Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 50 of 95

Soulstorm - Base disappearing.

  1. #1
    CrAsHnBuRnXp
    Guest

    Soulstorm - Base disappearing.

    Okay...this is something that is really irritating me. Now in DC whenever you took over a region, all of your structures and strategic points and what not remained in tact when it was attacked. However, in Soulstorm, you gotta rebuild everything all over again. That is just ridiculous. Why would I have to build my entire base up all over again if it was already up in teh first place?

    I hope this is a bug or something because its really annoying.

  2. #2
    BubblesFloat
    Guest
    hmmm I haven't been attacked yet, but if that does happens I am gonna be one saddd panda ...

  3. #3
    Eternal Snowman Weavern's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Canada
    You have to have forward HQ to keep your base on the map.
    Those who walk through the shadows, seek not the light.
    If you disagree with a moderational decision, follow this.

  4. #4
    CrAsHnBuRnXp
    Guest
    Ive been playing for the past two hours and only have been attacked twice. I really think that they need to fix this and put it in a patch and release it asap. Because this is actually pushing me off of playing the game.

    You have to have forward HQ to keep your base on the map.
    You didnt need to have that in DC. What a load.

  5. Dawn of War II Senior Member Dawn of War Senior Member  #5
    I love the dildo cannon Hirmetrium's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Subsector Aurelia
    thats pretty clever, but sorta retarded at the same time. I really enjoyed the persistance (reminded me of the old Emperor Battle for Dune or BFME setup).
    You should check out DoltsDay 2014, an epic adventure!

  6. #6
    BubblesFloat
    Guest
    is that so weavern, who gets that ability and where on the map is it? is it within reach of the Tau area? XP

  7. #7
    CrAsHnBuRnXp
    Guest
    Thats really stupid. You did not need to do that in DC.

  8. #8
    Eternal Snowman Weavern's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Canada
    Sisters of battle stronghold ability. Go conquer them to get access to forward HQ or start with them.

    As you might find it stupid, it made missions much more stupid as you spent the entire time building up infrastructore so you could completely outspam and crush your adversary.

  9. #9
    CrAsHnBuRnXp
    Guest
    The Sisters of Battle have it I believe.

  10. #10
    As you might find it stupid, it made missions much more stupid as you spent the entire time building up infrastructore so you could completely outspam and crush your adversary.
    Yeah. You'd spend ten minutes rushing and gimping the computer, so you could spend an hour building bases, generators, and LPs. Anti-lulz.
    "And no, I am not a Necron. You mistake the slave for the master." - Mephet'ran, The Deceiver

  11. #11
    ILE_Indolence
    Guest
    The non-persistant bases was an intentional design decision. We felt that removing it improved the following issues:

    1) It makes garrisoning and the forward base power much more useful and important.

    2) Players no longer are incentivized to take every point on a map and fortify their base like crazy before completing a mission.

    3) It increases the challenge level of defense missions, which were pretty much 100% free wins previously.


    That said, we understand that this could be a controversial decision. Hopefully the positives will outweigh the negatives for you guys.

  12. #12
    Member Kalimac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Sweden
    Quote Originally Posted by ILE_Indolence
    The non-persistant bases was an intentional design decision. We felt that removing it improved the following issues:

    1) It makes garrisoning and the forward base power much more useful and important.

    2) Players no longer are incentivized to take every point on a map and fortify their base like crazy before completing a mission.

    3) It increases the challenge level of defense missions, which were pretty much 100% free wins previously.


    That said, we understand that this could be a controversial decision. Hopefully the positives will outweigh the negatives for you guys.
    To me it sounds like a good decision, but then again, I haven't played the game yet.
    » Initiate a tactical withdrawal! «

  13. #13
    Having a static base was the only thing that made defending not such a Pita though. Do you really want to have to defend 3 attacks from scratch before every turn? It just adds a lot of re-playing skirmishes in the already skirmish heavy campaign.

  14. #14
    CrAsHnBuRnXp
    Guest
    The non-persistant bases was an intentional design decision. We felt that removing it improved the following issues:
    You get the idea
    While I can understand this, the whole point of defending your base you just built for that region, was to, well, defend it. It it gets erased after each win, then there really isnt much to defend. The least that could have been doen was to leave the base and take the strategic point crazy people and after the initial region victory, take away a certain amount of those captured points.

  15. #15
    FrostPaw
    Guest
    Well isn't the auto calc supposed to be much better at calculating a win?

    So just garrison your most vulnerable territories and auto calc the defenses. Make sure you save the game before ending your turn, if auto calc screws you reload and do it again.

  16. #16
    Antpile
    Guest
    it is true that the DC campaign became pretty easy to the point of not even fun by the time you went all the way through with a race or two. Upping the difficulty will actually add replayability for me.

  17. #17
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Germany
    It sounds good, as long as the enemy who attacks me doesn't start with a fully build T1.5 base like he does in DC. So the question is, does he?
    "Never trust a computer you can't throw out a window."
    (Steve Wozniak)

  18. #18
    Wiz33
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by ILE_Indolence
    The non-persistant bases was an intentional design decision. We felt that removing it improved the following issues:

    1) It makes garrisoning and the forward base power much more useful and important.

    2) Players no longer are incentivized to take every point on a map and fortify their base like crazy before completing a mission.

    3) It increases the challenge level of defense missions, which were pretty much 100% free wins previously.


    That said, we understand that this could be a controversial decision. Hopefully the positives will outweigh the negatives for you guys.
    I agree the previous version is pretty easy. but to totally remove it also makes defending a territory pointless. I would rather that you set a limit to the garrison forces and structures than to removing everything completely.

    The main problem is that it slows down the game too much when you get attack 3 times every turn.

  19. #19
    CrAsHnBuRnXp
    Guest
    Another thing that I dont like is that it now counts towards your squad cap to garrison troops where in DC it didnt. Now I have to build an entire base all over again just to get my scouts.

  20. #20
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    No, really....
    The non-persistant bases was an intentional design decision. We felt that removing it improved the following issues:

    1) It makes garrisoning and the forward base power much more useful and important.

    2) Players no longer are incentivized to take every point on a map and fortify their base like crazy before completing a mission.

    3) It increases the challenge level of defense missions, which were pretty much 100% free wins previously.


    That said, we understand that this could be a controversial decision. Hopefully the positives will outweigh the negatives for you guys.
    That won't do the smallest thing in making the game challenging, unless the A.I. was greatly improved. It will just make it tedious to defend when auto-resolve fails. Unless the intention was for players to spend requisition to fortify the location in the name of ensuring auto-resolve success?

  21. #21
    From another dimension SpinDizzy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Derby, U.K
    I made a very long post explaining why this idea sucks but my internet browser decided to crash as I had just about finished, the game streaming direct drive website I was looking at earlier was still open and minimized and apparently a problem arised with it.

    So I'll just cut it right down to my alternative suggestion.

    I'd far rather have it so every strategic point was reset in a defence (uncaptured, any listening posts destroyed). On top of that, destroy all building on the map except the primary stronghold and the buildings in its area of control.

    As it stands, I won't play defences, I'll do everything in my power to autoresolve them as it's pointless, no buildings make them identical to assaulting and as said does more to turn the entire singleplayer campaign into one big skirmish.

  22. #22
    bouncer8
    Guest
    I used to completely build up an area in DC before I finished it just so defense was an easy win, but now all I do is honor guard rush and put down some stuff after for defense ie garrison some buildings and troops after conquering, takes planetary req but its worth it

  23. #23
    What if you don't want to spend an hour defending a territory you just spent 2 hours taking? I head towards the wrong outpost and I hear a sudden chain of commissar executions and they wipe out 3-6 squads even with that heal thing running. Eventually I managed to get past the blob of IG units from the 2 armies and was able to push forward slowly and win. Whew. Next turn - oh look I get to defend. I'm glad I locked down enough of the map to give me a head start. Nope, wasted time. Instead I get to go through the exact same crap I just went though AGAIN.

    I *want* to build up a territory to make defending easier. I don't want to spend an hour defending a territory. I was so excited to play this that I went out of my way after work to get it but I'm not having the least bit of fun chipping away at hour long battles and then having to do them over again because the random action generator decided to attack again.

  24. #24
    Brutall
    Guest
    NO..it wa sa BAD idea. There's almost NO challenge now to the campaign. All you do is rush the bases and crush them. Having some defense helped keep those tactics in check for the computer and allowed the AI to actually present you with a challenge.

    Not keeping resource nodes is the biggest issue though. With that it doesn;t matter how many buildings you get to keep they will be ineffective without resources to back them up. As i have said in other posts. The campaign on Hard is like Easy mode Dark Crusade. Very sad to say the least.

  25. #25
    Really? I'm playing easy mode and I'm wondering if *I* am the one with 50% hp the way the IG is scything through my SoB like wheat.

  26. #26
    Cowbell
    Guest
    Utterly horrible. When I had my first counterattack and I saw that my base was gone I let out a huge "WHAT?".

    Not playable for me. Shame - I thought DC was an absolutely excellent game. It paved a LOT of ground that I had always wanted to see. In one stroke now we've eliminated a big part of the strategic level.

    Oh well. Back to Eve for me until the (hopefully inevitable) patch.

  27. #27
    Just get used to garrisoning troops. Then you can just rush and crush as usual.

  28. #28
    I didn't expect to take the CD out of my drive (since it's now required?) until I had beaten it with at least 5 armies. Not only is it out now but the only reason it's not passing the time as a coaster is because $40 is one expensive freaking coaster.

  29. #29
    Cowbell
    Guest
    ::shrug::

    I suppose it's cool if the game only appeals to a subset of the fans that DC did. I'm too old to get worked up over this stuff any more. It's just not playable for me this way.

  30. #30
    I don't get the drama. If you garrison forces, you still win in tier one. There's no more forward base for most races, so spend the rec on defense.

  31. #31
    You'd really claim the game is useless because you don't insta-win defenses anymore?

  32. #32
    Eternal Snowman Weavern's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Canada
    Look if you want bases on the map then use the garrison option then you start with buildings and troops. Previously this was completely useless. If you want the entire base you built then go eliminate the SoB stronghold.

  33. #33
    Oh, so I can't just roll out a baneblade in the first couple seconds of the defense? Face it, permanent bases were lame encoraging you to build up 44 billion turrets, bunkers, and minefileds, lp3-ing all the points on the map, and giving yourseld a massive production advantage. Lame. Now I don't have to worry about not killing that enemy HQ until my Mars Pattern is up and my thrid base is fortified...

    I do hope, however, that the comp has been similarly disadvantaged (ie, doesn't start with a massive beas on attack/defense) becaues commander rushing is pretty much the only way to deal with that (the honorguard bulldozer is also increadibly lame).

    Why not start the game with computer set minor defenses? Tone down the honorguard/commander and allow larger garrisons and regular assault forces. That seems most reasonable to me.

  34. #34
    Member Smit1000's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Australia
    To be honest this was one of the reasons i did not care for DC single player much. To camp in a zone and build up a base; to "turtle" a base just did not seem like Dawn of War to me. I want to send my early troops out and fight their early troops while trying to build up a to the next tier. I do not want to sit back in my already built base and spam out tier 3 units.

    I have not yet brought this game but i reckon i will like the single player game more so then DC's single player.

  35. #35
    Cowbell
    Guest
    You seem to be making the assumption that "winning" is what I care about - where what I really care about is playability.

    DC was cool because the defenses kind of had a bit of "vacation" about them. If you were careful, you could go smash some guys with your well planned-and-stocked base. And even -that- got tedious if you had some bad guys bottled up who just attacked over and over. If I had to deal with a major rebuild every time. Oy. No thanks.

  36. #36
    This is a game breaker for me. Went from my heretofore favorite game rating of 9.5/10 to about a 5/10. Guess i'll check to see if there's either a mod to fix this or if they patch. Otherwise, its going on the freaking shelf which sucks being that this was by far, my most anticipated game for a looooong time.

    Was this even mentioned prior to the release or just a surprise addition? Worst decision ever for campaign people imo.

  37. #37
    Geohevy
    Guest
    How could any military power seriously claim to conquer a region without building a single base there?

  38. #38
    They should have made it a toggle in the campaign settings. Let US decide how we want to play the single player part of the game.

  39. #39
    Cowbell
    Guest
    A fine idea.

  40. #40
    Eternal Snowman Weavern's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Canada
    Look if you want bases on the map then use the garrison option then you start with buildings and troops. Previously this was completely useless. If you want the entire base you built then go eliminate the SoB stronghold.

    Or better still instead of harping on the exact same point post after post, how about you take a trip to adeptus and start an effort to mod it in.

  41. #41
    Geohevy
    Guest
    Alright guys, I have it figured out. It all makes sense now.

    Everytime you finish conquering a province, it must be carpet bombed to eliminate all enemy units and structures remaining and purge the land of any sign that they were ever there. Unfortunately, this also wipes out your base. And all your units. Your army then terraforms the area to look exactly as it did previously.

  42. #42
    Member Smit1000's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Australia
    verytime you finish conquering a province, it must be carpet bombed to eliminate all enemy units and structures remaining and purge the land of any sign that they were ever there. Unfortunately, this also wipes out your base. And all your units. Your army then terraforms the area to look exactly as it did previously.
    Yeah how about all the units you spammed out in DC that weren't honour guard? What happened to them? They just left did they? So why should buildings stay and not units?

    My point is this is a game, not real life. It appears in the SS single player that the way to win is not base camping turtling but to attack early and keep the pressure on, just like the orginal two dawn of war games.
    Last edited by Smit1000; 5th Mar 08 at 9:22 PM.

  43. #43
    Maybe in SS they have a limited number of bases available and have to permanently redeploy any established base buildings as they along.

    It does make for more challenging defence missions rather than the cake walk waste of time missions previously.

  44. #44
    Bottom line is that this change benefited one type of player. I enjoy turtling and taking my time and not having to worry about all the areas I have alrdy conquered. The folks that enjoy rushing their opponent seems to be the ones that aren't pissed about this. Makes sense but still sucks for those of us with a different play style.

    As someone said earlier, there should have been a toggle. The designer shouldn't rely on someone outside their company to fix something this huge in a mod. That's just irresponsible.

  45. #45
    Think of it this way:

    DoW is all about mobile forces. The vast majority of factions get their troops from somewhere else... SM drop from an orbiting battlebarge, chaos comes from the warp, eldar from the webway, etc... Even factions with no visible transfer of troops can be considered to have brought their troops from outside (you don't think they train the guardsmen in those little bunkers, do you?). The entire concept is that whatever battle you are fighting is merely a small piece of a much larger war which is being conducted over an entire planet (or system, in thsi case).

    So what happens when the fight is over? The troops ship out to the next battlefield, of course. Do you really think they just leave all their fortifications, production facilities, and equipent behind? No. It'll either be packed up, recycled or scuttled so it can't be siezed by the enemy. The garrison system is what is intended to represent the investment you make when you decide to leave men behind to protect an area.

  46. #46
    Look if you want bases on the map then use the garrison option then you start with buildings and troops.
    Is one complainant going to respond to this statement?

  47. #47
    Killer-ra, they want an enormous, impenatrable base guarenteeing that they can't lose on defense. Garrisoning doesn't provide that.

  48. #48
    JHessick
    Guest
    You could always limit it to one base per map, that way allowing the defenders to have a chance to do some damage. I play every DC game allowing just one base per map for myself, and it's pretty fun.

    I know it's a balancing idea to erase all structures from the map after it's completed, but it just seems so odd to me that the defender would have no defenses in place.

  49. #49
    Killer-ra, they want an enormous, impenatrable base guarenteeing that they can't lose on defense. Garrisoning doesn't provide that.

    We are talking about single player campaign right? How does it affect you at all? If you don't want to waste the time building up your defenses in the campaign....don't. We don't even have an option atm. Our play style doesn't eliminate your choice of play while the change certainly does ours.

    I dunno. Maybe you're just trolling cuz I can't figure out why you're even wasting your time posting in here.

  50. #50
    Cowbell
    Guest
    Well, as I've been moderated the last two posts, I assume having the "incorrect" viewpoint here is disallowed.

    That aside, the response is thus:

    Garrisoning is a weak solution to the problem. Case in point : I play on Hard. For me, it's reasonably hard and the balance feels a little different from DC. I farted around and it took me 3 tries to take my second territory. I had very nearly 0 requisition left afterwards. I was immediately attacked the next turn. I just had no interested in playing that map fully for the -4th- time in a row.

    I don't mind replaying it if it's a spot of fun where I can just steamroll the enemy. That's ok - there's 30 other territories I can take "the hard way".

    As I said before, even in DC the steamroller defenses happened often enough that they became tedious. I couldn't even imagine having to invest the time to replay the same skirmish over and over and over and over.

    That's to say nothing of the fact that there was no shortage of times where even with a fully jacked up base, a level 10+ army could come veeeery close to cracking it. With no defenses? I couldn't even imagine.

    Now, if you want to counter with "get more skills noob" that's just silly. Games are not the exclusive province of the isolated subset of ultrahardcore lifers.

    Here's a counter-question : Are you objecting to the inclusion of a checkbox that allows "keep bases"? If so, why?

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

     

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •