I hope Halo Wars 2 won't be like Hog and Tank Wars

Hog and Tank Wars is what I like to call Halo Wars 1 because that’s literally all we do. Halo Wars was insanely unbalanced. I’m not too keen on playing an RTS that determines victory based on how fast you can deploy OP units. To win a match in Halo Wars as UNSC was basically about how fast you could deploy tanks.

> 2535406277799296;1:
> Hog and Tank Wars is what I like to call Halo Wars 1 because that’s literally all we do. Halo Wars was insanely unbalanced. I’m not too keen on playing an RTS that determines victory based on how fast you can deploy OP units. To win a match in Halo Wars as UNSC was basically about how fast you could deploy tanks.

They made tanks available with 2 reactors, if it was with 3 reactors it could have been a bit more balanced hopefully with the new units they are adding to the game it will completely change game tactics

3 reactors… yes that would have been a better idea. Or maybe delay their production even more. I hope Halo Wars 2 allows more diverse strategies.

I would propose a radically different balance style between infantry, vehicles, and structures than in halo wars 1.

Structures would have 2 separate hit point bars, structure damage and internal damage. structure hit points would be very high and have lots of armor requiring significant firepower to reduce a structure to rubble. Internal hit points would be far smaller and can only be damaged from the inside of a structure or when structure hitpoints are reduced to 25% of their maximum value.
Infantry would be able to garrison inside of all structure types including enemy structures (as opposed to shooting at reinforced concrete until it explodes).
each structure would have a number of firing positions that garrisoned infantry can use to fire at units outside the structure.
Infantry would be protected from outside damage by the structure hitpoints. Specialized weapon types could damage infantry that are garrisoned inside structures (a napalm strike for example)
structures would have a (potentially upgradable) blast door/shield that enemy infantry or vehicles would have to destroy in order for enemy infantry to enter. some structures would be easier to infiltrate than others and some specialized infantry could have abilities to bypass or brute force through a door (like jetpacks or c4)
if a structure is already garrisoned with infantry and enemy infantry enter the units would fight in close quarters until the structure is under control by only one team. this would give advantage to infantry with lower range but higher dps when fighting for control of a structure, encouraging meaningful unit diversity.
When a structure is controlled by enemy infantry, it takes internal damage (separate from structure damage) over time based on the type of infantry until it is disabled.
A disabled structure continues to provide cover for infantry but must be repaired before it can be used again (requiring enemy control to be removed).
A potential upgrade for bases is passive security teams that occupy structures to delay/prevent enemy infiltration.
Infantry can also utilize various destructible cover positions around the map. cover positions could potentially be dropped in by abilities or simply constructed (bunkers/entrenchments).
Vehicles would beat infantry in most cases when out of cover. The primary role of vehicles in the early and mid game should be to hunt down enemy infantry out of cover and to protect your infantry out of cover as you attempt to infiltrate enemy structures. It would take a very long time for even a few scorpion tanks to reduces an enemy structure and in comparison infantry units would disable it in a very short amount of time. In the very late game super heavy vehicles and artillery would begin to be able to viably destroy entrenched structures but to get to the point where you can build a large late game vehicle force you would have to be able to fend off and clear out enemy infiltration.

This balance tension between infantry, vehicles, and structures would in my opinion provide the environment where a diverse cast of units would be required for victory while also allowing for a variety of strategies.

to sum up: Infantry>Structures>Vehicles>Infantry

Was Halo Wars unbalanced? Yes. Was it “insanely unbalanced”? No. Hogs are countered by decent micro and wraiths, and tanks are slow to produce and beaten by air units as well as gremlins and hunters. The only major balance issue in Halo Wars was the UNSC’s ability to build a scout unit (that happened to be one of the best units in the game) out of the main base. Change that and BAM. Game balanced.

I hope they allow us to place the bases and turrets anywhere on the map like Total annihilation.

> 2533274896616265;4:
> I would propose a radically different balance style between infantry, vehicles, and structures than in halo wars 1.
>
> Structures would have 2 separate hit point bars, structure damage and internal damage. structure hit points would be very high and have lots of armor requiring significant firepower to reduce a structure to rubble. Internal hit points would be far smaller and can only be damaged from the inside of a structure or when structure hitpoints are reduced to 25% of their maximum value.
> Infantry would be able to garrison inside of all structure types including enemy structures (as opposed to shooting at reinforced concrete until it explodes).
> each structure would have a number of firing positions that garrisoned infantry can use to fire at units outside the structure.
> Infantry would be protected from outside damage by the structure hitpoints. Specialized weapon types could damage infantry that are garrisoned inside structures (a napalm strike for example)
> structures would have a (potentially upgradable) blast door/shield that enemy infantry or vehicles would have to destroy in order for enemy infantry to enter. some structures would be easier to infiltrate than others and some specialized infantry could have abilities to bypass or brute force through a door (like jetpacks or c4)
> if a structure is already garrisoned with infantry and enemy infantry enter the units would fight in close quarters until the structure is under control by only one team. this would give advantage to infantry with lower range but higher dps when fighting for control of a structure, encouraging meaningful unit diversity.
> When a structure is controlled by enemy infantry, it takes internal damage (separate from structure damage) over time based on the type of infantry until it is disabled.
> A disabled structure continues to provide cover for infantry but must be repaired before it can be used again (requiring enemy control to be removed).
> A potential upgrade for bases is passive security teams that occupy structures to delay/prevent enemy infiltration.
> Infantry can also utilize various destructible cover positions around the map. cover positions could potentially be dropped in by abilities or simply constructed (bunkers/entrenchments).
> Vehicles would beat infantry in most cases when out of cover. The primary role of vehicles in the early and mid game should be to hunt down enemy infantry out of cover and to protect your infantry out of cover as you attempt to infiltrate enemy structures. It would take a very long time for even a few scorpion tanks to reduces an enemy structure and in comparison infantry units would disable it in a very short amount of time. In the very late game super heavy vehicles and artillery would begin to be able to viably destroy entrenched structures but to get to the point where you can build a large late game vehicle force you would have to be able to fend off and clear out enemy infiltration.
>
> This balance tension between infantry, vehicles, and structures would in my opinion provide the environment where a diverse cast of units would be required for victory while also allowing for a variety of strategies.
>
> to sum up: Infantry>Structures>Vehicles>Infantry

Not bad, it sounds like a good idea. I like this heavier focus on infantry. This is what Halo as an RTS should be like. Honestly no one really uses infantry in Halo Wars except for garrisons. And most of those garrisons are resources to help boost in rushing. If there were more places to garrison, and with the addition of upgrading protection around them, it would make Halo Wars much more diverse. Infantry should definitely be the main focus early in the game while vehicles are used for support and appear later. They are far too easy to make and to spam right now and vehicles are all people care to make.

> 2535452784065270;5:
> Was Halo Wars unbalanced? Yes. Was it “insanely unbalanced”? No. Hogs are countered by decent micro and wraiths, and tanks are slow to produce and beaten by air units as well as gremlins and hunters. The only major balance issue in Halo Wars was the UNSC’s ability to build a scout unit (that happened to be one of the best units in the game) out of the main base. Change that and BAM. Game balanced.

Making an Air Pad is actually a big mistake. Hogs make decent anti airs, and one tank can easily take down 2 - 3 hornets. A vehicle depot is really all that you need. It makes anti infantry, anti airs, and anti vehicles. Tanks literally beat everything. Turrets are absolutely USELESS against Tanks. You can take a player base, fully equipped with 4 rail gun turrets, with three Spartan Tanks. I think the hog idea to send them out from the base is actually pretty good. Or maybe make it that it sends out hogs and infantry. They are light units. If you had to chose between making only one unit production building, would you choose a barracks or a vehicle depot? The barracks would be a waste. I try not to start out with a barracks in maps that don’t have resources to grab, since I need the slot to make supply pads or a reactor. Making a barracks in these maps would be a waste because I know my enemy will be spamming vehicles.

> 2535406277799296;8:
> > 2535452784065270;5:
> > Was Halo Wars unbalanced? Yes. Was it “insanely unbalanced”? No. Hogs are countered by decent micro and wraiths, and tanks are slow to produce and beaten by air units as well as gremlins and hunters. The only major balance issue in Halo Wars was the UNSC’s ability to build a scout unit (that happened to be one of the best units in the game) out of the main base. Change that and BAM. Game balanced.
>
>
> Making an Air Pad is actually a big mistake. Hogs make decent anti airs, and one tank can easily take down 2 - 3 hornets. A vehicle depot is really all that you need. It makes anti infantry, anti airs, and anti vehicles. Tanks literally beat everything. Turrets are absolutely USELESS against Tanks. You can take a player base, fully equipped with 4 rail gun turrets, with three Spartan Tanks. I think the hog idea to send them out from the base is actually pretty good. Or maybe make it that it sends out hogs and infantry. They are light units. If you had to chose between making only one unit production building, would you choose a barracks or a vehicle depot? The barracks would be a waste. I try not to start out with a barracks in maps that don’t have resources to grab, since I need the slot to make supply pads or a reactor. Making a barracks in these maps would be a waste because I know my enemy will be spamming vehicles.

The overpowered nature of tanks is a way of punishing the player for letting their opponent get them. Building tanks is very difficult when your base is being swarmed by grenadier hogs. Make no mistake, Warthogs are the problem, not Scorpions.

Considering that Halo Wars 2 is being made by Creative Assembly, I’m sure they will make all units wonderfully balanced so that they all have some use in any part of the game (much like in Total War).

> 2533274909712896;10:
> Considering that Halo Wars 2 is being made by Creative Assembly, I’m sure they will make all units wonderfully balanced so that they all have some use in any part of the game (much like in Total War).

I haven’t played Total War and I can’t tell sarcasm on the internet. Is this sarcasm or are you being serious? Sadly I don’t know much about Creative Assembly.

Being that Halo Wars 2 isn’t being made by a studio that knows it is being axed upon completion of development or with limited resources, the unit balance and variety should definitely be more robust than what was present in the original.

Ensemble didn’t have the same advantages that Creative Assembly will have with this development.

> 2533274896616265;4:
> I would propose a radically different balance style between infantry, vehicles, and structures than in halo wars 1.
>
> Structures would have 2 separate hit point bars, structure damage and internal damage. structure hit points would be very high and have lots of armor requiring significant firepower to reduce a structure to rubble. Internal hit points would be far smaller and can only be damaged from the inside of a structure or when structure hitpoints are reduced to 25% of their maximum value.
> Infantry would be able to garrison inside of all structure types including enemy structures (as opposed to shooting at reinforced concrete until it explodes).
> each structure would have a number of firing positions that garrisoned infantry can use to fire at units outside the structure.
> Infantry would be protected from outside damage by the structure hitpoints. Specialized weapon types could damage infantry that are garrisoned inside structures (a napalm strike for example)
> structures would have a (potentially upgradable) blast door/shield that enemy infantry or vehicles would have to destroy in order for enemy infantry to enter. some structures would be easier to infiltrate than others and some specialized infantry could have abilities to bypass or brute force through a door (like jetpacks or c4)
> if a structure is already garrisoned with infantry and enemy infantry enter the units would fight in close quarters until the structure is under control by only one team. this would give advantage to infantry with lower range but higher dps when fighting for control of a structure, encouraging meaningful unit diversity.
> When a structure is controlled by enemy infantry, it takes internal damage (separate from structure damage) over time based on the type of infantry until it is disabled.
> A disabled structure continues to provide cover for infantry but must be repaired before it can be used again (requiring enemy control to be removed).
> A potential upgrade for bases is passive security teams that occupy structures to delay/prevent enemy infiltration.
> Infantry can also utilize various destructible cover positions around the map. cover positions could potentially be dropped in by abilities or simply constructed (bunkers/entrenchments).
> Vehicles would beat infantry in most cases when out of cover. The primary role of vehicles in the early and mid game should be to hunt down enemy infantry out of cover and to protect your infantry out of cover as you attempt to infiltrate enemy structures. It would take a very long time for even a few scorpion tanks to reduces an enemy structure and in comparison infantry units would disable it in a very short amount of time. In the very late game super heavy vehicles and artillery would begin to be able to viably destroy entrenched structures but to get to the point where you can build a large late game vehicle force you would have to be able to fend off and clear out enemy infiltration.
>
> This balance tension between infantry, vehicles, and structures would in my opinion provide the environment where a diverse cast of units would be required for victory while also allowing for a variety of strategies.
>
> to sum up: Infantry>Structures>Vehicles>Infantry

too complicated, stopped reading after 3 lines…

> 2535406277799296;8:
> > 2535452784065270;5:
> > Was Halo Wars unbalanced? Yes. Was it “insanely unbalanced”? No. Hogs are countered by decent micro and wraiths, and tanks are slow to produce and beaten by air units as well as gremlins and hunters. The only major balance issue in Halo Wars was the UNSC’s ability to build a scout unit (that happened to be one of the best units in the game) out of the main base. Change that and BAM. Game balanced.
>
>
> Making an Air Pad is actually a big mistake. Hogs make decent anti airs, and one tank can easily take down 2 - 3 hornets. A vehicle depot is really all that you need. It makes anti infantry, anti airs, and anti vehicles. Tanks literally beat everything. Turrets are absolutely USELESS against Tanks. You can take a player base, fully equipped with 4 rail gun turrets, with three Spartan Tanks. I think the hog idea to send them out from the base is actually pretty good. Or maybe make it that it sends out hogs and infantry. They are light units. If you had to chose between making only one unit production building, would you choose a barracks or a vehicle depot? The barracks would be a waste. I try not to start out with a barracks in maps that don’t have resources to grab, since I need the slot to make supply pads or a reactor. Making a barracks in these maps would be a waste because I know my enemy will be spamming vehicles.

a swarm of sparrows and a vulture turns an army of scorpions to ashes

> 2533274809541057;12:
> Being that Halo Wars 2 isn’t being made by a studio that knows it is being axed upon completion of development or with limited resources, the unit balance and variety should definitely be more robust than what was present in the original.
>
> Ensemble didn’t have the same advantages that Creative Assembly will have with this development.

ensemble is in my opinion one of the greatest studios that existed, especially the age of empire series are in my opinion to day still the best (read: truest) RTS of them all. gather resources (multiple!) to build things. not like whohoo i gather green stuff and poof i get a tank but wait, i can also build people with say green goo…
just no…

I’ve seen more unbalanced games in my time. (The addition of an expansion pack for Empire at war, where they added a pirate faction that did everything better, among other things).

> 2533274809541057;12:
> Being that Halo Wars 2 isn’t being made by a studio that knows it is being axed upon completion of development or with limited resources, the unit balance and variety should definitely be more robust than what was present in the original.
>
> Ensemble didn’t have the same advantages that Creative Assembly will have with this development.

Wait CA is gonna not be making any other games after HW2? Hmm…

> 2535469600463812;17:
> > 2533274809541057;12:
> > Being that Halo Wars 2 isn’t being made by a studio that knows it is being axed upon completion of development or with limited resources, the unit balance and variety should definitely be more robust than what was present in the original.
> >
> > Ensemble didn’t have the same advantages that Creative Assembly will have with this development.
>
>
> Wait CA is gonna not be making any other games after HW2? Hmm…

Isn’t being made by a studio that knows it is being axed completion”

ojala entendiera lo que dicen :frowning:

I was the kid who used MAC and ODST units, but sometimes Spartan Tanks as well. I tried to balance my strategies based on capability and maneuverability.