|
|
|
#151
My post was more in response to Castigon. I don't agree with his statement that "all races race to T2".
That's not quite true either. Even if I get 2v1'd, or taking on a larger army, I can still do a lot of damage before having to give ground, and come out on top of an engagement based on the balance of a fight. Obviously that's not going to work if both of your opponents are top class players, but I've taken on 2 good players before and held plenty of times.
Originally Posted by Starblade
Yes, that's not true... Of course if your opponents are equal/better skill then more units wins and they should force you off easily. But if you play it better than them... I've held/won even 3v1 with one kicked and one wiped clean when the opponents go into retard mode and try to muscle me out (and I'm not talking noob stomps - experienced players whom you'd recognize from team ladder). Against bad players I can win 2v1 from loading screen, never mind the spam blobs. Done it plenty of times. And I'm not really a high level player so I'd expect someone t0tally pr0 to do better than that.
So yeah, unit choices and positioning > mass of units, I'd say. That's not "really" an issue in DoW2 style design (some types of blobs do overperform IMO, but that's not an issue with the base mechanics).
Project L2P • Dawn of War Wiki • Space Marine Wiki • Warhammer 40K Wiki
DoW2 & CR mods: Campaign wargear unlocker • Reassign skill points button • Army Painter mod
Retribution mods: Campaign wargear & skill point boosters
It seems that, in perhaps misusing the statement "Get out of jail free card" when referring to DoW2's retreat mechanics, some others have taken it and ran with it. I regret my use of the words, they were poorly chosen, and I'd like to briefly clarify those terms. The statement comes from the feeling or perception that DoW2's emphasis on squad preservation gave rise to a retreat mechanic that softens the blow for those who make poor tactical decisions broadly throughout the game and, more narrowly, mistakes during combat while playing the game.
Granted, there are costs involved, especially for those who are not disciplined in its use, not the least of which is ceding map control; and there are cases where models or even entire squads can be lost despite the protections it affords retreating squads. I would argue that ceding map control via DoW2 style retreating really isn't a cost that can be separated and distinguished from the kind of map control that is ceded as a result of losing entire armies, or at the very least very large portions of them, as a result of making bad tactical decisions. I would also argue that, while admittedly there is skill in knowing just when to press the retreat button for greatest effect, it too is not distinguishable from more conventional, more manual methods of retreating from any engagement and knowing when the appropriate time to retreat has arrived. But that is not the purpose of this post.
I would argue, however, that by softening the blow for people who make mistakes and make poor decisions, DoW2's retreat mechanic lends itself to the kinds of feelings that make people use the kinds of terms that I did and that are used in parallel or repeated more directly by others. By watching an opponent's models run through brilliantly laid traps and past numerically superior forces with minimal casualties, DoW2 lends itself to these kinds of feelings, not of victory on the battlefield, but of missed opportunities and missed rewards. It invites the kinds of comments that I'm guilty of making.
I don't know whether to apologize or not, certainly not for how I feel, but perhaps for shitting up the forums from time to time.
That is all.
#154
What you're saying is totally fair. What I've been thinking is Castigon is running with it and making it sound like retreating doesn't hurt you at all. Simply not true. If I flank your position and make you run away, I am winning. Sorry if the guy is a retreating noob.
What you're saying is that we could make a different game with less emphasis on squad preservation, and hence on retreat.
Let's be honest here: if your army in unable to inflict real casualties on a retreating blob, it probably was not a "brilliantly laid trap". I agree that it's a bit cheese looking that stuff like heavy bolters and masses of lasgun fire often don't inflict significant damage on retreating troops, but we all should know what CAN do lots of damage and part of the strategy is bringing those tools to bear.
To wit
Flanking some guardsmen and HWT with a flamer tac squad, forcing them to retreat, delivering a few tac punches and killing a few guardsmen in the process - good play
Using weirdboy warpath to get your sluggas and allies' GUs behind some GM and a HWT, causing them to retreat through your speedy sluggas and catch multiple grenades, potentially causing multiple squad wipes - brilliant trap
Also, I had somebody drop both roks and empyreal abyss on 2 fully upgraded guardsmen squads and some catachans. I noticed too late that tried to retreat.
They all died.
To a man.
Retreat is not a get of jail free card.
Add me on Steam - ArbitUH. Don't EVEN bother adding me on GFWL
Where's me squig ointment reference in my sig... oh
^ I think you've missed the point.
@Codex:
Precisely. In WH40k, I'm not interested in squad preservation or the RPG elements that gave birth to it; I aim for that on my own by managing my own KDR as best I can. I'm interested in choices and both the consequences and rewards of those choices. If I win, I want to feel like I've thoroughly won and if I lose, I want to feel as though at the very least I've inflicted as much damage as I could.
Last edited by Pseudonymn; 25th Jun 12 at 12:20 PM.
Codex, I'm not saying that retreat is totally harmless for your foothold in the game,
but its seems absolutly harmless compared to what opponent might face, setting his
foot in reckless combat, where he losses 100%. High skill players very often useing
retreat as "free card escape", coz they know exactly when to run, if not for that,
they would be micro overloaded, and even with uber skills might get hurt hard.
And its also obvious that you CAN delay your T2 (because YOU in particular perfectly
understand how it will reflect on your further game, but still you will go T2 eventually,
or you lose if enemy not stomped in T1 yet), And you must also admit that ordinary,
let's say - mid skill player is fcked if he T1 and enemy pulled out any vehicle,
especially Walker. Player losses map > forced to rereat to get T2 fast and gain counters
vs. armor, no other way around. Don't you think that's a bit stupid? Where is my wide
variety of options on what to do, and should I, or should not advance in tier...?
I'm still sure about my previous statement, that game does not encourage aggressive
playstyle, instead of "hit & run"... it hurts my feelings =(
"power armor for pussies" (c) Duke
Haha, yeah I guess you're right. The only thing I'd take issue with is your use of "brilliant traps". If you're playing by the rules of the game, it's not a brilliantly laid trap if it fails to cause significant losses. Basically, it sounded like something one of Dave Sirlin's scrubs would say. I'm not trying to insulting here... I think it's partially the game's fault that it employs some unsatisfying/unintuitive concepts.
I'm all for making DOW3 feel more intuitive and satisfying, whether that's by reducing retreat bonuses or by removing the retreat mechanic altogether. As long as we don't get DOW1 style kiting... that's my preference anyway.
Well, hasn't this been the whole point of this discussion? We're talking about DOW3, not DOW2.
I would like DOW3 to be exactly that, and having retreat only as a convenience - pressing it would literally have the same effect as issuing a move order to the base, so you don't have to do that manually every time you want to reinforce a squad. It could also be overriden by new orders.
Sure, retreat currently does work for the model of gameplay DOW2 has. I think people just don't want to play a DOW2.5 instead of DOW3.
"All power demands sacrifice" - Sindri Myr
#160
Squad retreat mechanics play into the no-base-building rule very closely though, to the point that you can't reduce the former without bringing in something to fulfill the latter. One of the gameplay aspects that any RTS needs to include is a building aspect, and I don't just mean in terms of structures. In DoW1 if you lose your ASM and get knocked back to an army of just Scouts you're still at tier 1.5 because you still have the Armoury plus whatever researches you completed at it; if you lose all your vehicles you're still visibly at tier 2 because you have the the Machine Cult plus any researches you completed after hitting tier 2. In DoWII if you lose you Razorback after rolling it out, you may have nothing left on the field to indicate you're still at tier 2. You're not just fighting with the product of your tech level, you're fighting WITH your tech level, and that makes it so very fragile. Without the squad preservation mechanics that require an opponent to work hard to get a complete squad wipe, DoWII would be a very frustrating game.
I don't know where DoW as a franchise could go without just cribbing CoH's base mechanics wholesale, which seems a bit silly to me. I don't think anyone wants to see DoW just be CoH in space. I think the squad preservation mechanics as they exist right now are perfect for SM, as a chapter of marines will always bounce back to full strength eventually unless it's completely wiped out, but the other races could be used for exploration into alternate mechanics. Relic certainly tried this with the Tyranids at DoWII's release, but they couldn't quite get it to work in a way that was balanced. IG flex the rules as much as they can by providing you the opportunity to take ludicrous losses with Guardsmen without suffering squad wipes thanks to cheap and fast reinforcement through extra squad leaders.
Yes, I even described in some other DOW3 thread how I would like base building in DOW3 to allow teching branches while being kept fast and simple - by main HQ module add ons that are automatically placed once you buy them.
[edit:] To clarify, the idea behind automatic placement being to minimize the micro burden. From DOW1's:
select builder -> select building -> look for a free spot to build (having to take your camera back to base and look for a good spot) -> place building
to:
select HQ -> build building.
This makes you able to control your teching and base building without even having to take a look away from your sqads and battles.
Hmm no post merging?
If you're looking for some complexity/tech-tree variance then I think auto-placed optional HQ upgrades would be the way to go instead of traditional base building mechanics. Assuming it would have HQs to begin with. Why do we have them anyway? There's no HQs in table-top 40k matches.
As for other design, I think 3-4 factions with differing mechanics and good on-release balance state would be nice. Three factions would make 40k geeks cry like Cristiano Ronaldo, but the actual game would be better for it and hence probably attract other RTS players.
Because DOW isn't, and was never supposed to be a computer adaptation of tabletop? I'm definitely in favor of having a base, and indeed base building instead of just having preset armies fight it out.
What would you call it then? Making 3D models of the table-top miniatures and have them fight it out on the computer, performing similar roles as the miniatures? I think that sounds like an adaptation to me. It's not a 1:1 copy of course - you could obviously make a turn-based set-piece game, but I doubt it would make much sense if the idea is to sell decent amounts of the product, so moving the video game into an RTS environment seems more logical. Still, what they start with is the TT game concept and resources. Which are adapted into an RTS.Because DOW isn't, and was never supposed to be a computer adaptation of tabletop?
I don't mean every aspect of TT should be copied. However, I don't see why every RTS should have a base building mechanic. It has no innate value and it is not essential to RTS gameplay (Total War seems to do fine without, for example). And it doesn't come from the source TT concept. So why would DoW3 have to have base building? The units don't pop out of a barracks in the TT, and they don't do that in the fluff either. Is there a reason there couldn't be some other mechanic that felt more fresh and made more sense?
#167
Tabletop concepts do not work well when translated directly to an RTS environment.
DoW was not an adaptation of tabletop. DoW was a game inspired by the 40k universe, made by a developer which features (/featured) a lot of 40k fans amongst its employees.
I am an Iron Warrior! Iron Within, Iron Without!
Exactly. And of course, you can substitute the classic role of base building in an RTS (teching, tech branching, unit access, upgrade access, de-teching, defense) - I just don't think it's a much needed change. Could you give an example of an alternate mechanic that adresses all/most of the mentioned roles?
What I definity wouldn't like is if we just had all that gameplay functions gone, and were left with a bunch of points to spend on an army -> battle with said army.
#169
Urgh, agreed. The biggest reason I never played any of the skirmish matches/scenarios in the Total War series.
That's definitely a good idea, though I would just remove worker, and let player place building where he wantsYes, I even described in some other DOW3 thread how I would like base building in DOW3 to allow teching branches while being kept fast and simple - by main HQ module add ons that are automatically placed once you buy them.
(something like C&C Tiberium-like structure building would be great IMHO), coz placing buildings had some strategic
sense into it, like placing ones before to prevent enemy reaching to others and so on. Miss listening posts ALOT,
even without guns attached it could make some difference in DoW2 gameplay, less capture-the-flag thingy, more
fighting... btw randomly set power on nod gave me some pain several times...
Some poison in here: to balance IG as totally shitty T1 race, devs just OPed Catachans, instead of fixing HWTs,
or developing some more flexible balance structure, to let IG live till T2 more easily. Now we have OP Catas that
stomp U T1, and insta-repaired Chim on our beaten arses on T2... I know its not always like that, and there are
some ways around (like failed IG micro) to win it, but this desicion is outrageous from my point of view.
Hope in DoW3 (if we ever see it) we won't see "balancing" like that anymore...
Last edited by Castigon; 27th Jun 12 at 7:47 AM.
I treated that with some ideas previously in the thread and I'd like to hear people's thoughts regarding them a little more before things got sidetracked again.As long as we don't get DOW1 style kiting... that's my preference anyway
I don't think I've heard the retreat mechanic described in quite this manner. Are you suggesting that it is there as a stand-in for the role that DoW1 base building fulfilled (in part) as a pacing mechanism? Is that why squads are locked into a retreat path that doesn't end until they've reached the HQ or some other loction marked by special abilities? Are there not better ways to accomplish this?One of the gameplay aspects that any RTS needs to include is a building aspect, and I don't just mean in terms of structures.
I do like Pocari and Malachi's suggestion that base building be reduced to base models that are automatically placed for the reasons that in DoW1, there wasn't a great deal of freedom to construct bases that didn't follow some very regular patterns anyway; nothing much would be lost by streamlining the old mechanic in this manner. We'd still have a viable pacing mechanism; we'd still have assailable bases whose technology levels could be threatened, making base defense a greater priority than it now is; and we'd probably satisfy the people who don't like the "sim-city" aspects of traditional base building in RTS games without alienating those that do.
It does have value when you look at it from the angle of being able to detech your opponent for the 3-4 minutes it takes plus resources spent to recover and get back to where they were, assuming they are able to at all. It does add value to a game that is supposed to be all about territorial control when the one territory that consistently goes uncontested (in virtually every game I've ever played at least) is always the HQ.I don't see why every RTS should have a base building mechanic. It has no innate value and it is not essential to RTS gameplay
LoL, he must not have been here for the commie-wank rushes.Hope in DoW3 (if we ever see it) we won't see "balancing" like that anymore
#172
No, no, I mean that in absence actual building of structures that represent your tech level, your army itself, the upgrades you've purchased for them, and the levels they've received represent your tech level. The retreat mechanic is a very necessary component to make this viable however. If your army were too easy to wipe out, shifting the game more towards a high-body-count philosophy, then getting deteched by losing your army is too frequent and makes the game too frustrating.I don't think I've heard the retreat mechanic described in quite this manner. Are you suggesting that it is there as a stand-in for the role that DoW1 base building fulfilled (in part) as a pacing mechanism? Is that why squads are locked into a retreat path that doesn't end until they've reached the HQ or some other loction marked by special abilities? Are there not better ways to accomplish this?
Remember, purchased upgrades on units and what units you have acquired for your army are your only expressions of your tech level in DoWII. Just like in the original, the difference in your army's tier 1 and tier 3 capabilities are null outside of a couple abilities that use tier level to enable. In DoW1 your expression of your tech level was your base, researches, and army. Even if you lose a full squad or two, you still have your base and researches to show for the teching effort you have put into the game. In DoWII there's only your army, so making it too vulnerable leaves the game unsatisfying as the act of combat, the very core of an RTS, becomes an exercise in frustration when an encounter can wipe out your entire "tier 3" without the player feeling like they could avoid it.
This desire to build up, and enjoy the fruits of your labor in doing so, is a major component of the 20 minute no rush games on Kasyr Lutien, as ludicrous as those games were. You can sit back and enjoy the act of teching up, enjoying the sight of the structures that went down to meet the tech requirements, the researches that brought even lower-tier units up to the effectiveness of higher-tier troops (sometimes), and finally the troops themselves. Even if you then lost your army, you STILL had those researches and buildings, you weren't sent back to square one. If DoWII were to go in the same direction of preservation, you'd have every troop you build functioning like the commander: killable, but not wiped off the field, and repurchasable for a hefty fee. That would be rather silly methinks, but you still need to provide a stronger system for unit preservation than was present in DoW1. When your tech is your army and thus sent out to engage in combat directly every time, rather than sitting at home or being unrevokable researches, it's important that a squad wipe require more effort than preserving it.
I'm not sure I understand what you're trying to say... the DoW2 tier upgrades don't just disappear either, you know. If you have a T2 HQ then you can build a goddamn walker or buy an AV upgrade on your infantry squad. If you have a T1 HQ then you can't. That's a pretty substantial difference. How exactly is this different to DoW1? If you get wiped clean there, your base buildings don't exactly jump on the field and fight to keep map control while you rebuild your army...
Not really. I don't design RTS games for a living, though, and I have around 30 seconds to think about the situation now that I'm writing this response. I could probably figure out some possibilities within the development cycle of an AAA title, I should hope.And of course, you can substitute the classic role of base building in an RTS (teching, tech branching, unit access, upgrade access, de-teching, defense) - I just don't think it's a much needed change. Could you give an example of an alternate mechanic that adresses all/most of the mentioned roles?
Off the top of my hat, working around orbital drops (drop pods, gunships etc.) and teleport call-ins for the purchase system would be more "inspired by the 40k universe" than some lul barracks thingy. Maybe have CoH style map control areas and limit drops (some types if not all) to friendly territory. Could make it more dynamic than a base with structures.
Defense? Use your damn units. Or lose.
Teching? Why would you need a house for that... just have a menu with buttons to click.
No de-teching though. Also, note that "lulzy barracksthingy" in DOW is usually rather realistically portrayed as a unit arrival place, not "production structure".
I ment defense for the units, see. Some place to pull back and defend your (remaining) army after losing an engagement, or upon getting doubled in a 2v2 etc.
Imagine how a game would look without such a place - you lose one main engagent, then get chased and exterminated -> game over. Doesn't sound like much fun, does it?
#175
DOW2 wasn't built from scratch. It incorporated lessons learned from DOW1 and COH. We were discussing the concept of retreat in the context of DOW2 because it could/would shed some light on how to design DOW3. If retreat is inherently flawed as a satisfying mechanic, then it needs to be looked at, but this can only be done in the context of existing games.Well, hasn't this been the whole point of this discussion? We're talking about DOW3, not DOW2.
I realize DOW2 wasn't made from scratch, but it was very different from DOW1 for a sequel, which I see as a very good thing. I simply think you expect too many game elements to be transfered to DOW3 (or I hope for it to be the other way around, heh).
While I had lots of fun with DOW2 (far more than any game ever, at least when it comes to PvP multiplayer), I also wholeheartly agree with that the retreat mechanic made games consist of too much running and too little fighting.
As discussed in a few latest posts, the return of base building could mean less emphasis on squad preservarion, as you retain a bigger part of your overall resource investment in the buildings, and this is the path I'd like DOW3 to take.
@Maktaka:
I get what you're saying now and I can't say that I disagree with it in principle; the technology tree had to go somewhere if not into conventional base building mechanics. I would contend, however, that by resting both the outward expression of one's tech level (a standing army) as well as the internal expression (all tech upgrades, researches, etc. that unlock tier related upgrades) all on the shoulders of one's standing army, Relic put all of its eggs into one basket, which gave us the retreat cheese we've been talking about. Further to that, I also remember arguments made in the past (I think it was Whitepointer who articulated it best?) about how DoW2's win conditions boil down to the ticker on the clock with but one path to victory (Victory Points) to the exclusion of all other win conditions, most notably annihilation wins precisely because squad preservation eliminated the need to assault enemy bases, not that they're very vulnerable anyway.
Perhaps it's also worth noting that in DoW1, if you got deteched because someone wiped your base and you were lucky/smart/OP enough to have secondary structures somewhere to keep you going (curse those Eldar!), you still kept your standing army at current tech levels. Unless you're Necron, in which case your FO's and NL take a tech hit to their health pool. You could still make an impact on the map and stage comebacks if you were smart about it. Is this adequately represented in DoW2? It sounds like what's being said is that in having one's standing army wiped, both technology and assets are simultaneously lost, resulting in either a much more difficult climb back into the competitive seat or more likely a quick defeat. Not that I'm against quick defeats, mind you, if those are the cards that get played.
Apart from global upgrades like +1 Tier researches or damage/durability boosters, by going this all-in or all-out tech level route via the squad preservation and retreat mechanic, could DoW2 have lost more than it gained?
Here are a couple issues that I thought of:
1) Speeeeeed - The speed bonus necessary to get away from charging melee troops is pretty high. In DoWII, units ramp up to something like 160% of their base speed but that's OK because you lose control of them. Retaining control of an ultrafast squad could be abuseable, mostly by backcapping, regrouping behind enemy lines and harassing, that sort of thing. Infiltrating squads would be a huge PITA to kill with melee.
2) Suppression - A squad that can't retreat is most likely dogmeat unless it's caught at long range. You mentioned suppression break abilities, but this is problematic on melee squads, which suppression is intended to counter, and shooty squads could pop their suppression break ability and shoot the suppression team down (or reposition and flank it if the suppression break ability deactivates weapons). Vehicles breaking line of sight is a cool idea but you can essentially do the same thing now by popping the squad into the transport. [edit: on the flip side, how rad would it be to advance on a HWT with a tac squad taking cover behind a dreadnought? Pretty fucking rad, I think.]
3) Only the ranged half of the equation is addressed - What happens when a ranged blob starts focus firing on one of your melee squads on approach? If you can't retreat, that squad will likely get wiped. Also, IMO, dedicated melee should start demolishing ranged immediately and not just over the long run. They do have range 0 weapons, after all, which comes with all sorts of tactical complications. Note that even with melee squads inflicting oftentimes double or greater dps, ranged squads are pretty dominant in DoWII.
Obviously, I've made some assumptions here about how it would be implemented.
I think the hit and run harassment nature of one-on-one is at least partly due to the porous nature of the front lines. Backcapping/decapping is relatively easy and the incentives are great. If there was a territory system like CoH where decapping a territory that was not adjacent to one of yours took longer and you wouldn't get any resource benefit since it was cut off (IIRC that's how it worked), you'd see a lot less cat and mouse.
Last edited by Arbit; 27th Jun 12 at 4:11 PM.
Yeah, but it's not just the cat and mouse part that I'm talking about. You can't deny that in many cases, the best time to retreat a squad is about when it's first 1-2 members die, or even just before a melee squad reaches your ranged one, and this actually means that between decent players, there's far less bloodshed that would fit a 40K battlefield.
I'm not talking about insta-retreating, mind you, but it's not like people willfully wait until the squad has been reduced to less than half it's size before retreating, as this is far too dangerous.
Which means, that in 40K, where there's supposed to be only war, more than 50% of troops regularly survive batlles.
I thought making tacticle retreats is part of war? All fair in exterminatus and war ? you know the old saying right?
No qaurter back men, only forward or we will hold this line forever!!!
[IMG][/IMG]
Row Row Row Fight the Powha
Advantageous terrain that's hard to assault? Or a friendly zone that allows calling in reinforcements? Heavy weapon units positioned to cover a retreat? Why do you specifically need a base for this... and really, you never got followed to your base and ganked in DoW1 or DoW2?I ment defense for the units, see. Some place to pull back and defend your (remaining) army after losing an engagement, or upon getting doubled in a 2v2 etc.
Yeah, I guess that's why nobody plays that Total War series, for example.Imagine how a game would look without such a place - you lose one main engagent, then get chased and exterminated -> game over. Doesn't sound like much fun, does it?
I don't think Total War would have been successful if it was limited to just battles, no.
And I'm tired of pointlessly repeating myself, arguing with someone who apparently can't accept that some people actually like base building as a mechanic.
I like base building myself, love it. In my opinion it adds more tactics, strategy, and faction personality to the game. Each faction had their own architectural design to them that was unique to each faction even from human to human faction there was a artful and very lovely representation of each one. Not to mention how each faction built the buildings them self showed a little peak on how they built their society structural through varied ways. Eldar blowing little horns to shape things with the waith bone. Tau using nano tech and hologram building blue prints to raise their structures literary from top to bottom. Chaos bringing structures from the warp (very nice touch), using his little runic powers.
On the more tactic side, using generators to be a tempting target for a army was a pretty good idea, considering when the generator blows it usually knock back units if i remember correctly. When that happen bring in your boys and hose them down with a torrent of fire. I truly miss base building, it simply added elements that dow 2 can never have in all categories.
As I remeber in DoW1 brutal baserapes happened only if I nearly got wiped in some of the engagements,
and I think its fair, though even in that state going to base to finish your opponent was a risky decision
to make, coz you never know what will come out from one of his building, and than have in more brutal
arseraping counterattack at your base.
Awww, I miss DoW1...
That can't all be pinned on retreat; that's also due to the importance of squad preservation and no reinforcing in the field without a transport.
Yeah, but retreat is the mechanic that makes it actually possible.
#187
The thing that I found lame about COH was the deteching element. It didn't feel like a real victory, rushing in with tank destroyers behind enemy lines, deteching my opponent when he wasn't aware. Nor did I like the artillery that would just bombard my base. Seriously, it feels SO lame after playing a game like dow2 to have your base demolished at range, what with Americans having such flimsy base structures.
Yeah with coh , arty was and still by far the best method of just overall pissing people off. However in COHO i had ways to prevent arty from doing such things.like walking through the shells it self with the loss of only one tank.(I was top 3 percent of american tank commanders for awhile ) .
Oh I accept that you like it, but I don't like it myself and I don't agree with your arguments about why it's a necessary mechanic. DoW2 didn't have it and it worked out pretty well IMO. I like it better than DoW1 or even CoH in fact. I won't throw a fit if they put it back in next time, but I'd be more interested in something else really.I'm tired of pointlessly repeating myself, arguing with someone who apparently can't accept that some people actually like base building as a mechanic.
I could say I'm tired of arguing with someone who apparently can't accept that some people actually don't like base building as a mechanic, too, btw... Just stop posting if you're tired, no need to make statements like that.
Yo, check it out - I never said base building was a necessary mechanic. Actually, I openly admitted that it could be substituted. Just that I don't need the reason to do so, because I *like* it.
This is the repeating myself part I was talking about. I don't like it when people don't read my posts and put words in my mouth.
#191
base building can be substituted but teching must not. the art of outplaying someone is to be able to predict his moves and go for the counter asap should also be a highlight in any rts game. with branching techs, not all units in the entire tech tree should be available to the player unless he makes a significant resource commitment. sorta like US in coh, u cant realistically have wsc, motorpool and barracks within the 1st 10mins and still have a proper fighting force, forcing the player to commit himself to a strategy. either a common rax -> motorpool build, or a wsc start.
dow2 does not have this, the entire unit rooster is available just by improving the HQ, which means counters are readily available at just a click of a button.
base building isnt fun, but is the easiest way to achieve results. relic did the outrageous in dow2, didnt work out for them, no reason for them to continue.
#192
I suppose the notion that DoW II units dramatically change based on their in-field upgrades doesn't make an iota of difference, whatsleft?
Or the dramatic effects that racial abilities have on racial performance (Synapse, Chaos Shrines)?
Please, don't like DoW II all you want, but please don't present flawed comparisons with regards to tech building.
@ whatsleft - DoW2 actually forces you to commit as well. Rather than being tied up in what bits of base you choose to build, DoW2 makes strategic commitment necessary by nature of the importance of squad preservation. Every squad in your build is a squad you've already committed to - and usually it's one you can't afford to lose. Certainly it's not one that you simply burn once the job is done. So, in the face of a quick T2 and vehicle by my opponent, sure, all my AV is available at T2 'at the click of a button.' But which AV do I get? This is, after all, another squad I'm fielding - one which actually contains my strategic commitments in and of itself. I could upgrade my tacs with a missile launcher - it's relatively cheap, and also serves double for reasonably effective gen-bashing. But it lacks a snare, and thus ain't terribly effective against certain vehicle units. I could grab a devastator, and upgrade them with lascannons. This is a far more expensive option (assuming you don't already have some devs around), and has less general-purpose use than a ML tac squad. On the other hand, lascannons snare, and do better damage than missile launchers. I could also try commander AV weapons, melta bombs on ASM are handy, and even plasma devastators actually do quite good AV, if you have the micro to make them hit. All of these options, however, represent a commitment to a certain strategy. The mere fact that they're all available at T2 doesn't mean I can actually get them all.
All we want to do,
Is eat your brains.
We're not unreasonable,
Nobody's gonna eat your eyes.
#194
Or should.The mere fact that they're all available at T2 doesn't mean I can actually get them all.
Or shouldn't.
More is fun.
Looks like we might be getting an announcement at Gamescom: Eurogamer article
Interesting parts:
So - huge focus on customization, probably a lot bigger scale, and more tabletop elements. I just hope this doesn't mean pre-set armies for a set amount of points being instantly fielded and just fighting a single battle. If it's about being able to predetermine what kind of units you will be able to field at set tech levels, like Brightlance vs Fire Dragons - that's cool.
BY THE EMPEROR!!! This is new builds morale up to .1 percent. That's it considering condition of thq but lets forget that for now. Turns out Bison wasn't deceiving us this time.
#198
I'm pretty that quote is incredibly dated.
EDIT: that article was dated July the 12th, 2011
Oh wow, 2011. Now my DOW3 news deprivation syndrome is certainly starting to show.
Give us something Relic! Just a little fix!
Mine too..
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
