
Let me explain. Say we have a squad of Space Marines. They could use their auspices to increase sight range and spot targets in cover or infiltration, at the cost of having to move slower; they couldmelta bombs for demolition; at the very least Chaos, and indeed Black Templars and Space Wolves, could swap between chainsword and pistol, and bolter. This way they get lots of options; but these would depend on their equipment.
Likewise IG and even maybe Orks could build fortifications like in CoH. I'm not sure about other races...?
22nd May 08, 11:14 PM
Shakrith, this seems to be what Dawn of War 2 is going for, since now there's an actual squad limit instead of a squad cap system.
So we either get more versatile units that can do several things, or seriously specific units. Maybe both will be implemented in different races. SM are supposed to be made up of versatile units while Eldar are all specialists for example.
23rd May 08, 7:43 AM
Likewise IG and even maybe Orks could build fortifications like in CoH.
How about when all da Boyz die their bodies pile up and become ramparts where you can take cover.
23rd May 08, 8:11 AM
For me: Like a melding of the best aspects of CoH and DoW, with some new features such as larger maps and better sized buildings and vehicles.. Less emphasis on building except for fortifications such as walls, tank traps, etc to help with infantry ddefending areas (esp for IG).
A secondary gameplay style that allows for a game very similar to how the TT runs would be nice. But not as primary gameplay.
Bit of a necro but I hope they take a leaf from CoH's book and utilise an advanced cover system, perhaps even suppression too. These key elements helped make CoH gameplay significantly better than DoW's imo. I keep fantasizing about a CoH game with a futuristic setting!
13th Jun 08, 5:31 PM
All I want is something to do about the constant dancing away other than get flashgitz or tons of shootas. I play orks because I had wanted to have a swarm of them all chopping up everything they can get to. which currently is nothing, everyone just dances away. I'm not asking to remove dancing, I'm just asking for some way to make it a bit less effective, or give melee troops an easier time of it. in the table top game, once you started melee, neither side could run away.
13th Jun 08, 7:03 PM
Soldiers in CoH can not fire backwards. Chances are this will be true in DoW 2, dancing will be impossible because the ranged troops won't be doing any shooting.
14th Jun 08, 5:41 AM
While units in COH can't shoot backwards, that doesn't stop dancing. All you need is another squad doing the shooting while one squad dances the melee unit. However, I think cover could make melee units far more effective. Relic has mentioned how vulnerable units out of cover are, and how good melee units are aganinst units in cover. Hopefully, this will mean dancing is a big risk since jumping out of cover to dance slugga boyz will make the dancers vulnerable to ranged fire and the sluggas (who hopefully will be able to charge into melee).
14th Jun 08, 8:58 PM
About melee and DoW 2 and the recent discussion right now, I think a good thing would be the ability to "tie" squads up in melee. If units out of cover are as vulnerable as they say they are, then perhaps the inverse could happen in that ranged units are especially vulnerable to melee units. And perhaps if a ranged squad gets smothered enough by melee units, they can be "tied up" by those melee units and become unable to fight or move effectively, perhaps unable to move at all until someone else comes in to bail them out.
This would make melee units extremely deadly at close range, as they should be, but balanced out by the fact that they have to close with the enemy somehow first, and that units out in the open are very vulnerable to being cut down by suppression fire.
This would emphasize smart maneuvering for melee units, and give real rewards for successfully closing with the enemy.
15th Jun 08, 7:26 PM
One of the gameplay I'm hoping, is perhaps an expansion of some of the CoH's commanders doctrines and ability.
Let's face it, on TT, many chapters had their own specialization with different terms of tactics, which reflected in rules regarding the type of units(example: Imperial Fist could bring with them a lot more heavy support than most other chapters), or abilities(if I recalls well, Night lords had an infiltration doctrine which permitted all marines and raptors too to be able to infiltrate). I could be nice to see something similar in the army painter that could be linked to army schemes.
Also, there's been talk about unit productions and, to tell the truth, I'd see well a system akin to the CoH "doctrine units" production, where doctrine-specific units would come from offmap. DoW2 might actually do that easily for the whole army, with its space marines dropped from orbit in drop pods(akin to a wh40k version of the british gliders from CoH), or orks units simply coming from offmap on foot, kind of like the stormtroopers or other units from CoH that would be called in a similar way.
With the mention of a much lesser accent on base-building(though I'd see well IG making trenches or other static defenses/covers) and greater accent on strategic point, I think I'd see well those actually taking the place of the "researches" that in the past would have been needed to requisition the more advanced units, thus giving you even more of a reason to protect those points that would qualify as "researches strategic points".
Anyway, just my personal vision of something that would looks nice and actually still play well. Personally, I'd really like to see a DoW2 version of CoH doctrines added to the army painter along with more visual customization on units(friends on DoW Marines space wolves scheme: "Where are the wolf tails?!?").
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.0 Copyright © 2013 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.