Dawn of War 3

2»

Comments

  • #32
    10 years ago
    Well, I think it's simply untrue that there exist RTS titles with similar gameplay to DoW 1...because DoW 1 doesn't play like StarCraft for example, which is what you probably mean with "Standard RTS".

    And there are quite a few rather big differences between DoW and "Standard RTS", like Cover, Squads, Weapon Upgrades, different Resource model, Reinforcing system (with troops materializing from air anywhere on the map instead of CoH/DoW 2 style "restricted reinforcing").

    That said, I don't necessarily want the next Relic RTS to play like DoW 1, but I think it's definitely worth discussing the differences between DoW 1 and DoW 2 and what changes were succesful between the games. Or if fans of the game generally liked the approach of DoW 2.

    As to people lacking understanding of the game, I think there are plenty of players who understand the mechanics of the game very well.
    Just because someone would prefer the removal of the Retreat mechanic doesn't mean they lack understanding of the game. There's certainly an argument to be made that Retreat allows players to escape situations where in a different kind of RTS they would've been screwed. Of course it is also true that CoH and DoW 2 are designed around the Retreat mechanic, it's one of the fundamentals of the game.

    That doesn't necessarily mean that the Retreat mechanic should be in the next generation DoW game, though. I think this kind of thread is just perfect for discussing these kind of mechanics and whether or not they are truly necessary, or if players want to see them return or not.
  • #33
    10 years ago
    Gorb wrote: »
    Plenty of games follow the DoW 1 format. DoW 1 is very close to the standard RTS formula, with a couple of noticeable innovations (point capture being an emphasis, not a true innovation but a shift from pure resource farming) including melee gameplay.

    @Raindrop: because people have been saying the same things about DoW III since DoW II was released. It gets boring, and people are often unwilling to listen to actual criticism of their ideas.

    Lines like "-Remove retreat (Why? 1.Its an out of jail mechanic with no skill requierments 2.It creates pathing problems 3.Weakens melee)." are silly.

    Retreat is/was not an out-of-jail retreat mechanic. It has skill-based applications and counters. Pathing was a problem with the engine, not with retreat specifically. Retreat doesn't weaken melee, it weakens ranged harass. Retreating enemies took heavy damage from melee attacks.

    If you want to criticise DoW II, CoH, DoW, or whatever game you want to criticise, at least develop a deep enough understanding of the game to criticise it. That's why these kind of threads are silly. People have little idea what creating a game actually involves.

    I agree with Charerg that there arent many games similar to DoW out there especially when it comes to squad based combat.

    Lets watch at the history of retreat and why there was problem:
    -First there was a extra melee dmg taken during retreat, melee was to weak = melee dmg vs retreating sqauds was increased.
    -Result: Melee became very strong vs retreating squads. Knock back abilitys vs retreating sqaud became OP = KB vs retreating sqaud was removed.
    -Result: Whenever a player uses KB abilitys like charges vs retreating squads, the charging unit will simply stop and bug out.

    Overall it caused a lot of problems with pathing like vehicles that try to move around retreating sqauds since they had some priorty, not to mention some cheese like bashnees + warlock. Thats the main reasoning and I think a deep enough reasoning why I criticize retreat as it is and think that it should be removed from the game.

    Tho I dont know much about game developing I guess some of the gameplay mechanics must be considered while creating the game engine.

    I wouldnt say that DoW2 was bad game but I simply think a possible DoW3 game should be more similiar to DoW1 to have better distinction between CoH and DoW games.
  • #34
    10 years ago
    GorbGorb Posts: 66
    @Charerg:

    Each faction has typically up to two resources, one of which primarily powers units, the other powers armour and researches or upgrades. This is an RTS trope and applies for the DoW, Starcraft and Command & Conquer series.

    Each faction can build units. Units are of a specific size. Note that Command & Conquer have squads with individual targeting just like DoW and CoH do. Starcraft 2 was designed as a carbon-copy of Starcraft, and thus uses the single-entity design that was around in 1999.

    A lot of RTS games tend to have the concept of armour types and damage types. Relic's games tend to be by far the most complex, and that's why I like them, but to say they deviate from the standard model is to not recognise the standard model.

    There are two advances that DoW made to the traditional formula, which I've already mentioned. Melee combat, and moving resource generation out of the player's base. That is it, with regards to direct gameplay. There are a number of advances under-the-hood, so to speak.

    @Raindrop:

    Bugs with Retreat are bugs with the pathfinding engine, as I've already said. Please read my posts if you're actually going to debate this.

    There are no inherent issues with Retreat; it exists in CoH and CoH 2. The lethality of the mechanic varies from game to game (as CoH completely lacks melee combat, this makes it simpler in that regard).
  • #35
    10 years ago
    RennerRenner Posts: 642
    Gorb wrote: »

    There are no inherent issues with Retreat; it exists in CoH and CoH 2. The lethality of the mechanic varies from game to game (as CoH completely lacks melee combat, this makes it simpler in that regard).
    True, but I understand his wish for the future DoW (if it ever gets released) to be more distinct from the current DoW2 and CoH1/2 titles. Original had morale, and when it breaks fighting capability is next to nil but unit is moving a lot faster, thus giving it an opportunity to retreat, it would be dumb having both of these mechanics unless they redesign morale somehow (I'm not 100% familiar with the rulebook, but I think its dumb that something without a soul, as Necrons, can have a morale break).
  • #36
    10 years ago
    @ Gorb:

    Seriously, because DoW I has two resources, it plays like StarCraft or CnC? All those three games have very distinct gameplay from each other. It's also worth pointing out that only released CnC that has squads instead of individual soldiers is CnC 3 (also CnC games have only 1 resource usually...Tiberium for example).

    I think you're generalizing waaayyyy too much here. DoW 1 introduced squad based gameplay into RTS as far as I know, besides, it still has stuff like reinforcing anywhere on the map that makes for drastically different gameplay.

    Anyway, back to DoW 3 discussion.

    I think it's definitely worth considering the removal of the Retreat mechanic in favour of, for example, the ability for most infantry units to Sprint. This is a bit of a Tabletop influenced suggestion, but it is certainly logical and would allow for a mechanic that is more flexible than Retreat, although also somewhat more demanding in terms of micro (not necessarily a bad thing).

    I think it's also worth considering the ability to "Hit the Dirt" becoming a standard ability for "basic infantry" such as Guardsmen or SM Scouts (Perhaps not power armoured marines since it would seem kinda weird seeing them going to ground). This would essentially provide a bonus to cover in exchange for mobility.
  • #37
    10 years ago
    GorbGorb Posts: 66
    I said the base mechanics of an RTS were in place, I didn't say the game itself plays like other games. I'm sorry if you assumed that from what I wrote.

    CnC has Power as well, by the by.

    With regards to replacing mechanics, that's an entirely different talk to cutting mechanics because people think they're dumb. To say whether or not Retreat is valid in the first place, we'd first have to decide what DoW III will be.

    Will it have a developed single player campaign? Will single player be different in terms of base mechanics to multiplayer? Will multiplayer be a stripped-down single player (for the sake of balance)? What will the scale be like? Will there be multiple perspectives of the same battlefield (see: Planetary Annihilation, and to a lesser extent the two-screen support for Supreme Commander)?

    There are far too many questions at this stage. You're either taking DoW and saying "what do we change?" (answer: a lot :P). Or DoW II (answer: still change a lot). Or CoH (answer: change a lot and put it in space). You can't examine a mechanic from DoW II in isolation and say "so in DoW III, a game we know nothing about and haven't developed any kind of idea about, Retreat won't work".

    What would you want DoW III to be? Start from scratch, don't think about cloning DoW II and changing stuff. Don't think about cloning CoH and changing stuff.

    @Renner: I agree, and to do that we need to break free of relying on the older games in the series.

    If a DoW III game manages to recapture the feeling of Warhammer that is present in both DoW and DoW II (for me, at least), then that will be enough. It doesn't need to be the same game(s).
  • #38
    10 years ago
    It's a fairly safe bet that if DoW III is made, the basic gameplay will share similarities with previous generation Relic RTS's. Which is to say, infantry squads will still be a crucial part of the game, the backbone of the gameplay, so to speak.

    As to what I'd like the game to be, Relic should set out to create a RTS game, and that includes both single player and multiplayer. That doesn't mean that there shouldn't be characters and story to single-player, and some missions that change things, but basically single player should utilize the same tech-trees, same units and same factions as multiplayer (apart from some campagin-only units maybe).

    Next, multiple perspectives. Again, the players likely want a game that will carry on the legacy of DoW and CoH series, and therefore we won't be changing the game to Supreme Commander. This means a single perspective.

    So in a sense, what I want from DoW III is to continue the evolution of this branch of RTS games, not an entirely new direction. As such, it makes sense to build on existing mechanics. However, I would like to see the game have scale closer to DoW 1 than DoW 2 or CoH. In practice, this would mean something like a dozen units at the field being fairly common. However, it's important not to lose the engaging squad based gameplay and the importance of tactical choices (so Cover and Positioning should remain important).

    Essentially the goal of DoW III for me is to keep the strength of Relic RTS's (tactical depth) while working to implement increased "strategic depth" into the gameplay (lack of strategic depth being imo the main flaw of Relic RTS's). Of course I'm not the person calling out the shots, but this is the direction I'd like to see the game take.

    In practice this would mean the implemention of a non-linear tech-tree, so base building would play a role to some extent. Also, including a wide variety of unit types, such as Skimmers working as fast attack units, Artillery and so forth. Possibly air units would play some role (at least as call-ins). The resource system is another important factor I'd consider, though I don't have any suggestions on that front (designing a functional resource system is probably one of the more challenging parts of creating a RTS).
  • #39
    10 years ago
    GorbGorb Posts: 66
    Squad-based gameplay is here to stay, yes. But that alone doesn't make or break Retreat. Map size, squad sizes, amount of squads fieldable . . . these are all design choices with impact on actual gameplay.

    Anyhow, let's take your idea and run with it. You seem to be the exact opposite of what I want from the franchise, which is interesting (I like discussing opposite viewpoints!) :)

    Your preference for SP is that of Dark Crusade and Soulstorm, very similar to MP barring certain scripted Stronghold levels. DoW and WA had heavily-scripted campaigns that didn't always reflect MP gameplay.

    You wish to carry on a legacy, but please bear in mind that carrying on a legacy does not mean investigating new ways to display information. The only reason Starcraft 2 is a successful game is because of the brand name. In itself it is a moderately-decent RTS with a great set of single player missions backed up by questionable new unit design and balance. Starcraft 3 is unnecessary at this point. The game has evolved itself into a dead end (don't get me wrong - it's a solid game still).

    If you wish for a larger unit count (or one more comparable to DoW), but you wish for strategic decisions to remain important . . . how would you design this? How would you stop sniper or artillery units from gaining too much dominance? How strong would terrain effects be (bearing in mind terrain is far more important in CoH and DoW II than it is in DoW)?

    With regards to resources, I think at the very least Requisition and Power are here to stay. We can assume that much safely. We can assume that point capture will exist in some form, and this will yield benefits of some kind.

    What do you have in mind for a non-linear tech tree? How expansive do you want this to be? For example, Sword of the Stars has an incredibly divergent set of parallel tech trees - is this the kind of research/technology depth you are looking for?

    How long do you think a standard 1 vs. 1 skirmish should last for? How does map size factor into this? Will a player be able to field all of his units in a normal 1 vs. 1 skirmish, or would he only be able to do this on the larger maps (or with more time, as 1v1 games tend to be shorter than 2v2 and up)?
  • #40
    10 years ago
    Well, first off I should clarify a little what I meant regarding single player. Essentially there are a lot of players who don't play multiplayer (or play it to a very limited extent only), so to compete DoW III should include a solid campaign. Now, I do actually prefer "scripted missions" and a campaign that tells a single story over a campaign like DC with multile endings and essentially normal skirmish games (though DC fortress battles were pretty good).

    Another good example is CoH Vanilla campaign, which imo is probably the best campaign seen so far in Relic's games. Great mission design and challenging missions, solid AI.

    DoW 2 campaign on the other hand, I didn't enjoy a lot. I found the gameplay to be really repetitive overall. Especially in Vanilla DoW 2 every mission involves clearing the map of rather dumb mobs of enemies who passively wait to get killed, and ends in a boss battle. The only really great moment in DoW 2 campaign that comes to mind is the opening part of the final mission, when the player is fighting a last stand thinking that he's going to die for sure, then the orbital bombardment begins and drop pods rain down. Unfortunately even that is ruined by the marines who just dropped in being uncontrollable and passive, just standing where they drop shooting some 'Nids that spawn endlessly against them. Meanwhile the player has to kill YET ANOTHER BOSS,,,,yeah. If only that "last stand" followed by orbital drop of a SM company would've been the first mission and not the last...

    As to SC2...I'm not entirely sure if it's success is entirely due to brand. While I personally prefer Relic's RTS's over SC 2 (at least as a multiplayer game) a lot of players seem to disagree. And it is a very high quality game, even if you or I might wish for it to be more like DoW (and no doubt Supreme Commander fans wanted SC2 to be more like their favourite RTS). Though I do kind of agree with you that it does feel more like an expansion pack than a new game, they could've at least added a 4th race or something.

    Since this post is getting kind of long I'll post some thoughts about DoW 3 gameplay at some later date.
  • #41
    10 years ago
    RennerRenner Posts: 642
    Yeah, too many stuff to take in consideration. But relaying on previous titles isn't a bad idea, taking the best from them, including some elements from Homeworld games (space battles).

    I also have nothing against current 40k presentation, its all nicely designed, nice colour pattern, but there's a couple of problems. I think that atmosphere should be darker, that feel from the intro movie (DoW2) was perfect. Although mission areas were various (jungle, desert, urban areas, and later snow maps in CR), I got tired with that industrial Angel Gate all over the place theme over time, I missed that Gothic feeling from the original, with destroyed monasteries around. I also need to mention that genius design of the final mission from WA, and Titan parts all over the map.

    Who knows, maybe the next step would be a total removal of strategic/requisition points, we have now capture areas around those in CoH2, maybe in DoW3 we only need to walk into a sector to start capping it, and building turrets to guard it. Some sectors could be housing important assets (Victory Points, or some replacement for those).

    I like the idea of the upcoming Titanfall, which doesn't have SP at all, its all focused on MP with living players, with additional NPC characters. I think its an interesting idea and worth exploring in other genres.

    What bothers me the most are those heavy layoffs which Relic suffered from THQ. How they will affect their future projects, what would be if some people stayed, what decisions they would make and how those would affect the final product. Sure, no one is irreplaceable, but I don't really like when the studio behind one of my favourite games is decimated like that. Remains to be seen.
  • #42
    10 years ago
    GorbGorb Posts: 66
    An important few points:
    1. Single Player is an important part of an immersive game if you don't have the funding and development time to develop a persistent online experience.

    2. A large Single Player mode will take resources from Multiplayer. The opposite also applies.

    3. Less people play Single Player than you think, however more people are likely to play Single Player X years after the game has released (as Multiplayer will die out).

    Point 3. is backed up by all of the Steam games that have Single Player achievements. As an example, Borderlands 2. 82.5% of players have completed the first mission. 35.5% of people have completed the last story mission (excluding DLC). This is a Single Player game.
  • #43
    10 years ago
    RennerRenner Posts: 642
    Gorb wrote: »

    3. Less people play Single Player than you think, however more people are likely to play Single Player X years after the game has released (as Multiplayer will die out).[/indent]

    Point 3. is backed up by all of the Steam games that have Single Player achievements. As an example, Borderlands 2. 82.5% of players have completed the first mission. 35.5% of people have completed the last story mission (excluding DLC). This is a Single Player game.
    Sure, that's one of the reasons why Titanfall doesn't have SP, or why no one gives a damn about SP in Battlefield 3 and 4 (besides their lousy quality). But yeah, even dedicated SP game doesn't have a large percentage of completion, which is lame. Heck, even uber Batman Arkham City has only 29%, but partially to blame could be now expelled GFWL, and its corrupting of saves.

    However, nice story, with characters greater than life, proper plot twist, and variety is always welcome. I spent a lot of time in DoW2, and finished the campaign several times because it was always interesting to try different squad upgrades, and XP investments. You could even turn tac squad into melee unit, or assault squad into ranged unit. Unfortunately, I had to use *cough* "unofficial" copy, because no matter what I couldn't save games properly with that miscreant GFWL. That's why I'm hoping they'll remove it in the future so that I can spend some time in originals and unlock some achievements.
  • #44
    10 years ago
    Imo, a full price RTS should pretty much include both multiplayer and single player, and not focus exclusively on either aspect of the game. Sometimes it's even possible to have an enjoyable campaign without investing a lot of resources in it, at least in terms of story.

    An example would be DoW 1 Vanilla, which has a pretty good campaign imo, even though it doesn't necessarily have the most advanced missions or even tons of cutscenes. The campaign is enjoyable because the story progresses at a good pace, offers different opponents, and it all makes sense. Another aspect of DoW 1 campaign that is great imo, is that it takes place on a single planet and Gabriel's briefings before missions explain the general situation on the planet, so the player gets the feeling that his missions are part of a greater whole and not just in isolation. It also gives the operations of the Blood Ravens a strategic context.

    An opposite example would be SC 2, which does have tons of cutscenes and great mission design. While this does make for an enjoyable experience playing through the campaign, imo SC 2 kind of fails in the story department. This is where the "choice is good" principle doesn't necessarily work in a RTS campaign. Basically the story falls short and ends up feeling like a bunch of missions thrown together, since you jump from planet to planet all the time and you can do the missions in whatever order you like. Basically you can sum up three quartes of Wings of Liberty campaign as "collecting some artefacts". Then when the Terrans strike against Char the campaign starts to feel like you're actually doing something important.

    To give an example of a succesful way to implement "choices" in RTS campaigns, I think the choice should be "built-in" various missions as strategic choices. To give an example from a classical game, in SC: Brood War there's a mission where you lay siege to Korhal, and you get to choose whether to take out the enemy nuke silos or their battlecruisers. Then in the next mission, you'll either face nukes or battlecruisers depending on which you considered to be "the lesser evil".

    Personally I thought DoW 2 also suffers to an extent from the same problem as SC 2, that you end up playing a bunch of "filler missions" instead of actually important missions and making somewhat trivial decisions. Imo this does break up the story line, and the game might be better off with a more linear mission lineup that would allow for a more engaging storyline.

    EDIT: Ok, here are some ideas for DoW 3 Tech-tree. I'll use SM as a "template race".

    First off, I think the doctrine/commander system from CoH would be interesting to see in a 40k context, and it provides a way to expand the game later, as well as offer new "doctrines" as DLC. However, since the game will include more races than CoH, the amount of doctrines/commanders per race won't be as large (perhaps only 3 per race at launch).

    So, to give some examples, here are some SM "Rites of War":
    1. Armoured Spearhead (a doctrine that is focused on SM armour)
    2. Orbital Assault (airstrikes, drop pods)
    3. First Company Support (focuses on elite infantry)

    In this post, I'll just discuss Tier 1 and how could a greater variety of potential build orders be implemented. First off, since this is more of a "medium scale RTS" (if you consider CoH and DoW 2 "small scale"), some kind of light vehicles could be implemented at an early stage in the game.

    So, as SM are a generalist race, they should have a variety of tactical options. Here are some build orders/strategies that should be possible:

    1) Economy centric strategy (a defensive build that focuses on improving economy early game and capitalizing on it late game....the game's resource system should be flexible enough to make this an option)
    2) Heavy harassment build order (focused on disrupting enemy economy, utilizing scouts and possibly assault marines)
    3) Brute force (spam of early game units focused on achieving early game dominance)

    Note that the player shouldn't have enough resources at start to make the choice of strategy immediate (giving the opponent time to scout what his opponent is doing). The player's base should also be vulnerable to both scouting and harassing, even rushing (though of course provide bonuses to the defender), thus making it a potential target (it should be a high risk target, though).

    An early concept for the T1 tech could be:
    HQ:
    Scouts (harassment and support unit, still fairly powerful, medium infantry, primarily ranged)
    Tactical Marines (shock unit, good at both melee and ranged, heavy infatry)

    Battle Company Barracks:
    Commander Unit (perhaps doctrine-specific, requiring a certain doctrine or just a generic SM Captain)
    Rhino APC (light vehicle, allows for early game mobility, necessary because of larger maps)

    Reserve Company Barracks:
    Assault Marines (fast attack unit, heavy infantry, more of a mobility/heavy harassment kind of role than pure assault)
    Devastator Marines (heavy fire support, also fulfill an anti-vehicle role)

    Essentially the idea is that you can stick to just the HQ and spam Tacs & Scouts, or tech up to either branch of T1.5.

    Next, I'll further cover what are the dynamics between various units and how they differ:
    First, let's go with the idea that most infantry units are capable of both Running (exchanging attack for mobility) and Going to Ground (exchanging mobility for cover bonus).

    Light Infantry can both Go to Ground and Run
    Medium Infantry can both Go to Ground and Run
    Heavy Infantry can Run
    Super Heavy Infantry can neither Run nor Go to Ground

    Furthermore, with the inclusion of early game vehicles, it's necessary to expand vehicle armour to 3 armour types (Light, Medium and Heavy)

    So, Scouts are medium infantry, a versatile unit that is capable of holding their own at ranged. Tacs on the other hand are the "melee counter" in this concept build, essentially a shock unit similar to something like PGrens at CoH 2 in role. Tacs can switch their bolters from "normal fire" to "rapid fire". Rapid fire drastically decreases range in exchange for rate of fire. So, to sum up, Tacs are at their most effective at close range firefights.

    Assault marines are fairly self-explanatory. Devastators are fairly self-explanatory too, though it's worth noting that heavy bolters are effective against light vehicles in this concept build, so they can be used to counter early game vehicles.

    Ok, that turned out to be quite the wall of text, so props to anyone who reads through it all!
  • #45
    10 years ago
    GorbGorb Posts: 66
    Command Doctrines in DoW are something that have been long-suggested! :)

    What is wrong with the Commander mechanic as it exists in DoW II instead? Both have their advantages and disadvantages, naturally.

    What would the Space Marines be weak to? How tough would their units be in comparison to the other races? How would this affect their ability to "turtle" to gain resources?

    How do you balance large, cheap squads of fodder in melee against a small, elite unit? Bear in mind possible pathfinding issues.
  • #46
    10 years ago
    I think one of the big problems with the commander mechanic in DoW is balance related. First off, the fact that you choose the commander before the game creates a wide variety of match-ups. It is practically impossible to balance all these match-ups. So, letting the player choose the "doctrine" later on makes for a more robust system. For example, if Doctrine A is terrible on a particular map, or against a particular race, you're not stuck with it, you can choose the doctrine that suits the situation. The challenge here is how much effect should the doctrines have, and how much of the unit variety of a given race should be "built-in".

    Also, I wanted to re-introduce the DoW 1 mechanic of heroes being optional. Ofc you do usually see them every game, but even so they're not compulsory. This also goes with the larger scale of the game, and heroes having less of an impact as a result. Still, heroes should be very customizable in role. So, at least some hero units should be doctrine-related, and they should have a choice of wargear.

    To sum up, I think the doctrine mechanic is somewhat more flexible and better suited to a larger scale game.

    It's a bit early to start thinking what would SM be weak to. And it's not a good idea to design a race as a whole to be weak against something. Yes, the units should have weaknesses, but the race shouldn't necessarily have a specific weakness.

    As to large squads, first off, relatively small squads are preferable because large squads cause pathing issues. The maximum squad size I'd use is 10 models for something like Guardsmen. SM squads would be 5 models strong. As to large, cheap squads of fodder overwhelming a small elite unit....I'm not sure if there's any special balancing required here. Everything depends on just how expensive these squads are relative to each other, and what are their roles (especially their role in the context of their associated races).

    Finally, it's a bit early at this point to compare SM toughness to other races, but they would probably have the toughest units in the game. Just how tough depends on what the other races might be and how they're intended to play. Turtling isn't really a tactic that should be encouraged, though economy should be important, and therefore the player should have the option of investing in economy to gain a long-term benefit instead of the immediate benefit of buying more units. This is ofc to some extent a feature of just about every RTS (including DoW II), but what I wish to add here is more flexibilty to the economic model, essentially some ways of influencing the requisition income through investment, and not just map control.

    An early concept for a resource system could be that the primary resource (requisition) should be relatively easy to access, but also easy to harass and require an investment to generate maximum income. The advanced resource (power) should be largely map based and require an investment to gain any form of income at all.

    So essentially an early game resource-centric strategy could be to buy only basic units for map control and to provide a backbone army, then invest in improved economy, possibly some form of static defence to provide a fallback point and protect your vulnerable resource-investment. This static defence would generally be something like minefields, relatively cheap and primarily intended to slow down the enemy force so your forces can respond. The resource investment might be in the primary resource (requisition) with the aim of winning the war of attrition in the early-mid game thanks to your improved income. Or it could be an early power income, to quickly gain access to some more advanced units, like maybe 2xAssault Marines in the concept tech-tree.

    The degree of just how much investment a player could make into economy in relative safety and still have the capability to defend himself is ofc a matter of careful balancing. StarCraft would be an example of a game where this dynamic of either investing in economy and risking being overwhelmed or investing in army and risk your opponent getting a resource advantage (the resource advantage potentially snowballing over the course of the game) works pretty well.

    EDIT: That said, generally speaking SM should work best at large groups, much as they do in previous DoW games. As an elite race, their army tends to increase vastly in effectiveness once concentrated. The goal of the SM player would generally be to keep their army together and force confrontations by applying pressure. On the other hand, the opposing player would often be forced to use "divide and conquer" or use harassment and hit-and-run tactics to defeat a large SM army instead of trying to face it head-on.
  • #47
    10 years ago
    GorbGorb Posts: 66
    Going to break this up into points otherwise I'll end up writing (more of) an essay! :D

    1. I agree that the balance implications of picking a Commander are severe and, if unbalanced, can decide games before they even start. However, I don't think this in itself is a bad idea.

    Command Doctrines are a lot more flexible - they give the player more "safety" if they make a bad pick. But shouldn't this be a part of playing the game? If you're caught out with a bad set of Doctrines, or with a bad Commander - shouldn't that be your fault? It's similar the the DotA (MOBA) games and how competitive/professional-level games put a lot of emphasis on the picking stage (it's a part of the "game"). This makes more sense if you believe that DoW II was originally designed with MOBA-like gameplay in mind (according to rumours/interviews).

    Personally I like the actual impact a Commander has. Maybe you could advance the picking mode to include a "pool" of Commanders, or maybe your first and second choices only.

    2. I like my heroes (cue back to us having different views on the game), btu I can see where you're coming from with regards to a larger-scaled game.

    3. How do you balance (in terms of base design, not fine numbers) 5 super-elite super-tough Space Marines against 10 dudes that are basically fodder? Do you make them really fast to build? If so, how do you prevent them from winning via point capture?

    This is something that DoW II struggled with (but I thought handled alright in the end), but only worked because of the smaller scale of the game.

    4. I dislike the idea of being able to invest in an economy if the races are wildly different in terms of toughness. This is why DoW was closer to the "standard model" - all races were relatively the same level of toughness. Yes, some units died faster, but units in general died pretty quickly - compare this to DoW II where killing one Tactical Marine was a severe setback for the SM player.

    5. I dislike SM being able to work well in groups. This design philosophy promotes "blobbing" and reduces the tactical importance of positioning your units. You're forcing other races to utilise "hit and run" and to be careful, but the Space Marines can just roll all their units together and steamroll the map one area at a time.

    Yes, they may lose the capping war, but this isn't very fun in terms of gameplay and why DoW II was criticised a lot before the large balance changes that started with Patch 1.4 (There Is Only War).
  • #48
    10 years ago
    1. Well, I'm not saying that the hero mechanic is outright terrible, but I think if you actually want to balance your game, you'll have to design it in a way that that you can reach that goal. Limiting the game's matchup to a manageable number certainly makes the job easier.

    Expanding on the commander system and introducing some MOBA elements to commander selection might work if the game was designed to be similar to DoW II in scale, but then again, in my concept I'm going with a bit of a mix of DoW 1 and 2 when it comes to commanders. Since commanders are bought instead of free, some races can have more powerful ones than others, which is another interesting element.

    3. Yes, basically more expensive squads would take slightly longer to build. As to map control, that is also vastly dependent on map design, but essentially you need to make scout-based builds (that can match the opponent in terms of number of squads) viable enough that they can be utilized in larger maps. Other tools the SM player could use for map control are the Rhino or ASM.

    If swift build time becomes an issue, you could also introduce build time scaling (the unit taking longer to build, the more you have them). For example, 1st Guardsmen squad taking 10 sec to build, 2nd one 15 secs, and so forth. I doubt this will be necessary though, since SM Tier 1 has enough variety not to force the player into specific builds, and it's not a mechanic I would put in unless really necessary.

    4. I don't understand what the toughness of races has to do with economy. StarCraft has widely varying toughness between various races' units, and it works just fine despite the importance of economy in the game.

    5. Generally elite armies tend to increase expotentially in effectiveness once they reach "critical mass". Note that this isn't necessarily a design feature, but rather something that is characteristic of elite armies. Also, SM units are in many cases designed to complement each other, which again means they work best when supported. This is also true in modern DoW II, and not necessarily only of SM. That doesn't mean they move in a blob (the game should have artillery powerful enough to deter players from doing this), but rather in close vicinity of each other.

    You're right that in some cases countering the SM IF they're able to reach "critical mass" probably would require greater micro and effort from the opposing player. However, SM tend to be by design a relatively forgiving race (tough, flexible units). And it's not necessary to design all races to take the same amount of micro (though I agree that there shouldn't be too much of a difference in terms of micro required).

    In any case, I think racial diversity is an important concern, and therefore different races should be played with different tactics. That isn't to say that something like Eldar should be completely unable to take the SM head-on, but generally their "racial strength" would be in taking advantage of their mobility and force the opponent to react to Eldar moves, dictating the pace of the game. This sort of strategy (using webways, generally avoiding combat if in unfavourable position, hit-and-run attacks) tend to be also somewhat "annoying" to play against.

    In any case, "annoying" is a rather subjective term here. Imo, as long as a certain tactic has an effective counter, there's not really a problem with it. Snipers in CoH can be annoying to play against too, does that mean that they should be removed?
    I don't see any problems with playing against a concentrated force as long as this tactic has counters like artillery.

    In 1.4, Tac blob prevalence was affected by a lot of factors like generally weak vehicles (not in all cases), Tac marine armour type (being standard inf with piles of HP meant that heavy infantry counters didn't necessarily get bonuses against them) and so forth. I don't think the design of the game's tech-trees in 1.4 was necessarily flawed, just in many cases races were pigeon-holed to certain strategies because most of their units were underpowered. With the exception of tyranids, who didn't really have any useless units, and did enjoy from a pretty broad choice of strategies (even some questionable ones like Ripper spam).

    So generally the races suffered from poor internal balance (note that There Is Only War didn't necessarily change that, or even make the game more balanced overall...with Speed 9 Predators and 3xSlugga melee spam openings).

    Another factor in favour of tac spam was the game's leveling system, which obviously favours elite units. This is another area of the game that has a large impact on gameplay, and is pretty hard to balance. As I recall, I personally had little problems countering Tacs at Lvl 1, but once they start leveling up, the dynamics of guardian vs tacs, slugga vs tac, and so forth, change.

    Countering lvl 1 tacs with ~1200 HP (I think they had 400 hp per model and standard infantry armor type) is quite different from countering lvl 4 tacs with ~1800 HP without Sergeant (who dish out more damage on top of that). This is why CoH's veterancy dynamics tend to be slightly better balanced, as they don't just provide a flat 15% buff to both damage and survivability, but rather the benefits differ between unit types.
  • #49
    10 years ago
    I'm 100% on your side Renner (Deutscher?:D) !
  • #50
    10 years ago
    RennerRenner Posts: 642
    (Deutscher?:D)
    Nah. I'm often asked that.
  • #51
    10 years ago
    NounNoun Posts: 285
    Renner wrote: »
    For now I'm gonna be happy if you just patch out GFWL from DoW2 and Chaos Rising, so that your customers doesn't have to use 3rd party solutions to be able to even play a game.

    We're aware of the GFWL shutdown coming in July. We also want to keep our older games active and going for the players. Look at the work we did to keep the original Company of Heroes working after our Quazal server shutdown.

    However we currently don't have anything to announce on that end.

    In terms of DoW 3 we don't have anything to announce as well. As Renner pointed out we have the rights to our backcatalouge of 40K games (DoW, DoW 2 and Space Marine) but do not have the rights to make new ones. For that we would need to make a new agreement with GW.

    Please don't call each other stupid. I don't want to activate an army of Bronies from the Space Marine forums to flood this thread.

    Are Bronies still a thing?
  • #52
    10 years ago
    Noun wrote: »
    Please don't call each other stupid. I don't want to activate an army of Bronies from the Space Marine forums to flood this thread.

    Are Bronies still a thing?
    We came as soon as we heard.
  • #53
    10 years ago
    Noun wrote: »

    In terms of DoW 3 we don't have anything to announce as well. As Renner pointed out we have the rights to our backcatalouge of 40K games (DoW, DoW 2 and Space Marine) but do not have the rights to make new ones. For that we would need to make a new agreement with GW.

    So this confirms that atleast Relics next game wont be Dow3, unless Relic started to work on a game they lack the license for.
  • #54
    10 years ago
    RennerRenner Posts: 642
    Raindrop wrote: »

    So this confirms that atleast Relics next game wont be Dow3, unless Relic started to work on a game they lack the license for.
    CoH2 expansion, most likely. It would be interesting to something else. Its really lame time, they only have the licence for CoH, and to support their older 40k games. GW is giving the licence left and right, Gearbox got HW, Impossible Creatures are in limbo... Nvm, though. Not that I complain. DoW and CoH games are just fine.
  • #55
    10 years ago
    Renner wrote: »
    CoH2 expansion, most likely. It would be interesting to something else. Its really lame time, they only have the licence for CoH, and to support their older 40k games. GW is giving the licence left and right, Gearbox got HW, Impossible Creatures are in limbo... Nvm, though. Not that I complain. DoW and CoH games are just fine.


    As far as I know only a part of Relic's team works on addons while the rest works on a new game.
  • #56
    10 years ago
    RennerRenner Posts: 642
    Raindrop wrote: »


    As far as I know only a part of Relic's team works on addons while the rest works on a new game.
    Yeah, I heard about "The Next Team" which producer mentioned in that interview in SNF, along with DLC team, and patching/support team. But we can only speculate what they are developing.
  • #57
    10 years ago
    Renner wrote: »
    Yeah, I heard about "The Next Team" which producer mentioned in that interview in SNF, along with DLC team, and patching/support team. But we can only speculate what they are developing.

    Well, I did not watch the SNF cast, tho I was reading on Relic news or the Dawn of war forums dunno which one it was, a thread that Relic has a team of slightly more then 100 members and that only a part of the team works on addons, while the rest focuses on new games.

    DoW finished > Started to work on CoH > CoH finished > Started to work on DoW2 > DoW2 finished > Started to work on Space Marine > Space Marine finished > Started to work Coh2 (there was mostly a 2 year gap between this games).

    This means they probably already started to work on a new project. Ofcourse we can only speculate what their next game will be, it probably wont be DoW3 since it would be pointless to start to work on a game you arent allowed to release in the end.

    Overall im interrested whats Relics new project, the battle servers are going to be part in their new project.

    Back on the Dow3 topic/wishlist this vid shows quite nicely the scale i would would like to see DoW3 minus the OP's of SM's, like for example 5 member space marine combat squads.

  • #58
    7 years ago
    RennerRenner Posts: 642

    Well, it seems to be the time to revive this now ancient thread, especially because DoW2 forums are nuked atm (probably another relaunch for tomorrows announcement):

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l_YLkIjJtbg

    So, looks like the big moment is upon us. I truly hope that I'm not hyping myself over nothing.

Sign In or Register to comment.

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

  • © SEGA. SEGA, the SEGA logo, Relic Entertainment, the Relic Entertainment logo, Company of Heroes and the Company of Heroes logo are either trademarks or registered trademarks of SEGA Holdings Co., Ltd. or its affiliates. All rights reserved. SEGA is registered in the US Patent and Trademark Office. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners.

DeutschEnglishEspañolFrançaisItalianoРусский