I’D very much ENJOY having larger maps, actually bases with individual buildings that don’t have slots. More strategy involved with larger maps as well… forward bases? MARINE RUSH?! Indeed. But enough defensive capabilities that you can actually thwart the rush/cheese. Build walls or independent turrets and stuff. Cost lots but essential to early game? Idk. I have so many thoughts but I won’t get my hopes to high right now.
I also want better colors instead of crayon colors for all of my units. A little bit of color in Multiplayer would be nice, but the entire unit being a color is a bit unnecessary.
But I already think it’ll be on a larger scale because Creative Assembly is planning on making Halo Wars 2 Keyboard and mouse compatible… so I heard… somewhere. I think.
That’s some decent suggestions you got there, but it looks like most of us want custom bases(not slots).
I disagree with the custom bases. Pre designed bases are what made the first game unique and strategic.
guys take a look at this video this is what halo wars was supposed to be like this but due to budget and time cuts a lot was removed Halo Wars Alpha - Gameplay - YouTube warning lots of the game animations arent complete
> 2533274879704439;3:
> I disagree with the custom bases. Pre designed bases are what made the first game unique and strategic.
I agree with you. A console RTS is different than a normal RTS, and the developers need to understand that. Being able to place bases wherever you want would make maps and their terrain very boring. No mountains that create choke points for strategic options. No cavernous ravines or chasms that can show off the game’s beauty. Nothing. I really hope CA doesn’t include the ability to put bases anywhere the player wants. Ensemble had that idea going in, but quickly learned that it was ill suited for a console RTS. It is because they understood this that Halo Wars is lauded as the best console RTS. Besides all of the others, Ensemble understood that they couldn’t just make a normal PC RTS and put it on consoles and expect it to work.
More details: Halo - Official Site (en)
> 2535452784065270;5:
> > 2533274879704439;3:
> > I disagree with the custom bases. Pre designed bases are what made the first game unique and strategic.
>
>
> I agree with you. A console RTS is different than a normal RTS, and the developers need to understand that. Being able to place bases wherever you want would make maps and their terrain very boring. No mountains that create choke points for strategic options. No cavernous ravines or chasms that can show off the game’s beauty. Nothing. I really hope CA doesn’t include the ability to put bases anywhere the player wants. Ensemble had that idea going in, but quickly learned that it was ill suited for a console RTS. It is because they understood this that Halo Wars is lauded as the best console RTS. Besides all of the others, Ensemble understood that they couldn’t just make a normal PC RTS and put it on consoles and expect it to work.
>
> More details: Halo - Official Site (en)
Ensemble closed down. Creative Assembly did not.
Whatever CA does, it’s bound to be better and more intuitive than what Ensemble did… from a ruthlessly analytical perspective.
Also, Halo Wars was a primitive sticks and stones RTS in terms of gameplay.
You say Halo Wars was best RTS but Supreme Commander 2 and Command and Conquer 3 were just as good if not better.
I want more depth, more strategy, and etc.
Halo Wars as it is now is simply: Spam certain unit. Win game.
You don’t have to get resources off of the map or control certain areas. You can just wait at your base, do some scouting of the enemy base and the rest of the entire map is irrelevant unless you honestly think that forerunner supply crates hold some vast significance and zealously search left and right for a better early game. When you have the ability to place the structures as you please, scouting and maintaining map control is vastly more important. Is that not true?
> 2533274956086815;6:
> Ensemble closed down. Creative Assembly did not.
>
> Whatever CA does, it’s bound to be better and more intuitive than what Ensemble did… from a ruthlessly analytical perspective.
>
> Also, Halo Wars was a primitive sticks and stones RTS in terms of gameplay.
>
> You say Halo Wars was best RTS but Supreme Commander 2 and Command and Conquer 3 were just as good if not better.
>
> I want more depth, more strategy, and etc.
>
> Halo Wars as it is now is simply: Spam certain unit. Win game.
>
> You don’t have to get resources off of the map or control certain areas. You can just wait at your base, do some scouting of the enemy base and the rest of the entire map is irrelevant unless you honestly think that forerunner supply crates hold some vast significance and zealously search left and right for a better early game. When you have the ability to place the structures as you please, scouting and maintaining map control is vastly more important. Is that not true?
Ensemble was closed by Microsoft not because of poor performance, but because at the time, RTS were seen as a dwindling niche market and up till then, RTS’s were all Ensemble had developed (despite a few different and new IP’s in early development). They were [seemingly] becoming anachronistic.
Halo Wars is definitely better than Supcom 2 and C&C 3 based purely on it’s sales and staying power. Neither game worked all that well or fluidly on the console. Command and Conquer has completely died out at this point. You shouldn’t look to that series as inspiration. Supcom was more complex and needed to be played on PC. Playing on console was slow and the controls just didn’t work nearly as well with a gamepad.
There still is most definitely a tremendous need for map control in Halo Wars, despite its dumbed-down mechanics. Maintaining map control keeps your enemy from expanding or garrisoning hooks (supply elevators, reactors) which ads a huge advantage to whoever holds those hooks or can expand freely. With map control, your enemy can’t scout you and as such can’t effectively counter or even harass you.
Map control is still a very huge part of competitive Halo Wars multiplayer.
> 2533274809541057;7:
> > 2533274956086815;6:
> > Ensemble closed down. Creative Assembly did not.
> >
> > Whatever CA does, it’s bound to be better and more intuitive than what Ensemble did… from a ruthlessly analytical perspective.
> >
> > Also, Halo Wars was a primitive sticks and stones RTS in terms of gameplay.
> >
> > You say Halo Wars was best RTS but Supreme Commander 2 and Command and Conquer 3 were just as good if not better.
> >
> > I want more depth, more strategy, and etc.
> >
> > Halo Wars as it is now is simply: Spam certain unit. Win game.
> >
> > You don’t have to get resources off of the map or control certain areas. You can just wait at your base, do some scouting of the enemy base and the rest of the entire map is irrelevant unless you honestly think that forerunner supply crates hold some vast significance and zealously search left and right for a better early game. When you have the ability to place the structures as you please, scouting and maintaining map control is vastly more important. Is that not true?
>
>
> Ensemble was closed by Microsoft not because of poor performance, but because at the time, RTS were seen as a dwindling niche market and up till then, RTS’s were all Ensemble had developed (despite a few different and new IP’s in early development). They were [seemingly] becoming anachronistic.
>
> Halo Wars is definitely better than Supcom 2 and C&C 3 based purely on it’s sales and staying power. Neither game worked all that well or fluidly on the console. Command and Conquer has completely died out at this point. You shouldn’t look to that series as inspiration. Supcom was more complex and needed to be played on PC. Playing on console was slow and the controls just didn’t work nearly as well with a gamepad.
>
> There still is most definitely a tremendous need for map control in Halo Wars, despite its dumbed-down mechanics. Maintaining map control keeps your enemy from expanding or garrisoning hooks (supply elevators, reactors) which ads a huge advantage to whoever holds those hooks or can expand freely. With map control, your enemy can’t scout you and as such can’t effectively counter or even harass you.
>
> Map control is still a very huge part of competitive Halo Wars multiplayer.
I really loved SupCom 1 and Forged Alliance. I honestly want to see something like that with Halo. It would be a lot of fun.
Bleh. I’m more of a Sins of a Solar Empire and SC Former GM myself.
All I’m saying is more strategy… bigger war and maps.
> 2533274956086815;6:
> > 2535452784065270;5:
> > > 2533274879704439;3:
> > > I disagree with the custom bases. Pre designed bases are what made the first game unique and strategic.
> >
> >
> > I agree with you. A console RTS is different than a normal RTS, and the developers need to understand that. Being able to place bases wherever you want would make maps and their terrain very boring. No mountains that create choke points for strategic options. No cavernous ravines or chasms that can show off the game’s beauty. Nothing. I really hope CA doesn’t include the ability to put bases anywhere the player wants. Ensemble had that idea going in, but quickly learned that it was ill suited for a console RTS. It is because they understood this that Halo Wars is lauded as the best console RTS. Besides all of the others, Ensemble understood that they couldn’t just make a normal PC RTS and put it on consoles and expect it to work.
> >
> > More details: Halo - Official Site (en)
>
>
> Ensemble closed down. Creative Assembly did not.
>
> Whatever CA does, it’s bound to be better and more intuitive than what Ensemble did… from a ruthlessly analytical perspective.
>
> Also, Halo Wars was a primitive sticks and stones RTS in terms of gameplay.
>
> You say Halo Wars was best RTS but Supreme Commander 2 and Command and Conquer 3 were just as good if not better.
>
> I want more depth, more strategy, and etc.
>
> Halo Wars as it is now is simply: Spam certain unit. Win game.
>
> You don’t have to get resources off of the map or control certain areas. You can just wait at your base, do some scouting of the enemy base and the rest of the entire map is irrelevant unless you honestly think that forerunner supply crates hold some vast significance and zealously search left and right for a better early game. When you have the ability to place the structures as you please, scouting and maintaining map control is vastly more important. Is that not true?
In that last paragraph, are you speaking from experience? Because if you found success in sitting in your base letting the other people get map control, then you must have been playing against casuals. Here, I’ll use an example outlining the importance of map control. On Blood Gultch, I can go for a Temple 2nd as the Brute instead of a Temple 3rd because I can capture a supply hook to fill the hole that going Temple 2nd leaves in your economy. Because of this, my leader is on the field earlier. Another example would be if I was playing during that same game and trying to get to tech 2 but didn’t have the supplies. So I just capture a secondary reactor. I’d be stupid to waste 1000 supplies when I could get it for free. Map control is 100% a very important thing in Halo Wars.
Although, I don’t know how we got onto this subject as the point I brought up was the flaws of letting the player set their base anywhere. Oh yeah, you suggested that having player placed bases would emphasize the importance of map control. I won’t deny that, but I feel that the cons outweigh the pros. Map control is already important enough. Any high level player knows that. I’ve ranted about the differences between PC RTS games and console RTS games before, so I won’t do it again. You have an interesting argument though. If you’re looking for depth, you won’t find it in Halo Wars. It was intentionally simplified. Halo Wars 2 will most likely be no different.