Menu
Does DoW3 have depth?
Azzakye
I made this thread so we could get a clearer opinion on what people want to say
Some random guidelines:
Try to break up topics on depth about DoW3 I recommend Buildings and units as topics of discussion
When comparing the game to previous titles or other games clearly state the game as the example
Understand this is a discussion and should always respond with smarts and class
Buildings
What I understand is that DoW3 has very basic building each are their own and do not have special interactions with eachother nor have a building path of some kind.
Noted exception is the orks and the Waargh tower mechanic. When talking about building depth what are we searching for? Upgrades to buildings or upgrades from buildings? Unique abilities tied to buildings like in DoW1? I question whether DoW3 truly needed as many building as it has besides listening post each race have about 4 buildings: Basic infantry, Advanced/Specialised Infantry, Vehicle and Armoury.
Units
As like many have compared DoW1 and DoW2 have far more depth on units, simply put unit customisation. Units in DoW3 have very minimal customisations except tactical marines and their plasma and flamer upgrades. DoW1 had the added mechanic on attachments that enhanced a particular squad while absent from DoW2, it added special abilities to leader type upgrades. Orks have speical scrap mechanic which is fairly unique but as it is a singular upgrade with no cost be it restricted to availability of scrap, makes the upgrade in turn worthless than it otherwise should as the base unit becomes useless without it or have no need for it.
Comments
CANNED_F3TUS
At first sight it may look like DoW 3 units have no depth. Very big misconception. But if you look closer its the players choice what units he wants specialized or passives givin etc etc. The costumizability of units lies in the doctrines thats why you dont see as many upgrades on buildings. I would say DoW 3 is on even footing when it comes to depth with units.
Unit Depth wise id go
DoW 1>DoW3>DoW 2
Azzakye
The doctrines cannot be seen as added depth because of their pre selective nature and its pure advantage value. What doctrine provide is not unit depth but a pre selection mental game attempting to gain advantage from the free upgraded units. The unit depth Im talking about is are the options and their in game upgrades.
Wardemon
Saying doctrines provide no depth makes no sense to me. Sounds like a biased way to exclude the huge depth in doctrine and elite unit combinations. There is so much depth that people are still discovering strategies to this day.
I get that some people may not like the thought of base units having much less viability without doctrine support but I don't think its fair to exclude the depth doctrines provide altogether.
Korica
That is a terrible argument. Just because you choose Doctrines BEFORE the match does not mean they have no depth. The only reason they currently lack depth is because they are imbalanced - and that can be fixed.
Maybe it's true that Doctrines lack depth in 1v1 - since, by knowing what the enemy's doctrines are, you know what the enemy's best strength is and therefore what strategies they are likely to employ. But I would argue that 1v1 in RTS has always been utter garbage for depth and balance. Team play is where the good stuff happens.
frumpylumps
yep, its senseless.
There are so many counters and tactics that people have yet to discover yet and become popular knowledge. Some doctrines that some players consider useless are extremely beneficial for others. I hope Relic doesn't listen to the players too much because most of the complaining imo seems to come from the player not wholly understanding their options.
Many complaints about what is missing from previous games has been done for a good reason. And i think its pretty arguable that DoW3 is more complex mechanically in terms of micro and macro than both DoW 1 and 2.
Stoner
It does have depth, but certainly not where it should've been...
Azzakye
I believe people misunderstand when I talk about doctrines.
I'm talking about the nature of how doctrines work against in game mechanics. It is a pre selection so it is a static value and not part of the in game dynamic so my point is that the depth people are seeing are not in game but before game an advantage gained from the option provided by doctrines. I am not saying doctrines have no depth I am saying doctrines do not add to the depth that I am referring to.
Let say there are 2 players one player has a doctrine that increases inf health and the other vehicle health. The advantages are clear and static so strategies are formed based on these set advantages this kind of depth is different from how the in game upgrades work. The added disadvantage of getting the in game upgrade for increased health and timing makes for more dynamic gameplay which is the depth I like. Since doctrines are unique and have effects on abilities this inherent advantage makes the effected unit basically unbalanced because of the nature of the upgrade or the lack there of counters to the advantage.
I hope people can understand more on what I am trying to say
Krupp
I consider buldings to have more depth than in DoW1.
While it may have fewer buildings, that doesn't mean DoW1 had more depth, you'd end up building every bulding anyway, not much in the way of big choices there.
In DoW3, the ability to reinforce at forward bases addds some measure of depth to building placement, especially with first few buldings, as putting your building in a location that is both defensible and offers shortened reinforcement routes becomes important.
Ressources work in similar ways, as they are a lot less safe than in DoW1. In fact, they are probably a bit too unsafe, but that is a different discussion altogether.
As far as units go, helping DoW3 in this regard is that units are far more responsive than in previous games (not only because the removal of sync kills, but command lag is markedly decreased). This makes microing much smoother, which is a good thing considering the games lethality.
Overall more upgrades=/=more depth, many other RTS games come with single-purpose, hardcounter units (SC/2, AoE throughout the years) and DoW3 strikes much closer to this than previous games, with many units having only a single purpose that doesn't change throughout the game (there are exceptions, some Doctrines and Power Swords for ASM can change units roles). This is most evident with Tacticals, who went from "I counter everything, just maek more Marines!" to a purely infantry-fighting unit.
Technique
Only in unit interaction.
The eco system and macro are both nearly non existent.
In one 3v3 game I was afk for the first 10 minutes (forgot I was in queue) and ended up with similar (or little more actually) eco than the other 5 players in a ~20 minute game. In no other rts game would that be possible. ^_^
Larkis
Cause you know that in Teamgames you share your ressources with your teammates?
Technique
Really? I did not know that.
And I guess I had most resources spent cause the other players didn't spent their req in order to not have their power eaten up by upkeep. (or is upkeep somehow shared as well?)
Amoc
That's just silly. Everything you're talking about there could be done in DoW1 as well. The actual base-building in DoW3 is perfunctory and if you removed it altogether the game would play almost the same. Scrap unit production buildings and add control points where you can spawn new units - boom - DoW3's base-building has been effectively replaced.
Well your power nodes are less safe, but other than that not really. Req points had to be fought over in DoW1. Power needs to be fought over in DoW3. What sort of difference in depth are you seeing here?
In terms of units, I'd agree that there is a bigger focus on ability micro, but you're trading depth on elite/ability micro for depth virtually everywhere else, particularly with map design and terrain features.
The extreme rock-paper-scissor nature of the unit design is a problem, not an improvement. Hard counters and soft counters are important parts of RTS design, but right now the throw-away and disposable nature of your units means that when something gets hard-countered, it's overwhelmingly and hopelessly hard-countered. Space Marines in previous games were interesting because they didn't just crumple when they faced a hard-counter. You could adapt to the new situation and the standard solution wasn't to just let the units die and replace them with whatever counters what the enemy just brought.
Right now it feels too much like a series of simple rock-paper-scissors encounters.
CANNED_F3TUS
Dont agree on your last point. Its only strictly rock paper scizzors if you spam 1 unit type you dont even see that in SC games. People will always build a mix of units like MMM or Marines medics tanks or viking banshee etc etc etc. The same thing is going to happen once DoW 3 receives balance patches. They will encourage you to mix units.
Alchemist13
@CANNED_F3TUS I am pretty sure relic stated that they were/ are going for a more rock paper scissors system which i feel is not a good system for a rts it makes the gameplay feel to static and simplistic and the micro intensive game isn't helping it this game could really use some more macro elements and feel less Miro elements.
Gorb
vDoW gave safe resource points within your HQ area for easy resource generation. Only in DoW II and DoW III are they fully external to the safe area of your base. Opinion post.
Andtaxes
I think depth is something you have to investigate over a longer period of time than we have had available with more data than what we have available.
There is the "meta" which I think what actually provides the bulk of "depth" and then there are things like unit behaviors, attack animations, efficiency windows etc etcetc.
Mechanical depth as far as APM goes (my classic example is zergling/dragoon micro from BW) is certainly there with all the stuns/aoe/etc going on but I don't believe that's what you're getting at.
Amoc
SC2 unit mixes work better because units are (mostly) not strict rock-paper-scissor tools. They're versatile units that hard counter a few things and get hard-countered by a few things, but are generally effective for a lot. Marines are the perfect example for SC2. Massed up, they're good for countering most melee and they're effective point-defense for bigger hitters like siege tanks. They're also cheap and effective against light air. You can almost always find a use for them.
DoW3 has no equivalent.
There's nowhere near the same mechanical depth in DoW3, even accounting for the elites/ability spam micro. Stalker kiting/blinking micro (and the HP trading that goes on) is an example that DoW III is mechanically not designed to match. That, in and of itself, is okay, but the depth needs to be made up elsewhere. CoH does this with terrain and cover etc. DoW3 is trying to do it with elite/ability spam, and the results are clearly divisive.
CANNED_F3TUS
Yes Thats true. Devs stated units act rock paper scizzory thats why you MIX units to prevent being countered utterly.
Azzakye
@CANNED_F3TUS
I think the point being made is that the flexibility and adaptability is missing in DoW3 since most of the time its just looking at what I have what the enemy is building so lets make A to counter B since I have C. This also is magnified with the huge squad turn over rate which is strange since my units lost is actually smaller than they were in DoW2 but I digress the point is that this system is so static and one dimensional that other RTS which have even a little more variety have more compelling gameplay.
The design in a mathematical sense is nonsense A>B>C>A which is the Bleach level of plot development (terribly old meme)
Katitof
You don't.
You share nodes and will always have same income(minus upkeep variation).
But everyone got their own resources and it would be beyond stupid to have it otherwise.
TheSi1entKing
Which really isn't helping any, campers will be campers & at least in DOW 1 the resource points could be harassed you can't do that in DOW 3, it took more skill as well in DOW 1 to capture points because you had to time every point capture considering units couldn't fire while capturing. There was a strategic element to capturing & decaping points in DOW 1, that has been removed from DOW 3.
You also mentioned that doctrines add more depth from a earlier post but in reality doctrines limit player choice, choosing your loadout sounds good on paper but not in a game that is RTS "Real Time Strategy" not when things change & the players need to pivot. Also some of the doctrines feel lazy and unthought out considering some shouldn't be doctrines but should be upgrades. Elites are the same way some elites shouldn't be elites but should be in the main army.
I am curious as to why did you guys feel like you needed to reinvent the wheel with DOW 3 when obviously the mechanics in dow 1 were just fine, if it ain't broke don't try to fix it. Also generators also seem less micro intensive taking away from structure placement. In DOW 1 players had the CHOICE to build gens depending on a certain build now in DOW 3 that is limited by the circumstance of a player going for a power node rather then a req node & also that is dependent on if players can hold that long enough for them to go a certain build order. Now build orders have been watered down unlike in DOW 1 buildings had more purpose.
And to add in DOW 1 you didn't know what your opponent by do, especially if you could go random, now with the doctrines you're basically screaming to your opponent on what to expect from you that ruins the element of surprise.
TheSi1entKing
No its called resource management, in DOW 1 you had more options & there again was a strategic element to it, every player had their own resources with the option of resource sharing, a team game is not defined by resource sharing, yet another element that was taken out of DOW 3 no matter how much everyone tries to say dow 3 is more competitive it really isn't, redistributing the competitive aspects of a game can make or break a RTS & in dow 3 case all the current elements right now seem to cater to the casual crowd.
CANNED_F3TUS
Ok. I get that Tier 1 units need to be made a little bit better and act like terran marines in SC. Just solid soft counter troops with hard counter potential.
But a game to feature units that can counter everything with little effort or decision making cause thats exactly what those types of units do. Make counter playing easier. In DoW 1 i could spam TSM for days and be fine with little to no worries because i could counter every unit. Why should i build ASMs dreads or even tanks when i have a simple T 1 solution that counters everything. Tac marines are lore accurate as they can adapt to all situations doesnt mean that is good from a game play perspective.
Whats the point of building a devestator squad or a las cannon dev if Tac marines can equip the same weapons or even better and even push out more DPS than devestators and hard counter vehicles at the same time while being more mobile Etc etc etc. Im telling you. If they give Tacs the Rocket upgrade from the iron maw squad they might as well remove las cannon devs because las cannon devs will be pointless to buy. There should be soft and hard counters in the game yes. But no I COUNTER EVERYTHING UNIT.
Gorb
Resource points can absolutely be harassed in DoW III. That's what the Generators were for, just like in DoW III. As for making a single unit out of an army of twenty not shoot whilst they're capping the point . . . that's hardly much of a disadvantage. It affects the early game more, but in the lategame is simply irrelevant. Given that unit lethality is higher in DoW III, it makes sense to allow all units to fire back whilst capturing a point. It's a needless penalty to have one of them prevented from firing because that would make people want to take points less - instead taking points (either neutral points, or ones your enemy controls) is incentivised.
Doctrines do add more depth. Having a limited number of available Doctrines means players have to make meaningful choices as supposed to picking everything that looks good based purely on economic dominance. Claiming that Relic removed upgrades just to be Doctrines shows that you're not evaluating Doctrines as an actual part of the game, tech tree and available options. They're meant to be included. They're a part of the game. They're just presented in a new way that you might not be used to.
I didn't reinvent anything. I am not Relic. Bit of repetition at this point, but I will say that just because you prefer a different game, doesn't mean Relic are obliged to keep the mechanics of that game. People used that argument to claim DoW II should never have been made, and I really don't like it. You're allowed to like vDoW. You're allowed to prefer vDoW. But your enjoyment of vDoW doesn't automatically make it the better game. It just makes it what you prefer.
I prefer DoW II myself. That's my jam. But I wouldn't want Relic to change DoW III into something more resembling DoW II.
Larkis
Space Marines are a bad example, cause there are a unit which could fight every other unit. But look on Zerglings or Zealots which are easly hard contert with flying units, cause they are Meele only. They are also hard contert with most unit combinations like forceshield + Stalker or a closed ramp and tanks in siege mode behind it.
Thats the reason that most medium SKill games is mass the cheapest units which has no hardconter, mass them and only win if you bether in makro and mikro.
In DOW3 i need everything. My Orkz need Meeles to fight the enemy ranged, i need lootaz to slow down/kill enemy infantry, i need tank bustaz for tanks to bust ect ect. Most units have a clear role on the field and clear counters. I must scout my enemy, i must prepare my army and the only chance to win is to have the bether unit composition and the bether mikro.
In Starcraft 2 on my level i only spam Stalker and having a bether buildorder and a bether basebuilding makro is the only needing for victory (excepting scouting and defend cheese)
Bersercker
Agreed on rock-paper-scissors thing being very bad for depth(though its more like rock-rock-rock right now), but the extreme speed with which units die to everything + no retreat makes it even worse imo.
Like, you don't have to really commit to some army composition for more than a short amount of time because any unit life expectancy is measured in minutes and there is no point in planning for the future. Like "oh ++heresy redacted++ the ork player made some nobz and hard countered my entire army consisting of dire avengers, whatever i'll just spam dark reapers then" is pretty common situation, because that dire avenger army could have died just as easily to a few suicide storm boyz or a wierdboy teleport+fist of gork or something. Hero units being so strong against regular ones also makes the planning even less important, cause almost any disadvantage in army composition can be negated by a few well placed hero abilities, at least in early-mid game.
This leads to the situation where, because you don't really have to plan for more than a few minutes into the future, you build only what is most advantageos at the current time. Because of that there is not much place for counter-strategies on part of the opponent as well.
I mean something like what we had in coh2 where soviet player could spam a lot of conscripts early game to capture most of the map while the ostheer player could either answer it with grenadier spam of his own or try to spend less requsition but defend some of his resources with mg42(s) and get panzergrenadiers a bit later. Because the ostheer player knows that the soviet player is commited to conscript spam, he can't lose all of his conscripts and replace them with equal number maxim teams or something by the time the panzergrenadiers hit the field.
In dow3 it would have been more like player A spamed conscripts, player B spamed mgs, so all conscripts died to mg's, so the player A spamed some mortars and killed all mg's, but then the player B called in stricking scorpions which killed all the mortars, all in 5 minutes.
Imo, the only real "strategic" decision in dow3 right now is how fast to get t2. Even though with the current balance everybody rushes t2 ASAP anyway. This might be fixed somewhat by more armor and damage types, some additional unit upgrades or t1 units becoming less obsolete in t2. But, not sure how the speed with which units die is going to be fixed, or if Relic would even consider it in need of a fix.
After all, the economy system is also made so that players can repeatedly lose entire armies and build them anew every 5 minutes.
Amoc
That's a pretty good comparison actually Berserker. You chosen strategy/tech path isn't something you have to commit to and it can swing in an entirely different direction in the span of two minutes.