He made some very good points. Instead of bitching he's pointing out what's missing. And he hit a nerve: the base buidling people actually want is NOT in the game. I've been wondering for some time how those that say "base building is back YAY" have not noticed yet, that they'll get a simplified Coh2 version, NOT a DoW I version.
He also accurately described their attempt of hiding the fact how they decreased unit diversity and depth by adding doublets. 2 seperate scouts and Predators is NOT new, they just needed to fill that empty unit roster, making it less adapable and dynamic in the process.
I still can't shake the feeling that DoW will be boring as hell because they simplified the crap out of it. Hardly any upgrades, abilities, buffs/ debuffs etc. I can only hope they'll add massive amounts of those or I for one, won't enjoy the MP, that's for sure.
@Heldentod said:
He made some very good points. Instead of bitching he's pointing out what's missing. And he hit a nerve: the base buidling people actually want is NOT in the game. I've been wondering for some time how those that say "base building is back YAY" have not noticed yet, that they'll get a simplified Coh2 version, NOT a DoW I version.
Yeah, if there is something I remember doing a lot in DOW I was building walls of turrets to defend my base.
How does separating out unit upgrades into different squads reducing diversity and depth? To me it seems like the choice is very much the same, as regardless you're locked into that path until either the unit with the upgrade dies (or a squad member, in vDoW's case) or you're using a Tactical Squad (in DoW II's case).
So, can't watch the video as I'm on my phone and it uses too much data. I'm curious what he has to say about base building. My current impression of it is that it is closer to CoH than DoW1, but I don't feel we know enough about it yet to really know. From the UI, it looks like you only build one of each unit manufacturing building, but I'm not sure if this has been definitely confirmed to be the case yet or not. I'm sort of hoping that building multiples of a building might have at least some benefit.
@Gorb said:
How does separating out unit upgrades into different squads reducing diversity and depth? To me it seems like the choice is very much the same, as regardless you're locked into that path until either the unit with the upgrade dies (or a squad member, in vDoW's case) or you're using a Tactical Squad (in DoW II's case).
Indirectly because they reduced the roster in general and the upgrades for the individual sqads. And because you can't re-equip. It's been a while since I played it but I think you could replace the weapons with others if the holders died in DoW I.
Basically, if its not like in DoW1 - it sucks. Oh geez, we have vehicle and squad variants now instead of upgrades, its dumbed down from DoW1 puts on his nostalgia tinted glasses. But its more in line with the lore, what about that lore, the all important lore, lore, LOREEEE. Seriously, who would satisfy everyone.
Missing defense structures? That's something i can agree with. But it doesn't mean they aren't in the game just because we haven't seen them. The structure of this demo mission looks like you have to balance between protecting your base and attacking Eldar gates, leaving your base protected with turrets would be too easy. Maybe they are unlocking later on, or maybe they are absent completely, which would suck, having your base open for the attack all the time and leaving something to guard it non-stop.
Didn't relise the "basebuilding" was like in coh2, lol. They could have as well not bother with it, as it adds pretty much nothing to the game. The only thing different from coh2 seems to be that you can build a second main base.
Not sure about unit upgrades and sergeants. If the scale is big it might be a bit of a hassle to upgrade each of your 20 tactical marine squads individually and keep track of which one of them has a sergeant. Unless the "bigger scale" is as overblown as the basebuilding.
@Gorb said:
How does separating out unit upgrades into different squads reducing diversity and depth? To me it seems like the choice is very much the same, as regardless you're locked into that path until either the unit with the upgrade dies (or a squad member, in vDoW's case) or you're using a Tactical Squad (in DoW II's case).
Indirectly because they reduced the roster in general and the upgrades for the individual sqads. And because you can't re-equip. It's been a while since I played it but I think you could replace the weapons with others if the holders died in DoW I.
The roster being reduced in pure numerical terms is only an impact on diversity if all of those choices are a) equally-balanced and b) not overlapping in role. Nobody is here to prove Relic as some kind of perfect being; they haven't always gotten balance right, so separating units out is a healthy choice because (back to b)) it lets them iron out specific roles within an army.
I mean it's too early to speculate (remember balance is an everchanging thing - whether or not they've succeeded, they've certainly put a huge amount of effort into CoH 2 for the past several years), but I think bigger numbers for the sake of bigger numbers is just as bad as change for the sake of change. The number of units is certainly similar, and the abilities we've seen so far are more complex than they used to be (see: Lady Solaria). Some abilities are straightforward, sure, but to use one example - Solaria's missile barrage - not only are they targeted individually, but the properties of the ability change based on how many you fire. It's also affected by Overheat. I really like that interaction; it's similar to how you could use Chaos Worship in DoW II to fully optimise your faction's playstyle.
You could replace weapons in vDoW; you couldn't in DoW II. Upgrades were per-squad for-the-squad in the vast majority of cases. This is no different, really.
One thing that is affected is your ability to adapt. Prior you could just buy a tank or scout squad and use it's vanilla version until you knew what you were facing and upgrade accordingly. In the end it may not add much, but as the guy in the vid sais, it makes a difference and increases the feeling that it still is a DoW game. More options just add to the sense of progression.
Everything feels way more simple, which is just sad. What he said about the base building is accurate aswell.
If the game was this way from the beginning, and they are introducing upgrades right now, this same guy would be like "Really? Now you have everything in one unit and just added upgrades? That's dumbed down, it doesn't feel right, where's the counter-play and adapting to the situation on the field, and not easy way like this"... Imagine I need an anti-vehicle Devastator squad, like, right now. They drop like a heavy bolter squad and getting pwnd hard by a vehicle while I'm waiting for the upgrade to complete. Same can go for the tank. Imagine an Ostwind from Company of Heroes, which is an anti-infantry unit, and I upgrade its turret to Panzer IV version to counter a vehicle. CoH fans would flip hard.
Its a change, what to say, get used to it. I buy a new mice and I'm thinking that I could cry for the old one that I used for 5 years. But gets better after 5 days.
@Renner said:
If the game was this way from the beginning, and they are introducing upgrades right now, this same guy would be like "Really? Now you have everything in one unit and just added upgrades? That's dumbed down, it doesn't feel right, where's the counter-play and adapting to the situation on the field, and not easy way like this"... Imagine I need an anti-vehicle Devastator squad, like, right now. They drop like a heavy bolter squad and getting pwnd hard by a vehicle while I'm waiting for the upgrade to complete. Same can go for the tank. Imagine an Ostwind from Company of Heroes, which is an anti-infantry unit, and I upgrade its turret to Panzer IV version to counter a vehicle. CoH fans would flip hard.
Its a change, what to say, get used to it. I buy a new mice and I'm thinking that I could cry for the old one that I used for 5 years. But gets better after 5 days.
Imagine panzergrenadiers which are anti infantry unit suddently upgrade with panzershrecks to counter a vehicle.
Though i think its not big deal either way.
A pity they bumped up the unit type count by adding the same unit with different weapons instead of adding some more units.
they already did this with plasma cannon devs in dow 2 anyways. they just increased the number of these non-versatile squads in dow 3, but all in all it doesnt matter. especially not for vehicles, where you couldnt downgrade a pred with lascannons to autocannons again. it doesnt add any more 'tactical depth' or anything like that to the game. and having dedicated anti-vehicle squads (instead of having to build them, then upgrade them, while being pressured) is perfectly fine for gameplay. not to mention it further matches in with the lore because space marines dont change out loadouts mid-mission, especially not for vehicles.
@Heldentod said:
One thing that is affected is your ability to adapt. Prior you could just buy a tank or scout squad and use it's vanilla version until you knew what you were facing and upgrade accordingly. In the end it may not add much, but as the guy in the vid sais, it makes a difference and increases the feeling that it still is a DoW game. More options just add to the sense of progression.
Everything feels way more simple, which is just sad. What he said about the base building is accurate aswell.
Don't get me wrong - I do see what you mean. Being locked into a choice as supposed to having the freedom to adapt is strategic depth though; DoW II used it and made it a strength of the Tactical Squad that they could re-choose their weapons. It's just a different point of depth compared to the flexibility of upgrading on the go.
I've done a lot of playtesting on the subject - I was involved in the FoK mod and one of the changes we made (to accommodate for scale and make reinforcing a bit more tactical) was to only allow upgrades at Listening Posts, buildings and transport vehicles. It was a positively-received change, even though it limited players when moving their units across the map. It made you think more ahead of time, instead of just reacting to what your opponent throws at you.
@Heldentod said:
One thing that is affected is your ability to adapt. Prior you could just buy a tank or scout squad and use it's vanilla version until you knew what you were facing and upgrade accordingly. In the end it may not add much, but as the guy in the vid sais, it makes a difference and increases the feeling that it still is a DoW game. More options just add to the sense of progression.
Everything feels way more simple, which is just sad. What he said about the base building is accurate aswell.
Don't get me wrong - I do see what you mean. Being locked into a choice as supposed to having the freedom to adapt is strategic depth though; DoW II used it and made it a strength of the Tactical Squad that they could re-choose their weapons. It's just a different point of depth compared to the flexibility of upgrading on the go.
I've done a lot of playtesting on the subject - I was involved in the FoK mod and one of the changes we made (to accommodate for scale and make reinforcing a bit more tactical) was to only allow upgrades at Listening Posts, buildings and transport vehicles. It was a positively-received change, even though it limited players when moving their units across the map. It made you think more ahead of time, instead of just reacting to what your opponent throws at you.
Really like that Idea of limited location to change equipped gear, actual like troops changing equipment loadouts. I lean towards more of the 1 base unit that then's upgraded into their variants. First unit build time could be balanced around build times. so overall a Flamer variant takes the same overall build time to build it's just you can have the base bolter unit in the field first before you typically would have the Flamer unit. This could then be used as a build path upgrade option that competes against other choices. Do you build to have troops build faster or upgrade faster allow faster troop deployment or go for the power, support or utility upgrades. This adds the element of variable build times which can change up the flow of combat.
One of my favorite starting tactics in DoW2 was Force Commander with 2 Scouts, 1 Tacticals. Why? Cause it added versatility, not only on your own reaction to the opponent, but how he can react to you. Most will think that I am going for 2 snipers, buy several fast ranged or melee units ... and I leave scouts as vanilla, buy ASM to counter my opponent and use scouts to capture the map. Or I can buy shotguns if opponent is having lots of melee, or I can upgrade only one unit and use the other to ninja cap, or just go with 2 snipers and annoy my opponent to no end.
With those Scouts now separated into 2 units I can either use them to ninja cap or to snipe, but not both with the same unit. I need to buy the unit already prepared for one or the other, I cannot decide it on the fly and wrong foot my opponent.
Same with Predator. I can buy a predator with Autocannon and annoy my opponent until he buys something similar ... and then I buy Lascannon upgrade, and destroy whatever he brought into combat. Strategy.
Same with Devastators. Will I leave it as HBolter suppression unit so my opponent needs a vehicle or some other way to deal with it? Or will I buy Lascannon upgrade and destroy his pretty vehicle? Or will I just go half way with vengeance rounds and be able to softly counter vehicles? It adds considerations to both me and my opponent.
So this seems like a decrease in possible strategies, but we will see. I understand this will be a game with more units, so such micro will probably need to be toned down but ... I am not sure did they tone it down too much.
You can still wrong-foot your opponent, but you simply have to guess his strategy better, rather than reacting to a strategy that you already know exists. What is the challenge in always being able to adapt to your opponent as soon as you can see what they've built?
I don't really agree with the video posted in the OP. I think he does make his points well, although stuff like unit upgrades aren't necessary to make it a DOW game IMO as he suggests. And reducing the complexity of the base building means we can focus more on the combat which is the direction that DOW2 went in and the combat in the game was much better for the fact.
I do share some concern though in that removing of unit upgrades could be part of a wider drive to make units expendable which I don't like (particularly for races such as SM and Eldar in which no unit would be an expendable units).
I wouldn't mind if certain races had expendable unit such as orks or tyranids, and then other races such as SM and Eldar had more of a focus on unit upgrades and preservation which would cater for two different styles of play.
For me the main bug bears are the ridiculous over the top animations and lack of sync kills and special attacks, and things like the lascannon and Gabriel jump which really ruin the immersion.
@Gorb said:
You can still wrong-foot your opponent, but you simply have to guess his strategy better, rather than reacting to a strategy that you already know exists. What is the challenge in always being able to adapt to your opponent as soon as you can see what they've built?
What you are describing just translates to: the game's less dynamic. I wouldn't want to end up with a game like that, were you essentially play the same build & strategy every battle cough like a certain game relic tries to copy cough
SM = Spartan feelings, few vs many, always outnumbered, never outgunned!!!
Eldar = Will, they will be imba at release, it is a tradition, so at least i hope they fight Hit and Run (Dark Eldar worked VERY WELL as H&R race in dow1) and don't become a static race.
Orks= i want to see a MOB RACE. As it was always supposed to be and never really worked as.
And everything i have seem so far points in that direction.
I agree with this part. Despite the massive amount of hate DOW2 gets from idiots on these forums it actually did a lot of stuff right as pointed out in the OPs video. One thing it didn't do so well though was capturing the feel of the races. It started out trying to, but for balance reasons it was impossible. Hence why tyranids lost their flavour and SM scouts were given the shotgun knockbock, and orks are still probably OP in the early game.
I don't agree things look to be pointing in that direction though with DOW3. If anything it seems to be the opposite. Everything is expendable including space marine units. I guess it is to early but from what I have heard line units are going to be expendable for all races so it is just going to be the polar opposite of DOW2 and so equally bad but in a different way.
@Gorb said:
You can still wrong-foot your opponent, but you simply have to guess his strategy better, rather than reacting to a strategy that you already know exists. What is the challenge in always being able to adapt to your opponent as soon as you can see what they've built?
What you are describing just translates to: the game's less dynamic. I wouldn't want to end up with a game like that, were you essentially play the same build & strategy every battle cough like a certain game relic tries to copy cough
When you say "dynamic" you mean "tactical". This is true; the tradeoff is less tactical flexibility, but you are granted more strategic depth as a consequence.
@Gorb said:
You can still wrong-foot your opponent, but you simply have to guess his strategy better, rather than reacting to a strategy that you already know exists. What is the challenge in always being able to adapt to your opponent as soon as you can see what they've built?
What you are describing just translates to: the game's less dynamic. I wouldn't want to end up with a game like that, were you essentially play the same build & strategy every battle cough like a certain game relic tries to copy cough
When you say "dynamic" you mean "tactical". This is true; the tradeoff is less tactical flexibility, but you are granted more strategic depth as a consequence.
Doesn't seem like a favourable trade-off to me because it still rersults in a decreased amount of possible scenarios. It's slippery slope when a RTS becomes too predictable. I'm not saying it already is, but it might be.
It's an understandable worry, but I think we have enough potential tactical complexity given how ability-driven the gameplay seems to be, for it to be a win-win situation (more tactical focus in micro gameplay, more strategic oversight in planning build orders).
@Gorb said:
You can still wrong-foot your opponent, but you simply have to guess his strategy better, rather than reacting to a strategy that you already know exists. What is the challenge in always being able to adapt to your opponent as soon as you can see what they've built?
What you are describing just translates to: the game's less dynamic. I wouldn't want to end up with a game like that, were you essentially play the same build & strategy every battle cough like a certain game relic tries to copy cough
When you say "dynamic" you mean "tactical". This is true; the tradeoff is less tactical flexibility, but you are granted more strategic depth as a consequence.
Doesn't seem like a favourable trade-off to me because it still rersults in a decreased amount of possible scenarios. It's slippery slope when a RTS becomes too predictable. I'm not saying it already is, but it might be.
And thats where i have to disagree as usual.
In dow2 (that i am searching automatch NOW) how many optimal builds each race have? Everyone always do the same thing with very little variation, some rare players (i can think 2 atm, Tex and Link0) could get diferent build orders and get away with it. but overall its the same units being used over and over again, what is very probable in a game with soo little squads.
So orks always go for sluga and 2xshootas, if you try to do a sluga spam and be closer to the lore you will be using a sub optimal build.
Chaos almost always go for 2x tacticals, and so on, the amount of viable builds is really small in dow2, and honestly i never though it to be the worst of problems in dow2, even while i always have been one of the few SM to don't use 2x scouts most of the time.
And how's that gonna change? In DoW you'll prolly build 2x scouts, but you don't get yo upgrade anymore so you have to choose which you build. Like everywhere else there'll be one optimal build aswell. The only notable difference is when you don't get to choose anymore because the one optimal build will also be the only one available. Again, I fail to see how that's an actual improvement.
I find it sad that because I cannot adapt my forces to what I am facing, like I had been in every DoW game previous, I will wind up needing to throw forces away to make room for the counters to what the enemy is doing. Since when are SPACE MARINES supposed to be as expendable as guardsmen?
The ability to mind game and upgrade units to the situation is part of what gave the SM such flavor in the DoW series. The removal of that well... it hurts more then it helps.
@TankHunter678 said:
I find it sad that because I cannot adapt my forces to what I am facing, like I had been in every DoW game previous, I will wind up needing to throw forces away to make room for the counters to what the enemy is doing. Since when are SPACE MARINES supposed to be as expendable as guardsmen?
The ability to mind game and upgrade units to the situation is part of what gave the SM such flavor in the DoW series. The removal of that well... it hurts more then it helps.
That maybe because scouting I'd now a thing. it's clear that the focus is not just about guessing or completely reacting to what the other player puts out. I don't think it's a bad thing st all separatin the squads. As mentioned before we had plasma cannons and heavy bolter devs should we of had one Dev class? maybe but the units worked like that because it was the focus and made sense for the game. Dow 3 will be different. Ithe doesn't mean it lacks depth either it's just been translated in a different way. Also the OPs video was very meh. He hasn't even played the game yet XD.
Like Bigamo said space marines have changed but from what they've shown they are still very versatile. plus I'm pretty sure taxa can switch to flamers and Plas guns still
Menu
Comments
Heldentod
He made some very good points. Instead of bitching he's pointing out what's missing. And he hit a nerve: the base buidling people actually want is NOT in the game. I've been wondering for some time how those that say "base building is back YAY" have not noticed yet, that they'll get a simplified Coh2 version, NOT a DoW I version.
He also accurately described their attempt of hiding the fact how they decreased unit diversity and depth by adding doublets. 2 seperate scouts and Predators is NOT new, they just needed to fill that empty unit roster, making it less adapable and dynamic in the process.
I still can't shake the feeling that DoW will be boring as hell because they simplified the crap out of it. Hardly any upgrades, abilities, buffs/ debuffs etc. I can only hope they'll add massive amounts of those or I for one, won't enjoy the MP, that's for sure.
Nanrsil
Yeah, if there is something I remember doing a lot in DOW I was building walls of turrets to defend my base.
Gorb
How does separating out unit upgrades into different squads reducing diversity and depth? To me it seems like the choice is very much the same, as regardless you're locked into that path until either the unit with the upgrade dies (or a squad member, in vDoW's case) or you're using a Tactical Squad (in DoW II's case).
Creature
So, can't watch the video as I'm on my phone and it uses too much data. I'm curious what he has to say about base building. My current impression of it is that it is closer to CoH than DoW1, but I don't feel we know enough about it yet to really know. From the UI, it looks like you only build one of each unit manufacturing building, but I'm not sure if this has been definitely confirmed to be the case yet or not. I'm sort of hoping that building multiples of a building might have at least some benefit.
Heldentod
Indirectly because they reduced the roster in general and the upgrades for the individual sqads. And because you can't re-equip. It's been a while since I played it but I think you could replace the weapons with others if the holders died in DoW I.
Renner
Basically, if its not like in DoW1 - it sucks. Oh geez, we have vehicle and squad variants now instead of upgrades, its dumbed down from DoW1 puts on his nostalgia tinted glasses. But its more in line with the lore, what about that lore, the all important lore, lore, LOREEEE. Seriously, who would satisfy everyone.
Missing defense structures? That's something i can agree with. But it doesn't mean they aren't in the game just because we haven't seen them. The structure of this demo mission looks like you have to balance between protecting your base and attacking Eldar gates, leaving your base protected with turrets would be too easy. Maybe they are unlocking later on, or maybe they are absent completely, which would suck, having your base open for the attack all the time and leaving something to guard it non-stop.
Bersercker
Didn't relise the "basebuilding" was like in coh2, lol. They could have as well not bother with it, as it adds pretty much nothing to the game. The only thing different from coh2 seems to be that you can build a second main base.
Not sure about unit upgrades and sergeants. If the scale is big it might be a bit of a hassle to upgrade each of your 20 tactical marine squads individually and keep track of which one of them has a sergeant. Unless the "bigger scale" is as overblown as the basebuilding.
Gorb
The roster being reduced in pure numerical terms is only an impact on diversity if all of those choices are a) equally-balanced and b) not overlapping in role. Nobody is here to prove Relic as some kind of perfect being; they haven't always gotten balance right, so separating units out is a healthy choice because (back to b)) it lets them iron out specific roles within an army.
I mean it's too early to speculate (remember balance is an everchanging thing - whether or not they've succeeded, they've certainly put a huge amount of effort into CoH 2 for the past several years), but I think bigger numbers for the sake of bigger numbers is just as bad as change for the sake of change. The number of units is certainly similar, and the abilities we've seen so far are more complex than they used to be (see: Lady Solaria). Some abilities are straightforward, sure, but to use one example - Solaria's missile barrage - not only are they targeted individually, but the properties of the ability change based on how many you fire. It's also affected by Overheat. I really like that interaction; it's similar to how you could use Chaos Worship in DoW II to fully optimise your faction's playstyle.
You could replace weapons in vDoW; you couldn't in DoW II. Upgrades were per-squad for-the-squad in the vast majority of cases. This is no different, really.
Heldentod
One thing that is affected is your ability to adapt. Prior you could just buy a tank or scout squad and use it's vanilla version until you knew what you were facing and upgrade accordingly. In the end it may not add much, but as the guy in the vid sais, it makes a difference and increases the feeling that it still is a DoW game. More options just add to the sense of progression.
Everything feels way more simple, which is just sad. What he said about the base building is accurate aswell.
Renner
If the game was this way from the beginning, and they are introducing upgrades right now, this same guy would be like "Really? Now you have everything in one unit and just added upgrades? That's dumbed down, it doesn't feel right, where's the counter-play and adapting to the situation on the field, and not easy way like this"... Imagine I need an anti-vehicle Devastator squad, like, right now. They drop like a heavy bolter squad and getting pwnd hard by a vehicle while I'm waiting for the upgrade to complete. Same can go for the tank. Imagine an Ostwind from Company of Heroes, which is an anti-infantry unit, and I upgrade its turret to Panzer IV version to counter a vehicle. CoH fans would flip hard.
Its a change, what to say, get used to it. I buy a new mice and I'm thinking that I could cry for the old one that I used for 5 years. But gets better after 5 days.
Bersercker
Imagine panzergrenadiers which are anti infantry unit suddently upgrade with panzershrecks to counter a vehicle.
Though i think its not big deal either way.
A pity they bumped up the unit type count by adding the same unit with different weapons instead of adding some more units.
Ellie
they already did this with plasma cannon devs in dow 2 anyways. they just increased the number of these non-versatile squads in dow 3, but all in all it doesnt matter. especially not for vehicles, where you couldnt downgrade a pred with lascannons to autocannons again. it doesnt add any more 'tactical depth' or anything like that to the game. and having dedicated anti-vehicle squads (instead of having to build them, then upgrade them, while being pressured) is perfectly fine for gameplay. not to mention it further matches in with the lore because space marines dont change out loadouts mid-mission, especially not for vehicles.
Gorb
Don't get me wrong - I do see what you mean. Being locked into a choice as supposed to having the freedom to adapt is strategic depth though; DoW II used it and made it a strength of the Tactical Squad that they could re-choose their weapons. It's just a different point of depth compared to the flexibility of upgrading on the go.
I've done a lot of playtesting on the subject - I was involved in the FoK mod and one of the changes we made (to accommodate for scale and make reinforcing a bit more tactical) was to only allow upgrades at Listening Posts, buildings and transport vehicles. It was a positively-received change, even though it limited players when moving their units across the map. It made you think more ahead of time, instead of just reacting to what your opponent throws at you.
Bezagron
Really like that Idea of limited location to change equipped gear, actual like troops changing equipment loadouts. I lean towards more of the 1 base unit that then's upgraded into their variants. First unit build time could be balanced around build times. so overall a Flamer variant takes the same overall build time to build it's just you can have the base bolter unit in the field first before you typically would have the Flamer unit. This could then be used as a build path upgrade option that competes against other choices. Do you build to have troops build faster or upgrade faster allow faster troop deployment or go for the power, support or utility upgrades. This adds the element of variable build times which can change up the flow of combat.
Mr_Ruin
One of my favorite starting tactics in DoW2 was Force Commander with 2 Scouts, 1 Tacticals. Why? Cause it added versatility, not only on your own reaction to the opponent, but how he can react to you. Most will think that I am going for 2 snipers, buy several fast ranged or melee units ... and I leave scouts as vanilla, buy ASM to counter my opponent and use scouts to capture the map. Or I can buy shotguns if opponent is having lots of melee, or I can upgrade only one unit and use the other to ninja cap, or just go with 2 snipers and annoy my opponent to no end.
With those Scouts now separated into 2 units I can either use them to ninja cap or to snipe, but not both with the same unit. I need to buy the unit already prepared for one or the other, I cannot decide it on the fly and wrong foot my opponent.
Same with Predator. I can buy a predator with Autocannon and annoy my opponent until he buys something similar ... and then I buy Lascannon upgrade, and destroy whatever he brought into combat. Strategy.
Same with Devastators. Will I leave it as HBolter suppression unit so my opponent needs a vehicle or some other way to deal with it? Or will I buy Lascannon upgrade and destroy his pretty vehicle? Or will I just go half way with vengeance rounds and be able to softly counter vehicles? It adds considerations to both me and my opponent.
So this seems like a decrease in possible strategies, but we will see. I understand this will be a game with more units, so such micro will probably need to be toned down but ... I am not sure did they tone it down too much.
Gorb
You can still wrong-foot your opponent, but you simply have to guess his strategy better, rather than reacting to a strategy that you already know exists. What is the challenge in always being able to adapt to your opponent as soon as you can see what they've built?
DeathAttacker
I don't really agree with the video posted in the OP. I think he does make his points well, although stuff like unit upgrades aren't necessary to make it a DOW game IMO as he suggests. And reducing the complexity of the base building means we can focus more on the combat which is the direction that DOW2 went in and the combat in the game was much better for the fact.
I do share some concern though in that removing of unit upgrades could be part of a wider drive to make units expendable which I don't like (particularly for races such as SM and Eldar in which no unit would be an expendable units).
I wouldn't mind if certain races had expendable unit such as orks or tyranids, and then other races such as SM and Eldar had more of a focus on unit upgrades and preservation which would cater for two different styles of play.
For me the main bug bears are the ridiculous over the top animations and lack of sync kills and special attacks, and things like the lascannon and Gabriel jump which really ruin the immersion.
Heldentod
What you are describing just translates to: the game's less dynamic. I wouldn't want to end up with a game like that, were you essentially play the same build & strategy every battle cough like a certain game relic tries to copy cough
DeathAttacker
I agree with this part. Despite the massive amount of hate DOW2 gets from idiots on these forums it actually did a lot of stuff right as pointed out in the OPs video. One thing it didn't do so well though was capturing the feel of the races. It started out trying to, but for balance reasons it was impossible. Hence why tyranids lost their flavour and SM scouts were given the shotgun knockbock, and orks are still probably OP in the early game.
I don't agree things look to be pointing in that direction though with DOW3. If anything it seems to be the opposite. Everything is expendable including space marine units. I guess it is to early but from what I have heard line units are going to be expendable for all races so it is just going to be the polar opposite of DOW2 and so equally bad but in a different way.
Gorb
When you say "dynamic" you mean "tactical". This is true; the tradeoff is less tactical flexibility, but you are granted more strategic depth as a consequence.
Heldentod
Doesn't seem like a favourable trade-off to me because it still rersults in a decreased amount of possible scenarios. It's slippery slope when a RTS becomes too predictable. I'm not saying it already is, but it might be.
Gorb
It's an understandable worry, but I think we have enough potential tactical complexity given how ability-driven the gameplay seems to be, for it to be a win-win situation (more tactical focus in micro gameplay, more strategic oversight in planning build orders).
MiniCloud
that sounds starcrafty.
Pls order an ordo-hereticus investigation. Exterminatus allowed.
Heldentod
And how's that gonna change? In DoW you'll prolly build 2x scouts, but you don't get yo upgrade anymore so you have to choose which you build. Like everywhere else there'll be one optimal build aswell. The only notable difference is when you don't get to choose anymore because the one optimal build will also be the only one available. Again, I fail to see how that's an actual improvement.
TankHunter678
I find it sad that because I cannot adapt my forces to what I am facing, like I had been in every DoW game previous, I will wind up needing to throw forces away to make room for the counters to what the enemy is doing. Since when are SPACE MARINES supposed to be as expendable as guardsmen?
The ability to mind game and upgrade units to the situation is part of what gave the SM such flavor in the DoW series. The removal of that well... it hurts more then it helps.
BlessedSpartan
That maybe because scouting I'd now a thing. it's clear that the focus is not just about guessing or completely reacting to what the other player puts out. I don't think it's a bad thing st all separatin the squads. As mentioned before we had plasma cannons and heavy bolter devs should we of had one Dev class? maybe but the units worked like that because it was the focus and made sense for the game. Dow 3 will be different. Ithe doesn't mean it lacks depth either it's just been translated in a different way. Also the OPs video was very meh. He hasn't even played the game yet XD.
Like Bigamo said space marines have changed but from what they've shown they are still very versatile. plus I'm pretty sure taxa can switch to flamers and Plas guns still
SharKnight
Well the gameplay and animations AND over all feel of dow 1 looks nice, smooth and versatile. Something that I cant say about DOW 3 so far.