I am just going to compare the game to two similar strategy games. Company of Heroes and StarCraft 2. The main issue I have is that I don’t feel like enough emphasis is put on map control compared to those games; especially CoH. People turtle up in their base, get a fully upgraded stack and sit tight. If you tried that in Company or StarCraft you would lose horrifically. With StarCraft there is a finite amount of resources each base can mine, encouraging moving on and CoH (IMO the better game) the key resources are up for grabs in the field. This encourages a highly active early game, especially for fuel which is crucial for tanks and other heavy weapons. You’re forced to send out small strike teams to capture these points and its so fun watching this evolve into set battlelines and chokepoints as you balance your limited forces (CoH also has a unit cap BTW) with map control.
Basically, you should be far more severely punished for turtling in one base. It should never be a viable strategy, even in a deathmatch. Having just your starting base should be tantamount to having already lost and delaying the inevitable; bar a miracle.
One easy way of doing that would be, like Company of Heroes fuel, would be to make the power resource specific to the capture of those forerunner structures and NOT allow the player to build reactors at any of their bases. So you would be denied any advanced units, but could still train an army, especially one that would leave you open to regaining map control to get the power back. This would incentivize early control of the power resource and make the player less reliant on one central base to train advanced units.
There should probably also be a limit to the amount of resource extraction that a single base can achieve, simply to encourage expansion and map control.
You’re comparing Halo Wars 2 to other RTS games. You should be comparing it to Halo Wars 1 where in that regard it is the perfect sequel. It keeps the original’s simplicity with enough complexity added to make every game different. Instead of people gunning for Scorpions we will now be putting snipers in fortifications while we defend chokepoints with Kodiaks and turrets.
The new game has a much bigger emphasis on map control in which the new units and abilities work pefectly.
> 2533274803587475;1:
> I am just going to compare the game to two similar strategy games. Company of Heroes and StarCraft 2. The main issue I have is that I don’t feel like enough emphasis is put on map control compared to those games; especially CoH. People turtle up in their base, get a fully upgraded stack and sit tight. If you tried that in Company or StarCraft you would lose horrifically. With StarCraft there is a finite amount of resources each base can mine, encouraging moving on and CoH (IMO the better game) the key resources are up for grabs in the field. This encourages a highly active early game, especially for fuel which is crucial for tanks and other heavy weapons. You’re forced to send out small strike teams to capture these points and its so fun watching this evolve into set battlelines and chokepoints as you balance your limited forces (CoH also has a unit cap BTW) with map control.
>
> Basically, you should be far more severely punished for turtling in one base. It should never be a viable strategy, even in a deathmatch. Having just your starting base should be tantamount to having already lost and delaying the inevitable; bar a miracle.
>
> One easy way of doing that would be, like Company of Heroes fuel, would be to make the power resource specific to the capture of those forerunner structures and NOT allow the player to build reactors at any of their bases. So you would be denied any advanced units, but could still train an army, especially one that would leave you open to regaining map control to get the power back. This would incentivize early control of the power resource and make the player less reliant on one central base to train advanced units.
>
> There should probably also be a limit to the amount of resource extraction that a single base can achieve, simply to encourage expansion and map control.
I personally like the Idea of there being set amount of recourses, that can be mined by 1 base. Building pads would be as normal, but eventually those pads would mine out, that bases resources. I feel that would make things pretty interesting, even if it was generous amount of 50, 000 of each resource, per base
> 2535423132749273;2:
> You’re comparing Halo Wars 2 to other RTS games. You should be comparing it to Halo Wars 1 where in that regard it is the perfect sequel. It keeps the original’s simplicity with enough complexity added to make every game different. Instead of people gunning for Scorpions we will now be putting snipers in fortifications while we defend chokepoints with Kodiaks and turrets.
>
> The new game has a much bigger emphasis on map control in which the new units and abilities work pefectly.
I don’t think theres anything wrong comparing the game to its peers in the strategy genre. Especially StarCraft 2 which is a very similar game. Although I think CoH has the best base vs base combat of either game. Incredibly fluid game based on map control.
My experience has been, assuming nobody quits, is that I take 2/3 of the map and tech out everything. I then move to my opponents single base. He then teleports his fully upgraded tank army out of the base in the bases shields and wrecks my army without taking any losses. Then he drops an orbital strike on the second army I just recruited killing them all, at which stage I just quit because I didn’t see any point in the game.
So its not perfect. If it was, he would not have had the resources or command points to do any of that from sitting in a single base and ignoring the rest of the map entirely. If you tried to pull that in CoH you wouldn’t even get to tier 2 tech. The game does not reward map control and it gives far too many bonuses for controlling one base.
How is staying with just one base working for people? I expand and take map control with expansion bases and crush everyone that tries to just one base it. I have the economy to reload after a big fight, whereas they don’t. I’m also an rts vet so i understand these concepts and have a clue. Hell in my last match I fended off both enemies armies will securing a mid map base. One the opponent was supposed to have already taken, but left empty. Anyone that is just using one base all game clearly doesn’t know what they are doing.
> 2533274799547310;5:
> How is staying with just one base working for people? I expand and take map control with expansion bases and crush everyone that tries to just one base it. I have the economy to reload after a big fight, whereas they don’t. I’m also an rts vet so i understand these concepts and have a clue. Hell in my last match I fended off both enemies armies will securing a mid map base. One the opponent was supposed to have already taken, but left empty. Anyone that is just using one base all game clearly doesn’t know what they are doing.
Because they can upgrade and train full armies with one base. This negates the advantage of extra resources and bases entirely because one base can suffice.
Basically in one match me and my ally took 2/3 of the map. My opponents ally had quit and he was sat tight in his only base. So, I decided to tech out my infantry and go for his base with grunts and hunters. Had seen fully upgraded infantry kill armies of tanks before and was pretty sure he wouldn’t have as advanced units as me anyway. I get there, my ally pottering about before quitting himself. He then rolls out 12 tanks out of his base inside their shields and minces the whole army in a few seconds before I can withdraw; dropping a self heal ability. Irritated by this, I get an army of hunters and go to his base. He then drops a beam cannon and kills the whole army again. So I quit. I don’t see the point in a game that was actively penalizing me for going for map control and rewarding an idiot who got a better army than me from a single base.
> 2533274803587475;6:
> > 2533274799547310;5:
> > How is staying with just one base working for people? I expand and take map control with expansion bases and crush everyone that tries to just one base it. I have the economy to reload after a big fight, whereas they don’t. I’m also an rts vet so i understand these concepts and have a clue. Hell in my last match I fended off both enemies armies will securing a mid map base. One the opponent was supposed to have already taken, but left empty. Anyone that is just using one base all game clearly doesn’t know what they are doing.
>
>
> Because they can upgrade and train full armies with one base. This negates the advantage of extra resources and bases entirely because one base can suffice.
But thats exactly how you get bottlenecked.
You get 6 build plots on one base.
You get in a big fight, lose a big % of your army.
You now have to have the resources, and the production facilities, to reload.
You can’t do that on 6 build plots.
You’ll be short on either resources or production facilities.
Additionally, you’ll fall behind in travel time from units from your base to the front. Meaning your opponent can take a better fighting position (and with units like the Kodiak and Sniper, those are huge).
> 2554050324402709;7:
> > 2533274803587475;6:
> > > 2533274799547310;5:
> > > How is staying with just one base working for people? I expand and take map control with expansion bases and crush everyone that tries to just one base it. I have the economy to reload after a big fight, whereas they don’t. I’m also an rts vet so i understand these concepts and have a clue. Hell in my last match I fended off both enemies armies will securing a mid map base. One the opponent was supposed to have already taken, but left empty. Anyone that is just using one base all game clearly doesn’t know what they are doing.
> >
> >
> > Because they can upgrade and train full armies with one base. This negates the advantage of extra resources and bases entirely because one base can suffice.
>
>
> But thats exactly how you get bottlenecked.
>
> You get 6 build plots on one base.
>
> You get in a big fight, lose a big % of your army.
>
> You now have to have the resources, and the production facilities, to reload.
>
> You can’t do that on 6 build plots.
>
> You’ll be short on either resources or production facilities.
>
> Additionally, you’ll fall behind in travel time from units from your base to the front. Meaning your opponent can take a better fighting position (and with units like the Kodiak and Sniper, those are huge).
>
> One base will not suffice.
I shouldn’t need to use gamey tactics to beat a guy who sits in his base; you should be utterly at a total disadvantage. Also not everyone plays UNSC.
Doesn’t matter if he trains a better rock paper scissors army and beats you. Doesn’t matter if he can afford whatever commander abilities he wants to screw your army over.
You should not be able to reach late game units as quick as a player who gets total map control. Period.
> 2533274803587475;8:
> > 2554050324402709;7:
> > > 2533274803587475;6:
> > > > 2533274799547310;5:
> > > > How is staying with just one base working for people? I expand and take map control with expansion bases and crush everyone that tries to just one base it. I have the economy to reload after a big fight, whereas they don’t. I’m also an rts vet so i understand these concepts and have a clue. Hell in my last match I fended off both enemies armies will securing a mid map base. One the opponent was supposed to have already taken, but left empty. Anyone that is just using one base all game clearly doesn’t know what they are doing.
> > >
> > >
> > > Because they can upgrade and train full armies with one base. This negates the advantage of extra resources and bases entirely because one base can suffice.
> >
> >
> > But thats exactly how you get bottlenecked.
> >
> > You get 6 build plots on one base.
> >
> > You get in a big fight, lose a big % of your army.
> >
> > You now have to have the resources, and the production facilities, to reload.
> >
> > You can’t do that on 6 build plots.
> >
> > You’ll be short on either resources or production facilities.
> >
> > Additionally, you’ll fall behind in travel time from units from your base to the front. Meaning your opponent can take a better fighting position (and with units like the Kodiak and Sniper, those are huge).
> >
> > One base will not suffice.
>
>
> I shouldn’t need to use gamey tactics to beat a guy who sits in his base; you should be utterly at a total disadvantage. Also not everyone plays UNSC.
>
> Doesn’t matter if he trains a better rock paper scissors army and beats you. Doesn’t matter if he can afford whatever commander abilities he wants to screw your army over.
>
> You should not be able to reach late game units as quick as a player who gets total map control. Period.
Then you aren’t upgrading, scouting or building units efficiently.
Period.
You screwed up. These aren’t gamey tactics, this is the game.
If you allow him to spend the entire match upgrading units and not building them, especially when the game gives you several siege vehicles, then the problem is you.
Period.
Edit: and you should be able to reach a single late game unit faster than your opponent if you sit in your base and do nothing but invest in it. But a single unit will not win you a game, and if your opponent is dumb enough to let you do that, and not pressure, then the opponent is a damn fool
You probably tried to boom way too hard if you took all the bases on the map. It probably cost you too many resources to build and upgrade your bases, it is no wonder your opponent had teched up and had a better army. You spent resources on building, he spent resources on teching and making units.
Had you at least scouted and noticed he had no units, you could have built some and pressured him to build something to fight you.
I don’t think I have ever lost a game where my teammate and I gain control of the middle of the map. We often finish within 10 minutes because too many people try to tech up on only one base, making them easy for even armies as small as 7 hellbringers to beat.
> 2554050324402709;9:
> > 2533274803587475;8:
> > > 2554050324402709;7:
> > > > 2533274803587475;6:
> > > > > 2533274799547310;5:
> > > > > How is staying with just one base working for people? I expand and take map control with expansion bases and crush everyone that tries to just one base it. I have the economy to reload after a big fight, whereas they don’t. I’m also an rts vet so i understand these concepts and have a clue. Hell in my last match I fended off both enemies armies will securing a mid map base. One the opponent was supposed to have already taken, but left empty. Anyone that is just using one base all game clearly doesn’t know what they are doing.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Because they can upgrade and train full armies with one base. This negates the advantage of extra resources and bases entirely because one base can suffice.
> > >
> > >
> > > But thats exactly how you get bottlenecked.
> > >
> > > You get 6 build plots on one base.
> > >
> > > You get in a big fight, lose a big % of your army.
> > >
> > > You now have to have the resources, and the production facilities, to reload.
> > >
> > > You can’t do that on 6 build plots.
> > >
> > > You’ll be short on either resources or production facilities.
> > >
> > > Additionally, you’ll fall behind in travel time from units from your base to the front. Meaning your opponent can take a better fighting position (and with units like the Kodiak and Sniper, those are huge).
> > >
> > > One base will not suffice.
> >
> >
> > I shouldn’t need to use gamey tactics to beat a guy who sits in his base; you should be utterly at a total disadvantage. Also not everyone plays UNSC.
> >
> > Doesn’t matter if he trains a better rock paper scissors army and beats you. Doesn’t matter if he can afford whatever commander abilities he wants to screw your army over.
> >
> > You should not be able to reach late game units as quick as a player who gets total map control. Period.
>
>
> Then you aren’t upgrading, scouting or building units efficiently.
>
> Period.
>
> You screwed up. These aren’t gamey tactics, this is the game.
>
> If you allow him to spend the entire match upgrading units and not building them, especially when the game gives you several siege vehicles, then the problem is you.
>
> Period.
>
> Edit: and you should be able to reach a single late game unit faster than your opponent if you sit in your base and do nothing but invest in it. But a single unit will not win you a game, and if your opponent is dumb enough to let you do that, and not pressure, then the opponent is a damn fool
No, its bad game design. CoH2 youd have some inf n at and thats it. Not 4 King Tigers. That is what u are advocating as good game design.
Don’t get me wrong i love CoH2, but if you think people don’t turtle and build a blob of tanks then you are wrong. And CoH2 has many questionable design choices. On a related note 1 base only = Certain death. I lost my second base in a game today (AFTER teching up) and it nearly lost us the entire game. Luckily my buddy still had 2 bases and i could help with long range support, provided i kept them safe, but with just 2 unit buildings i was hard pressed to mount any form of assault.
> 2533274803538435;12:
> Don’t get me wrong i love CoH2, but if you think people don’t turtle and build a blob of tanks then you are wrong. And CoH2 has many questionable design choices. On a related note 1 base only = Certain death. I lost my second base in a game today (AFTER teching up) and it nearly lost us the entire game. Luckily my buddy still had 2 bases and i could help with long range support, provided i kept them safe, but with just 2 unit buildings i was hard pressed to mount any form of assault.
Depends what you mean by turtle. Yeah, you get people take half of the map and then fortify their positions whilst slowly amassing 3-4 tanks. That’s okay because you’re still active in contesting 50% of the map and you need those critical fuel points to get those tanks out onto the battlefield. Its still playing the game even if it is very conservatively.
What you can do in Halo Wars 2 would be like if you sat in your base, captured no control or fuel points and yet could still train 4 King Tigers. I also wouldn’t have the munitions to drop any of the army destroying abilities.
My experience of Halo Wars 2 so far has been very negative, with people quitting all the time, poor graphics, bad networking, over powered units (why do marines kill tanks?) and bad game design.
> 2533274803587475;1:
> I am just going to compare the game to two similar strategy games. Company of Heroes and StarCraft 2. The main issue I have is that I don’t feel like enough emphasis is put on map control compared to those games; especially CoH. People turtle up in their base, get a fully upgraded stack and sit tight. If you tried that in Company or StarCraft you would lose horrifically. With StarCraft there is a finite amount of resources each base can mine, encouraging moving on and CoH (IMO the better game) the key resources are up for grabs in the field. This encourages a highly active early game, especially for fuel which is crucial for tanks and other heavy weapons. You’re forced to send out small strike teams to capture these points and its so fun watching this evolve into set battlelines and chokepoints as you balance your limited forces (CoH also has a unit cap BTW) with map control.
>
> Basically, you should be far more severely punished for turtling in one base. It should never be a viable strategy, even in a deathmatch. Having just your starting base should be tantamount to having already lost and delaying the inevitable; bar a miracle.
>
> One easy way of doing that would be, like Company of Heroes fuel, would be to make the power resource specific to the capture of those forerunner structures and NOT allow the player to build reactors at any of their bases. So you would be denied any advanced units, but could still train an army, especially one that would leave you open to regaining map control to get the power back. This would incentivize early control of the power resource and make the player less reliant on one central base to train advanced units.
>
> There should probably also be a limit to the amount of resource extraction that a single base can achieve, simply to encourage expansion and map control.
Have you played the first Halo Wars? It has literally everything that you’re asking for.
> 2533274803587475;4:
> > 2535423132749273;2:
> > You’re comparing Halo Wars 2 to other RTS games. You should be comparing it to Halo Wars 1 where in that regard it is the perfect sequel. It keeps the original’s simplicity with enough complexity added to make every game different. Instead of people gunning for Scorpions we will now be putting snipers in fortifications while we defend chokepoints with Kodiaks and turrets.
> >
> > The new game has a much bigger emphasis on map control in which the new units and abilities work pefectly.
>
>
> My experience has been, assuming nobody quits, is that I take 2/3 of the map and tech out everything. I then move to my opponents single base. He then teleports his fully upgraded tank army out of the base in the bases shields and wrecks my army without taking any losses. Then he drops an orbital strike on the second army I just recruited killing them all, at which stage I just quit because I didn’t see any point in the game.
WHY ARE YOU TECHING OUT EVERYTHING. You do not win the game by getting the highest tech. You win the game by destroying the other persons base. If you’re waiting that long, YOU’RE A BAD PLAYER.
Theres not a debate here. Theres nothing to be said. You spend a ton of resources getting all the techs you don’t need while your opponent spends time and resources on a singular tech path. Then, once you get wiped out because you didn’t do the necessary scouting, you complain because you don’t have the necessary production facilities to hard counter.
Thats all on you. Just because there is something in a game that you don’t like, doesn’t make it bad game design. It becomes bad game design when there is only one viable path to victory (I.E. gunner warthogs were a REQUIREMENT in HW1. Thus every game with UNSC started the exact same, thats bad design). You just fail to take advantage of the tools at your disposal.
Yeah, infinite resources are definitely dumb, it’s why Atriox is so overpowered, his early weak armies would be crushed if he was actually forced to push for more resources.
> 2535423132749273;2:
> You’re comparing Halo Wars 2 to other RTS games. You should be comparing it to Halo Wars 1 where in that regard it is the perfect sequel. It keeps the original’s simplicity with enough complexity added to make every game different. Instead of people gunning for Scorpions we will now be putting snipers in fortifications while we defend chokepoints with Kodiaks and turrets.
>
> The new game has a much bigger emphasis on map control in which the new units and abilities work pefectly.
I’ve seen nearly no demonstrators of map control, only Atriox with air units or brute spam immediately pushing with a full army on main bases, especially Cutter’s, Atriox doesn’t need to move lol.
One base and a few mini bases, won every game. Sometimes built a second on their turf to experiment with siege turrets but mostly just expand with minis.
I control a third of the map within 5 minutes. 2/3s if I have a teammate doing the same. Haven’t lost control yet.
> 2554050324402709;15:
> > 2533274803587475;4:
> > > 2535423132749273;2:
> > > You’re comparing Halo Wars 2 to other RTS games. You should be comparing it to Halo Wars 1 where in that regard it is the perfect sequel. It keeps the original’s simplicity with enough complexity added to make every game different. Instead of people gunning for Scorpions we will now be putting snipers in fortifications while we defend chokepoints with Kodiaks and turrets.
> > >
> > > The new game has a much bigger emphasis on map control in which the new units and abilities work pefectly.
> >
> >
> > My experience has been, assuming nobody quits, is that I take 2/3 of the map and tech out everything. I then move to my opponents single base. He then teleports his fully upgraded tank army out of the base in the bases shields and wrecks my army without taking any losses. Then he drops an orbital strike on the second army I just recruited killing them all, at which stage I just quit because I didn’t see any point in the game.
>
>
> WHY ARE YOU TECHING OUT EVERYTHING. You do not win the game by getting the highest tech. You win the game by destroying the other persons base. If you’re waiting that long, YOU’RE A BAD PLAYER.
>
> Theres not a debate here. Theres nothing to be said. You spend a ton of resources getting all the techs you don’t need while your opponent spends time and resources on a singular tech path. Then, once you get wiped out because you didn’t do the necessary scouting, you complain because you don’t have the necessary production facilities to hard counter.
>
> Thats all on you. Just because there is something in a game that you don’t like, doesn’t make it bad game design. It becomes bad game design when there is only one viable path to victory (I.E. gunner warthogs were a REQUIREMENT in HW1. Thus every game with UNSC started the exact same, thats bad design). You just fail to take advantage of the tools at your disposal.
No I teched out my infantry.
For the final time, I wasn’t playing as the UNSC. If I had scouted his base I wouldn’t have seen anything because he must have had his ten tanks garrisoned inside the base or something because they rolled out as soon as I got there with my army. So I wouldn’t have seen anything. I was going there with the intent of putting down a stubborn turtle sitting tight in his base rather than playing the game. I was not expecting a full stack of tanks, full commander abilities or more gamey tactics. Frankly my expectation was that he would just quit and stop wasting my time. Hell I thought he might have just left the controller to get a gold pack or something. It was inconceivable that he would have a full army of tanks.
Instead the guy pulped my infantry army without losing a single tank (most of which were those AA walkers BTW) because reasons. When in other games marines destroy tanks by looking at them but hunters and fully upgraded grunts can’t even hurt enemy units? Just no consistency.
One base equals autolose. No question, no ifs, no buts, no excuses, you should not be able to support a viable and powerful army unless you intended to spend half an hour waiting for your resources to pool. Its stupid and ridiculous.
You think having a one click commander ability that can kill a whole army is fair? One which you can’t actually dodge and does high damage before it even lands? Where exactly is the “skill” required in that?
> 2533274803587475;19:
> > 2554050324402709;15:
> > > 2533274803587475;4:
> > > > 2535423132749273;2:
> > > > You’re comparing Halo Wars 2 to other RTS games. You should be comparing it to Halo Wars 1 where in that regard it is the perfect sequel. It keeps the original’s simplicity with enough complexity added to make every game different. Instead of people gunning for Scorpions we will now be putting snipers in fortifications while we defend chokepoints with Kodiaks and turrets.
> > > >
> > > > The new game has a much bigger emphasis on map control in which the new units and abilities work pefectly.
> > >
> > >
> > > My experience has been, assuming nobody quits, is that I take 2/3 of the map and tech out everything. I then move to my opponents single base. He then teleports his fully upgraded tank army out of the base in the bases shields and wrecks my army without taking any losses. Then he drops an orbital strike on the second army I just recruited killing them all, at which stage I just quit because I didn’t see any point in the game.
> >
> >
> > WHY ARE YOU TECHING OUT EVERYTHING. You do not win the game by getting the highest tech. You win the game by destroying the other persons base. If you’re waiting that long, YOU’RE A BAD PLAYER.
> >
> > Theres not a debate here. Theres nothing to be said. You spend a ton of resources getting all the techs you don’t need while your opponent spends time and resources on a singular tech path. Then, once you get wiped out because you didn’t do the necessary scouting, you complain because you don’t have the necessary production facilities to hard counter.
> >
> > Thats all on you. Just because there is something in a game that you don’t like, doesn’t make it bad game design. It becomes bad game design when there is only one viable path to victory (I.E. gunner warthogs were a REQUIREMENT in HW1. Thus every game with UNSC started the exact same, thats bad design). You just fail to take advantage of the tools at your disposal.
>
>
> No I teched out my infantry.
>
> For the final time, I wasn’t playing as the UNSC. If I had scouted his base I wouldn’t have seen anything because he must have had his ten tanks garrisoned inside the base or something because they rolled out as soon as I got there with my army. So I wouldn’t have seen anything. I was going there with the intent of putting down a stubborn turtle sitting tight in his base rather than playing the game. I was not expecting a full stack of tanks, full commander abilities or more gamey tactics. Frankly my expectation was that he would just quit and stop wasting my time. Hell I thought he might have just left the controller to get a gold pack or something. It was inconceivable that he would have a full army of tanks.
>
> Instead the guy pulped my infantry army without losing a single tank (most of which were those AA walkers BTW) because reasons. When in other games marines destroy tanks by looking at them but hunters and fully upgraded grunts can’t even hurt enemy units? Just no consistency.
>
> One base equals autolose. No question, no ifs, no buts, no excuses, you should not be able to support a viable and powerful army unless you intended to spend half an hour waiting for your resources to pool. Its stupid and ridiculous.
>
> You think having a one click commander ability that can kill a whole army is fair? One which you can’t actually dodge and does high damage before it even lands? Where exactly is the “skill” required in that?
Gotta agree with you on that last bit, OP, Eradication needs something to notify you that it’s coming, even if you still lose some of your army on the way out.