New Base Building Idea

Games Halo Wars Series
1

Base building-points (the location of bases) is an idea that should be revisited. The general idea behind the current Firebase setup is necessary for a console RTS due to its ease-of-control through streamlined function, but perhaps a newer/improved style of free/more free base placement could be invoked in HW2.

For Example…

Require a certain unit to act as a foundation for base-sites (Rover). This unit can be moved until it finds suitable terrain for said base-site. Once in place, the Rover completes a 20 second site-assessment. During this time it cannot move. Once the assessment is complete a Firebase may be called in in the exact same fashion as was done previously in Halo Wars.

More Details…

  • Rovers are trained from any Firebase - Rovers have a separate population limit, like Spartans. Lets say 3 for now (For a total of 4 Bases. Initial base plus up to 3 additonal Rover-initiated bases) - The Assessment may be cancelled at any time before completion to free up the Rover for moving/re-placement. - Right up until base completion (it has been paid for and called in) it may be cancelled for a partial refund and the Rover may be re-utilized elsewhere (or in the same position) - Rovers can’t move once they’ve started an Assessment or after unless the Assessment/Firebase has been cancelled. Think of it as setting Cobras into their secondary fire mode. - **Rovers are absorbed by the base once it is completed, die with base when destroyed, redeploy from base if recycled.**What this does it prevent enemies from knowing exactly where all base locations are without scouting and allows for more dynamic matches. Obviously, bases will require large areas to be set up so that they can’t be used to blocked paths of flow.

___________________
Edits:

I was thinking 60% recycle rate when buildings are at 100% HP. I don’t remember what the actual rate in Halo Wars is.

To fully clarify. Let’s say a Rover costs 150 Supplies (don’t get caught up in this number, it’s based on nothing as of now). Then to call in a Firebase is another 500 Supplies. If you choose to recycle an empty (no building slots used) base it would only refund 300 of the original 500 supplies used. As you have more building slots used, the penalty becomes even more severe as at a maximum, you can only recoup 60% of your already spent supplies from recycling the buildings/base.

If you’ve spent 1200 supplies on a base, you’ll only end up receiving 720 supplies back and that’s only if buildings are all at 100% HP. The percentage would decrease with the HP%.

2

Sounds good, I hope they implement something like this in the game.

3

The only issue I see, is bases will be a pain to build in the direction you want. After the rover finishes, it would be swell to spin the base in which direction you would like it to face.

4

hopefully they increase the limit on the total population

5

> 2535469861767755;4:
> hopefully they increase the limit on the total population

They will

6

I hope they move to a free-build layout, like Halo Wars was before Pottinger took over. The slotted layout was just overly limiting in both Halo Wars and the first Lord of the Rings RTS.

7

The “free build” layout is so much nicer compared to the “fixed layout” this will allow for every match to be a little different compared to using the same tactics for attacking fixed bases

8

> 2533274804813082;6:
> I hope they move to a free-build layout, like Halo Wars was before Pottinger took over. The slotted layout was just overly limiting in both Halo Wars and the first Lord of the Rings RTS.

I also blame him for allowing the poor excuse of pathfinding that’s in HW.

9

Sounds great!!! I like the idea
on little problem could be that you block “hot spots” on the map and get an unfair advantage on a long term period.
if the maps are as big as in HW1 it wouldnt work but with bigger maps it can be awesome

10

Command and conquer builds were nice Kane’s wrath epic

11

> 2533274921373075;9:
> Sounds great!!! I like the idea
> on little problem could be that you block “hot spots” on the map and get an unfair advantage on a long term period.
> if the maps are as big as in HW1 it wouldnt work but with bigger maps it can be awesome

Yes, the maps would need to be somewhat larger and designed with this mechanic in mind. This would most likely be the case if something like this was introduced in HW2.

12

For ground combat, I’d much prefer Wargame-series-style bases, that is to say, none at all. The starships they’re fighting from are the real bases. That said, the modular drop platforms such as Spirit of Fire had would be great as logistical FOBs (repair, rearm, and refuel centers) and fixed bunkers.

13

Halo Wars didn’t employ re-arming or refueling mechanics, and I’m pretty sure neither will HW2 due to the series’ aim to be an easily accessible RTS.

How do you train more units without an in-game base?

14

> 2533274840021838;12:
> For ground combat, I’d much prefer Wargame-series-style bases, that is to say, none at all. The starships they’re fighting from are the real bases. That said, the modular drop platforms such as Spirit of Fire had would be great as logistical FOBs (repair, rearm, and refuel centers) and fixed bunkers.

I would love this,

ground buildings would be for resource collection, refuel/repair/rearm and defenses

you could ‘expand’ your base by calling in additional ships

> 2533274809541057;13:
> Halo Wars didn’t employ re-arming or refueling mechanics, and I’m pretty sure neither will HW2 due to the series’ aim to be an easily accessible RTS.
>
> How do you train more units without an in-game base?

You train them from your ships and send them down via transport/drop pods to where you need them.

as for refuel/rearm I think it could be done very easily and add some easy to manage strategic depth to units and vehicles.

you can make special attacks require ‘ammunition’ so they have limited use until you return to your rearming base.

you could also make each individual unit have load-outs that are good against different types of targets but you can only change or add load-outs to your units when they are at base. You could also have ship abilities where you can drop supplies to your troops to help them push a location.

It would also help balance Aircraft as they would need to return to the ship or to a specialized rearming base to keep fighting making them unable to harass forever.

this type of system favors the defenders on the ground and would lead to longer more strategic fights.

I hope that they make special abilities that use ammo be auto-castable if they do a system like this so that your micro is more based on positioning your units and getting them the supplies they need rather than tactical micro (which is the area in RTS that cause the highest level of ‘inaccessibility’ to new players)

15

> 2533274896616265;14:
> You train them from your ships and send them down via transport/drop pods to where you need them.

How do you earn revenue to purchase troops to drop in? How would you balance that ability? You can now drop units wherever you see, so an attack would never end. You now have the potential to just keep dropping units into the location of the battle.

> 2533274896616265;14:
> as for refuel/rearm I think it could be done very easily and add some easy to manage strategic depth to units and vehicles.
>
> you can make special attacks require ‘ammunition’ so they have limited use until you return to your rearming base.
>
> you could also make each individual unit have load-outs that are good against different types of targets but you can only change or add load-outs to your units when they are at base. You could also have ship abilities where you can drop supplies to your troops to help them push a location.
>
> It would also help balance Aircraft as they would need to return to the ship or to a specialized rearming base to keep fighting making them unable to harass forever.
> this type of system favors the defenders on the ground and would lead to longer more strategic fights.

This system is way beyond the complexity that Halo Wars shoots for with regards to gameplay. These mechanics would be seen as overwhelming and/or a nuisance to most of the more Halo (FPS) oriented players. I personally don’t care for refuel, rebomb mechanics myself as they are too sim-like. Simulation has never been Halo or Halo Wars’ style. Mainstream RTS’s are mainstream for a reason. And the modern crop of mainstream RTS’s don’t generally use these mechanics.

> 2533274896616265;14:
> I hope that they make special abilities that use ammo be auto-castable if they do a system like this so that your micro is more based on positioning your units and getting them the supplies they need rather than tactical micro (which is the area in RTS that cause the highest level of ‘inaccessibility’ to new players)

First off, if I have to bother sending my units to rebomb for special ammos, then I sure as hell don’t want those units using it as they please without my explicit ordering. How will an A.I. unit know how to prioritize its use effectively?
The current micro-style employed by Halo Wars isn’t inaccessible, it just requires more (trainable) dexterity with the gamepad. What it does is allow for a higher skill ceiling in multiplayer. Not to mention it came about from Ensemble’s play testing and feedback by the Halo fanbase.

> Early in play tests, the developers watched devoted Halo fans play the game; their feedback led to the development of special abilities, which, according to Devine, enhanced the Halo feel.[36]

I’m not saying these suggestions are bad; I’m saying that they would make for a very un-Halo Wars experience in Halo Wars 2. It would be a very different game. But it’s a sequel and not another spinoff, so I don’t expect or want these changes.

16

> 2533274809541057;15:
> > 2533274896616265;14:
> > You train them from your ships and send them down via transport/drop pods to where you need them.
>
>
> How do you earn revenue to purchase troops to drop in? How would you balance that ability? You can now drop units wherever you see, so an attack would never end. You now have the potential to just keep dropping units into the location of the battle.

Simple. There are a variety of zones demarcated around the map. Some are marked as landing zones, or LZs, in addition to being normal zones. This is all part of the map. Each side gets a single LZ in which to place their initial units. In order to hold a zone, LZ or otherwise, you have to have an expensive and vulnerable command/communications unit stationary, inside the perimeter of the zone. Zones provide income, depending on the value delineated in the zone. LZs also do this, in addition to allowing you to call down Pelican- or Phantom-borne reinforcements within the zone. You can place units anywhere on the map, and they will automatically use the closest occupied LZ to deploy, then travel to your point. Modular drop platforms can deploy into LZs and can serve as fixed defenses for those zones as well as rearm/repair/refuel (or just repair) centers. ODSTs and covenant drop troopers can deploy anywhere on the map, but are expensive, limited to light infantry, and will get shredded if they land in the open too close to already-deployed enemy units. Victory points are gained by killing enemy units, points gained per unit are equivalent to initial cost to bring it in.
Alternatively, zones can provide victory points, and we can have income either fixed or inversely proportional to the percentage of unit cap you currently have deployed.

17

That actually sounds like a decent system, but very different from the existing Halo Wars setup.

18

> 2533274809541057;15:
> > 2533274896616265;14:
> > You train them from your ships and send them down via transport/drop pods to where you need them.
>
>
> How do you earn revenue to purchase troops to drop in? How would you balance that ability? You can now drop units wherever you see, so an attack would never end. You now have the potential to just keep dropping units into the location of the battle.

You gain revenue from Mines/Extractors built on locations on the map, as well as “Supply Pads” that send the resources to your ship.
Supply Pads would be more heavily defensible and would act as “main base” structures that can be built anywhere and mines would be less defensible and built on specific locations. You could also call down various defensive structures to help hold an area.

When you send down units and structures they are vulnerable to anti air fire and therefor you would not be able to drop in enemy held positions. mid/late game fast air superiority units would also be usable to try and intercept enemy drops making your defensive positions the “safest” areas to drop units.

> 2533274809541057;15:
> This system is way beyond the complexity that Halo Wars shoots for with regards to gameplay. These mechanics would be seen as overwhelming and/or a nuisance to most of the more Halo (FPS) oriented players. I personally don’t care for refuel, rebomb mechanics myself as they are too sim-like. Simulation has never been Halo or Halo Wars’ style. Mainstream RTS’s are mainstream for a reason. And the modern crop of mainstream RTS’s don’t generally use these mechanics.

The Complexity is as follows, Units have strong attacks when they enter combat, They have limited amounts of strong attacks and when they run out they resort to weaker attacks. If you want them to gain their strong attacks back you have to either send them supplies (via intercept-able drop like above) or bring them to a friendly supply pad.

example for air units:

Your falcon has 8 powerful air to air missiles, you use your falcon to target incoming enemy Wraith dropping units, It uses 6 missiles to kill the Wraith preventing enemy units from landing and reinforcing enemy troops. Your Falcon now has 2 missiles, you can either keep it in the area but it will be unable to quickly take down another Wraith in order to stop it from landing or you can push the RTB button and have it pick up more missiles, giving your opponent a window to drop another Wraith safely. Your falcon can either stay and provide protection from lighter enemy air units or return to base to allow it to deny another unit drop.

This is a very simple system to understand and use and has a very great depth of unit cost effectiveness strategy.

Your units are strongest early on in a fight when they are supplied and resort to weaker weapons as the fight draws out, you can “power them up” again to push your enemy if you can safely drop supplies or you can retreat them.

> 2533274809541057;15:
> First off, if I have to bother sending my units to rebomb for special ammos, then I sure as hell don’t want those units using it as they please without my explicit ordering. How will an A.I. unit know how to prioritize its use effectively? The current micro-style employed by Halo Wars isn’t inaccessible, it just requires more (trainable) dexterity with the gamepad. What it does is allow for a higher skill ceiling in multiplayer. Not to mention it came about from Ensemble’s play testing and feedback by the Halo fanbase.

The “autocast” would have simplistic target priorities (Marines with rockets use them on vehicles and aircraft) and could be overridden by the player at anytime. You can call down supplies for your units in the battlefield as long as you have air superiority.

Micro style is done to death and is the #1 reason most people do not get into RTS multiplayer because the “clicks per minute” style “skill cap” is simply not fun for casual players and the absolute necessity of such style of game play to be competitive is a turn off.

Micro style game-play would not be invalidated would not be invalidated in my proposed system and would still give an edge in engagements but larger scale strategic decisions would have more overall weight.

19

Thought of an even simpler way of explaining rearm mechanics:

Units in combat lose effectiveness over time, Combat effectiveness can be ‘recharged’ by special air units (with limited charges) or by entering friendly territory. Units in friendly territory always fight at full combat effectiveness. Air support is required to cost effectively assault enemy territory

20

It’s not a bad idea; However, it is not very Halo Wars. That would be a complete overhaul of the current system and style of RTS that Halo Wars is.

Halo Wars was arguably the only successful RTS on console and that is due to the style of gameplay that Ensemble crafted in combination with the control scheme that they spent so much time developing. The numerous flaws that Halo Wars suffered from are more due to the fact that they faced their demise immediately after finishing work on HW and it affected development through short staffing and underfunding. (They were axed immediately after it was finished and before it’s release).

It would be a shame to throw away everything that made Halo Wars as successful as it was. Yes, it got a boost from its namesake, but the continued success came from its functionality as a console RTS.

You don’t take what made a game successful and then throw all of that away in the second iteration.

> 2533274896616265;19:
> Micro style is done to death and is the #1 reason most people do not get into RTS multiplayer because the “clicks per minute” style “skill cap” is simply not fun for casual players and the absolute necessity of such style of game play to be competitive is a turn off.

“#1 reason”? Where did you pull that stat from? “Simply not fun for casual players”? If online multiplayer is too hard, then you are more than welcome to play local matches against the A.I. or just let the online ranking system place you accordingly. Or, even better, if you don’t like a game then don’t play it.

Also, skill caps and skill ceilings are not the same thing.

You seem to favour RTS’s of a different breed. Why come here to a game that you don’t seem to even like and ask for changes?