I been playing RTS games for a long time. Hell it’s the only reason I truly own a pc, for I do all my other gaming on the Xbox. I have to Honestly say that Base Building has really become a thing of the Past.
I watch competitive Star Craft matches and it always rolls down to build queues. Build this 1st. Make sure you build this by this time table, make sure you spawn this unit by this time. And a lot of time, especially with halo wars, it boiled down to who can roll out with the fastest spammiest army the fastest.
Then I played games like The Wargame series and the The Men of War series. Where base building is taken out and puts the battles in a more realistic setting were you have 2 armies who rolled into a battlefield and begin to class with each other. Where the battle comes down actual unit tactics and early game Rushes are easily defeated. Large scale conflict and battles happen with in the 1st minute of the game, causing instant hard core fun right away.
The people who Made the Wargame series decided to try going back to Base building rts games with The Act of Aggression. Though selling extremely well, it’s starting to see it’s population sharply declining with most of its player base going back to games like Wargame. Where it’s population is starting to continue to rise.
Also with games like Wargame. They are able to continue to add factions and units and still keep the game balanced easy. It Launched with over 1600 units and now has over 1800 units and more Nation factions in the form of Coalitions.
So honestly, in my opinion. I really hope we don’t see base building and a focus of quick action that the original makers of Halo Wars tried to strive for
Sounds more like a different style of game, rather keep to base building since that’s what I personally find fun, it happens in many games like Starcraft, C & C.
I think that Halo Wars 2 might turn out different than the prequel. 343 cooperates with Creative Assembly which have made the Total War games which is quite far from base bulding and spamming an amry as quick as possible.
Would be awesome if you could fight for an entire planet, where you play every battle on a smaller battlefield, just like in the Campaign in Rome II (not sure about the other Total War games thoug).
I’m not sure if the solution is to remove base building, but maybe add playlists that already have set bases?
Honestly, now that I think about it, wasn’t there a playlist in the original Halo Wars that gave you much more money from the start so building speeds basically wasn’t even a factor?
> 2535428051871852;5:
> I’m not sure if the solution is to remove base building, but maybe add playlists that already have set bases?
>
> Honestly, now that I think about it, wasn’t there a playlist in the original Halo Wars that gave you much more money from the start so building speeds basically wasn’t even a factor?
Yeah, think it was called deathmatch where you start with everything researched and a lot of money.
> 2533274924061457;4:
> I think that Halo Wars 2 might turn out different than the prequel. 343 cooperates with Creative Assembly which have made the Total War games which is quite far from base bulding and spamming an amry as quick as possible.
> Would be awesome if you could fight for an entire planet, where you play every battle on a smaller battlefield, just like in the Campaign in Rome II (not sure about the other Total War games thoug).
Show me a series sequel where the 2nd title was wildly different from the original and remained successful. You cannot make changes that are night-and-day to a series between one game and the next. Changes need to be gradual.
Also, 343i is not developing HW2. They are there as oversight, in the same way that Bungie oversaw the production of Halo Wars by Ensemble to ensure that it turned out to be a Halo game and more or less followed canon and art style.
> 2533274809541057;8:
> > 2533274924061457;4:
> > I think that Halo Wars 2 might turn out different than the prequel. 343 cooperates with Creative Assembly which have made the Total War games which is quite far from base bulding and spamming an amry as quick as possible.
> > Would be awesome if you could fight for an entire planet, where you play every battle on a smaller battlefield, just like in the Campaign in Rome II (not sure about the other Total War games thoug).
>
>
> Show me a series sequel where the 2nd title was wildly different from the original and remained successful. You cannot make changes that are night-and-day to a series between one game and the next. Changes need to be gradual.
Warhammer 40K: Dawn of War Series. Drastic changes from 1 and 2. Company of Heroes 2 had Almost as drastic changes from the 1st game of it’s franchise.
Pardon my ignorance, but I’ve only played one Company of Heroes, and I don’t recall which one it was so I’m unfamiliar with the sweeping changes. The one I played did not have base building.
Also, I’m completely unfamiliar with Warhammer. I’ve player 2 Warhammer 40K titles and neither were RTS. So I know zilch about its RTS franchise.
Please highlight the night-and-day differences for me. I understand Warhammer: DoW2 did away with base building.
EDIT: It was around 2009/10, so I assume it must have been CoH 1. Whatever it was, I played it on PC.
> IGN gave the game an 8.4, saying "More sequel-sized expansion than true successor, Company of Heroes 2 repeats many of the original Company of Heroes feats.[23]
> As of March 31, 2014, the game has sold 680,000 copies in Europe and North America.
“Sequel sized” hardly sounds like sweeping changes. Nor does “Company of Heroes 2 repeats many of the original Company of Heroes feats”
Can you explain this reasoning or explain why it’s incorrect?
For clarity, I’m open to being wrong. I just need to see the evidence.
You may think that base building limits certain things, but honestly, I find it as a huge factor of the game. Without it, it just wouldn’t feel the same. You can’t simply make a sequel and remove something that was a huge part of the first game.
> 2533274924061457;4:
> I think that Halo Wars 2 might turn out different than the prequel. 343 cooperates with Creative Assembly which have made the Total War games which is quite far from base bulding and spamming an amry as quick as possible.
> Would be awesome if you could fight for an entire planet, where you play every battle on a smaller battlefield, just like in the Campaign in Rome II (not sure about the other Total War games thoug).
Omg,
Now I have a vision of a story based campaign where you have to use coloumns of troops for each mission and then a planet campaign like total war / dawn of war dark crusade where you can conquer the planet whatever way you want.
> 2533274973183209;13:
> You may think that base building limits certain things, but honestly, I find it as a huge factor of the game. Without it, it just wouldn’t feel the same. You can’t simply make a sequel and remove something that was a huge part of the first game.
Dawn of war II did it. Granted I probably liked DoW 1 more, DoW was still a solid game.
As much as I understand you OP, base building IS Halo Wars. In the default game-type, when played casually, the aim was to take as many bases as possible without losing yours. If Assembly can manage to create an Amazing attack/defense mechanic and balanced units this sequel will be the best console RTS to date. Unless glitchy servers and that -Yoink-
I see where you are coming from. I am a fan of getting into the action fast and skipping over the patience of building a base. However, I actually liked learning how to build a base. That is one of the things I am counting on with Halo Wars 2, is building a base. I feel like that was a huge part of Halo Wars itself. For people who want to have action right off of the bat, maybe there could be a game mode where you start off with a small army of skirmish-like units (warthogs, ghosts, marines, grunts/jackals) but still keep the base for later larger engagements.
Theron, buddy, those are a different style of RTS all together, you can’t compare AoE, Starcraft, Halo Wars etc to those because although they are both RTS, they are way too different…base building is one of the big allures of RTS…now ive never played these games but the change you want is like saying I think Halo 5 should be played like …oh I don’t know… left 4 dead, because they are both fps…also just a question, was there any form of resource gathering, because I’ve played a game similar to those and there wasn’t so I’m just curious.
My only concern with HW2 is that it’s both console and PC - HW1 on PC would have been far too simplistic with very clunky controls compared to most, but was absolutely perfect for console. The base-building mechanic and defense was a perfect example of this. Without base-building though i think games would have been a lot more fiddly.
I worry HW2, having PC available, might end up in a no man’s land between too simple for PC still, but too complex for console - either that or the PC and console versions will end up being almost unrecognisable in terms of their UI, base mechanics, and control schemes.