Printable View
But you have to do this and more in old style RTS games too. You have to constantly build workers, take expansions and watch them against any attacks(such as a a reaver drop in the midddle of your workers).Quote:
Originally Posted by Navaros
The DOW style games take out just the "building workers"part. And as a result you can concentrate on your army and battle more.
How can DoW and CoH be considered 'revolutionary' when they had #*#*#*#* restrictions on where you could build your base that could never be changed!?
You definitely do have to build peon workers in DoW and micro them to every freakin' point on the map and constantly be babysitting them. Building and microing workers in DoW is probably the most cumbersome and aggravating worker gameplay RTS mechanic ever designed. True that in "old style" RTS'es you have to defend your workers, no doubt. But you get to do that that via microing combat-effective units to defend them instead of spending much of your time microing the workers themselves.Quote:
Originally Posted by Komutan
The difference is in old style RTS games you dont have to manually micro your workers all across the map constantly and then do nothing but waiting and watching them (feels like watching grass grow!) til your resource income hits the specified number to fortify a resource point; when you can then start building with that worker. Only to then have to repeat the whole process again several times per game --- like you do in DoW. And of course if you need "new" workers in DoW because the one you had ready got killed, you have to micro the new ones starting from way back at your central base. Whereas in old style RTS games getting a new worker from the base to resources is not so much of a pain since they are much more closeby. DoW is the RTS King of constant, necessary peon worker micro-mangement. Which detracts a lot from and sucks away a ton of legitmate, fun gameplay time that could have come from micro-managing combat-effective units.
Of course, it seemed among the majority of DoW players they set their games with unlimited resources right off the bat and therefore bypassed all those annoyances - and the entire "resource collection & being limited by the resources you have" aspect of the game. Which of course, were not the settings that game was designed around or balanced for. I would think the annoying "constantly micro a peon worker to every point on the map in DoW" gameplay was a factor in determining that preference among most players.
I am curious how the other DoW players in this thread found microing the peon workers in the described ways to be fun?
Also agree that holding critical points is vital to every RTS, DoW was no different and didn't bring anything new to the table whatsoever in this regard.
I've got to agree with Navaros here, the main weakness of DOW is building listening posts, they should be entirely optional imo, and not grant additional resources, just defense.
I also agree that the DoW/CoH style resource gathering mechanic is a bit contrived, and especially in DoW the building and managing of listening posts gets old real fast. CoH is better in this regard, you actually need to prioritise - more listening posts is not always better, since manpower comes in at a much more constant rate than in DoW. And thankfully there's no need to upgrade your listening posts constantly.
CoH's basebuilding is nicely streamlined, and that's a good thing in my opinion. Extensive basebuilding is not a very good mechanic in terrain-grabbing/skirmish games. The more strategic gameplay of TA/SupCom accommodates basebuilding better, since you can have very powerful base defenses without degenerating to turtling too much.
And what's this about not micromanaging workers in Starcraft? Pretty much all base and resource management takes a lot of microing, and the "waiting to get resources to build more" -bit is definitely not absent in SC, quite the opposite actually. I'm not saying that it's a bad thing though, it's effective use of your "attention" resource. ~;p
Lets say you are playing Protosss in Starcraft.
For each fully functional expansion base:
1- You send a worker to the spot to build a nexus and wait for the nexus to finish before you can start producing workers there.
2- You build an assimilator and a few photon cannons and pylons.
3- You make around 20 workers(assuming it is a standart resource spot) and send each of them to work yourself(giving resource nodes as rally points does not work in SC).
4- You constantly watch your expansions against an attack that can't be handled by your few defensive structures.
Now, how is this less micro intensive than sending your workers(of which you can't have more than 4) to make a single listening post on each resource point in DOW and COH? Mind you, the captured points generate resources even without building a listening post on them. The function of workers in COH/DOW is building, not resource collecting.
Less micro? You're building a base, in your example! In DoW/CoH, you've got to do that much work to secure the equivalent of a single mineral point...
Why, then, are there arbitary limits on base location?Quote:
The function of workers in COH/DOW is building, not resource collecting.
I think both the SC/C&C style resource collecting system and the DoW/CoH system are interesting and worth more exploration by the games industry. My main problem with the DoW system was that it was impossible to defend every point at once and enemies could simply bypass any point they wanted and capture and use one in your rear. CoH was a huge improvement on this flaw, IMO, because it really requires you to take territory in a logical and continuous fashion, if you actually want to keep it. This is far more realistic than the rush to see who has the most efficient build technique.
In addition, I really dislike the limited resources aspect of the SC/C&C system. Finite resources only encourage the rush strategy, which is one of the most pointless and least fun methods of game playing out there. Who wants to play a game of Risk where the game is won or lost by a first turn blitz? Ug...
Unlimited resources that require strategic defense and attack decisions, combined with tactical placement of units and structures, is the best way to achieve a truly exciting strategy game. If there's one thing the DoW/CoH system has show us, it is that there is plenty of room for new ideas on how to approach RTS mechanics. Hopefully development will continue to innovate, even if the innovations are not always in the right direction.
Rise of Nations is the best, no doubt about it :bow:
Hmm...I might actually like this one...
I enjoyed the Battle Realms system of resource gathering. You had two infinite resources: rice and water - and you told your peasants to collect rice or collect water, and you could also tell them to water the rice to make it grow back faster.
You could also automate the training of units, which was the biggest plus of their system. If I'm micromanaging a battle, I don't want to have keep going back to the base, clicking on a building, and then clicking on a train unit icon.
I haven't played DoW or CoH so I don't know how those compare.
Having unlimited resource access however helps to turtle alot better. Granted, if you are turtling, your enemies will probably have higher resource collection rates, but you have no fear of having resources run out. The SC and C&C style makes it harder for turtlers since you must expand by mid game or you will be out of resources hence encouraging battles out in the land instead of just having one player siege the other's main base as the besieged player frantically stalls as they get out an uber army
I don't think the best way to deter turtling is through resource management though. I think that could be accomplished by changing gameplay in other ways.
While we're on systems of resource gathering, I think that Supreme Commander's got it just about right. Both resources - mass and power - can be generated anywhere on the map, as long as you have the infrastructure. However, capturing mass points is critical in the early game, as they take far less power (1 power unit per mass unit rather than 40 for the stand alone ones).
Add in synergies with buildings (construction cost is reduced when you're near resources; shields take less to power etc) and it's pretty well balanced for both offender and defender...
Why are there arbitrary limits on the range or damage of a unit?Quote:
Originally Posted by sapi
Limiting things serves to add strategical depth to a game.
In DOW/COH, production times are relatively fast, so you don't need to make more than one building of a type to produce your army anyway(in SC I sometimes built 16 gateways). So the only thing the location of your buildings effects is that your units need some time to reach the front lines. And this brings just another tactical aspect to the game. For example Eldar can teleport their troops, which gives them an advantage. Or in COH, fast light vehicles are very good counters against enemy units harassing your resource nodes.
I think you are taking a wrong approach to DOW/COH. They are not about building bases, but about controlling your army.
Don't most skirmish games start you off with a pre-set HQ building equivalent? I don't see CoH any more restrictive in this sense, especially since the maps are generally too small and packed with stuff (an advantage over other RTS, right there) to fit a base anywhere else.
That may be so, but I find it immensely frustrating not to be able to set up defences where I want, and operate from the best location possible, simply because the game decides that that's not where my HQ is and thus I wouldn't have 'supply lines'. Never mind that I had the supply drop ability :laugh4:Quote:
I think you are taking a wrong approach to DOW/COH. They are not about building bases, but about controlling your army.
That might be true for CoH ,dont know , but i dont know if you've played DoW recently because u can place turrents anywhere you want in the map , and im pretty sure you can place Imperial Guard Barracks/Bunkers also anywhere in the map.Quote:
Originally Posted by sapi
Dow is a Revolutionary game , its suppose to be a RTS with minimal unit dynamics , other than shoot, move die and standing , but in DoW every single unit in a squad feels like its alive with its range of animations plus the Close Combat Dynamics are also excellent and they havnt been implimented like that in anygame where each unit has a variety of finishing moves and such.
https://img514.imageshack.us/img514/...ic00085kt5.jpg
Plus the details spent on each unit is just amazing to behold, i could easily just watch the game play by it self and imagine it being part of a Hollywood movie with all the stuff thats going on, the developers even went to the extent of putting facial features into Human units/ala Imperial Guard , u can just watch them die and see the pain on written on there face.
And that's the sort of thing u expect form a FPS not from an RTS with 100's of units on screen.
Yeah - DoW wasn't *that* bad - if it had had a half decent campaign (in the original) and a MP mode not 3/4 filled with scout rushing, I might have persevered :grin2:
Hmm...
**looking at the picture**
Why did those guys shoot at each others?
things have change a lot since that time, in fact things started to change with the first couple of patches back 2 years ago mate scout rushes have been crubbed a long long time back.Quote:
Originally Posted by sapi
Im assuming you havnt played Dark Crusade because you wound harbor such a view against dawn of war..the campaign is fantastic they turned it into a total war style Campaign map with 7 Completely different army's duking it out on 1 planet , the balancing is pretty much perfect for some people now, though not for a Space Marine player like me, bums have toned down the space marines too much in my opinion , but other than that its all ok.
The Guys on the Left Are Loyal Imperial Guards and the ones on the right are Traitor Guardsmen (...well there mostly on the right,...big melee and all) the 24th Kronos Liberators regiment are the Loyal IG's while the 101th Vandalonian Liberators have tunred traitor and shunned the Emepeors light opting to fight along side vile Orks and ..may the emperor curse them...Chaos Space Marines.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tran
My Guys the Loyal Guardsmen are bringing holy retribution to these traitorous scums.
Once the two regiments were the same but one cannot imagine the thought of these traitors as our brothers;so thats why the similarity's in equipment and clothing.
Or Alternatively I accidentally choose the same color scheme for the enemy imperial guards as my own side...it was a 3v3 battle with IG,Space Marine, Space Marine on my side and Ork,Imperial Guard and Chaos Space Marines on the other. Im not sure if you can see this but the enemy imperial guards have the 101th , there regiment number, on there shoulder , while my guys have the 24th written on theirs.
https://img339.imageshack.us/img339/...ic00058cx4.jpg
This Screen shot was taken just before battle was joined.
https://img171.imageshack.us/img171/...0084te7.th.jpg
Hmm...looking at those pictures for a while make me think whether the game was influenced by Warcraft 3. They both looked similiar.
Ah...mate the Warhammer universe has been around for 20 years now and its set in the year 40,000. While you can roughly compare the Warhammer (note the absence of 40,000; thats a whole other universe filled with Fantasy creatures like dwarfs ,ORK's, Elves etc etc u get the picture) universe with warcraft but thats because Blizzard wanted to Do a Warhammer game but they didnt get permission from the Creators of the Warhammer universe so they did there own spin on that universe, same with Starcraft they wanted to make a game based on the 40k universe but they didnt get permission again so they created their starcraft IP, Blizzard acknowledges that they borrowed certain concepts from the WH40k universe, like the Zergs , they are a spin off of the Tyranids from the WH40k universe, and the Terran Marines power armor is a bit like 40k's Space Marines.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tran
So infact you should be saying Warcraft 3 looks influenced by Warhammer, althought i cannot imaigne how DoW and WH40K look like warcraft 3.
Quite a few of the race thingies are similar between 40k and WC3, to be sure :yes:
@darkranger - please use [ex] tags to hide images - those are almost stretching my screen so I shudder to think what they're doing to others :grin2:
Quote:
Originally Posted by darkragnar
I'm not sure I like the constant rebalancing though. The unit caps (on a type of unit) feel too restrictive and added just for balance instead of making balance come 'natural'. I don't care for the new version fo infiltration either, it makes those with early infiltration (Tau) too powerful since their recon units can hit anything without fear of retalliation.
And the chaos marines still suck against vehicles.
I've started a few campaigns and certainly the early missions feel too easy. The strategic layer is a nice touch, but nothing like STW/MTW offered. Still, I believe this kind of campaign is the way forward for DoW (and CoH ?).Quote:
Im assuming you havnt played Dark Crusade because you wound harbor such a view against dawn of war..the campaign is fantastic they turned it into a total war style Campaign map with 7 Completely different army's duking it out on 1 planet , the balancing is pretty much perfect for some people now, though not for a Space Marine player like me, bums have toned down the space marines too much in my opinion , but other than that its all ok.
Well I think all defensive buildings you can build anywhere as long as you control the area.Quote:
Originally Posted by sapi
Base buildings however require the HQ nearby.
Some starcraft 2 footage
All I can say is it looks 'nice'. I fear this game game is just going to be a graphical update of an arguably outdated game.
EDIT: after tseeing this and this the game might prove to be interesting after all.
After watching some youtube videos about starcraft 2, I noticed that the SC2 version of the photon cannon seem to be able to teleport around the base making it essentially a mobile defender. That seems like it is a rather poor ability in terms of balance as it allows turtlers to concentrate his defences in any area of their base that is being attacked and reducing most damage unless their opponents does a massive assault on multiple sites around the base.
Some untis (well only Protos units so far) are able to teleport or have teleport-like abilities (jump packs !) so this would balance out I guess.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xdeathfire
I know that, but from a story viewpoint, I can only see the protoss being able to move their stationary defences which would instantly turn them into more of a turtling race.