Posted April 27, 2016
Well, since I do smoke, one could also title this “Musings of cigarette smoking man”. Here, my obligatory quota of lame puns and/or heavy-handed allusions for today is complete.
But let’s get straight to business. At this moment I have completed more than half of campaign and played around a bit with the skirmish. Here’s what I have to say about current state of the game:
1) While current unit line-up seems to be almost perfect for the stated purpose (simple and even ascetic in gameplay side of the business (as well, as pretty much any else)), I still have feeling that something is amiss. Potential culprits are:
1a) Some sort of over-specialized unit (e.g. AT rifle armed infantry, that isn’t effective against other infantry and buildings and unable to target the skies). On one hand, that may indeed over-complicate things in relation to gameplay simplicity, but on the other hand it also may give more incentive to vary the troops. Other example: single target siege artillery (a-la, say, V2 from RA). This one may come in useful, should the static defence be buffed up.
1b) Unit that not geared towards direct combat and present in the early game (pre-tech center). Possibly an unarmed scout, or mayhaps even vehicle, that deploys into outpost (or static defense without build zone around it) - and yes, I understand that this one pollutes somewhat supposed gameplay for “renegades”. Or sort of field officer that improves, say, rate-of-fire? Nah, that again seem to warp the cleanness of the concept.
1c) Maybe unit, spawned by support power? Jet or two? Especially expendable close-range anti-ground infantry with expected use in emergency situation? On the other hand any support power other than already existing rocket may be too much considering overall goal of gameplay mechanics.
1d) I don’t think, however, that any sort of uber-unit can be applied to line-up without complete overhaul of the current concept.
2) Static defences seem to be nigh-worthless. While I understand, that turtling shouldn’t be a viable strategy within current gameplay concept and with only (as of yet, let’s hope) faction, they shouldn’t be also used as only means of stretching the base. Possible solution is that SD would be buildable in que, parallel to other buildings (akin to C&C starting from RA2).
3) At the moment maps seem to be mostly undifferentiated within themselves: while I think that
application of different terrain types (as in: roads allow for faster travel for anything on wheels, and it still will be a difference between cement and rough dirt for anything that moves) seem to be outside of set boundaries, I also believe that easiness with which civil structures and other doodads come down may be a hindrance and uncalled for simplification: game even within current concept, methink, may win from use of more durable line-of-fire blocking neutral structures.
4) Maps in, ahem, campaign. On one hand, they are done really great as series of challenges, they in my opinion lackluster in two fields:
4a) Unusual experience. While meat of the RTS should be the routine of build base-destroy enemy with units, and that is done greatly, I think that even without serious changes to the game rules and overdependence of labour compared to your standard map it is possible to bring forth more variety, just to name the few: give player only unit-production facilities and refineries, and forbid to build any structures; leave them in the center of the map with the sizeable force and allow to replenish it only through destruction of enemy bases (this already partially is in game), but without any base or ability build base; disallow the player to produce any unit at all, while retaining ability to construct buildings and gaining forces through fixed intervals of time; construct allied bases on place of destroyed enemy ones. And all of this would require at most addition of script system of some sort (which, admittedly is rather serious task to complete, but one that is, as I believe, a bare necessity when/if it comes to public map editor) and at least doable with only the tools that were already demonstrated in, ahem, campaign.
4b) One of the main problems with campaign maps and challenges presented is their repetitiveness, and I just don’t know what to add to this.
5) Overall, however, game does seem to be in right order for stated intents. Ready player two?
And here are my thoughts about “coming soon?”:
Ah, fantasy faction, second of the intended six. While its game mechanics seem to be mystery (oh, will they still use oil?), I have some problem with the faction itself. I understand that it supposed to be that archetypical all-that-is-fantasy mashup, and I don’t see any problem with its discoherency towards ”renegades” (I’m sorry, I just can’t take this name seriously in this context), since chosen art-style allows for this and yet still will retain harmony. I see problems within the faction itself as it seem that in struggle to depict everything that is fantasy, components that were chosen are unfitting in regards to one another. While elements like mages are universal and will fit any fantasy line-up, the overall “evil” look of HQ, skeletons and catapult appears to conflict with the depicted elf/rogue and more neutral-ey design of the barracks(?). While my assertion may be false, i will still state, that this faction needs to retain more of an integral style.
While I don’t know at what point in development this faction is (it’s kinda hard to decide based on that sketch alone), I’ll make few suggestions based on assumption that it still isn’t decided - if only for the sake of mind-equilibristics.
First, and foremost, I’d took a good, long look at HoM&M 1-3 (no, not only because I’m part, as insignificant as I am, of that series community). NWC took the craft creation of standard fantasy factions and elevated to the point of art. Take a major theme: first, fantasy archetype, then main creature in line-up, it’s face (not necessary the most powerful one) and finally only a drop of real-existing culture. After that add atop of that two - three tops - minor themes composed in the same way. This way one will get faction that will be fully fantasy one: not expy of existing culture in this brave new world with such people in it, but rather thing of its own that’s still relatable. It's very basic explanation of only one aspect of difficult task of building faction for HoMM. Why I mentioned it here? Well, I believe it may help to look at the problem from another POV, which may prove productive. Indeed, it’s hard to suggest anything without knowing the intended game style and unique mechanics, but overall, I think, main problem is in how disjointed the line-up is. From here I see two possible ways: either more or less minor changes to make all units look the part, or some changes in unit line-up that will cut out some fantasy concepts but will make faction on the whole more coherent. I reckon something in between of HoMM2 Wizard and Sorcerer with a hint of Necromancer might work, yes.
And here is pair of my suggestions in regard to what we have here and now, that I haven’t seen already elsewhere:
1) Togglable zone-of-building overlay to be able to lay buildings faster and more efficient.
2) Shortcut for selection of every unit of the type of unit that is already selected by player that is in direct view (or on the whole map should the button be double pressed).
That’s kinda all, since it already dragged for far too long. Sorry if your time was wasted.
But let’s get straight to business. At this moment I have completed more than half of campaign and played around a bit with the skirmish. Here’s what I have to say about current state of the game:
1) While current unit line-up seems to be almost perfect for the stated purpose (simple and even ascetic in gameplay side of the business (as well, as pretty much any else)), I still have feeling that something is amiss. Potential culprits are:
1a) Some sort of over-specialized unit (e.g. AT rifle armed infantry, that isn’t effective against other infantry and buildings and unable to target the skies). On one hand, that may indeed over-complicate things in relation to gameplay simplicity, but on the other hand it also may give more incentive to vary the troops. Other example: single target siege artillery (a-la, say, V2 from RA). This one may come in useful, should the static defence be buffed up.
1b) Unit that not geared towards direct combat and present in the early game (pre-tech center). Possibly an unarmed scout, or mayhaps even vehicle, that deploys into outpost (or static defense without build zone around it) - and yes, I understand that this one pollutes somewhat supposed gameplay for “renegades”. Or sort of field officer that improves, say, rate-of-fire? Nah, that again seem to warp the cleanness of the concept.
1c) Maybe unit, spawned by support power? Jet or two? Especially expendable close-range anti-ground infantry with expected use in emergency situation? On the other hand any support power other than already existing rocket may be too much considering overall goal of gameplay mechanics.
1d) I don’t think, however, that any sort of uber-unit can be applied to line-up without complete overhaul of the current concept.
2) Static defences seem to be nigh-worthless. While I understand, that turtling shouldn’t be a viable strategy within current gameplay concept and with only (as of yet, let’s hope) faction, they shouldn’t be also used as only means of stretching the base. Possible solution is that SD would be buildable in que, parallel to other buildings (akin to C&C starting from RA2).
3) At the moment maps seem to be mostly undifferentiated within themselves: while I think that
application of different terrain types (as in: roads allow for faster travel for anything on wheels, and it still will be a difference between cement and rough dirt for anything that moves) seem to be outside of set boundaries, I also believe that easiness with which civil structures and other doodads come down may be a hindrance and uncalled for simplification: game even within current concept, methink, may win from use of more durable line-of-fire blocking neutral structures.
4) Maps in, ahem, campaign. On one hand, they are done really great as series of challenges, they in my opinion lackluster in two fields:
4a) Unusual experience. While meat of the RTS should be the routine of build base-destroy enemy with units, and that is done greatly, I think that even without serious changes to the game rules and overdependence of labour compared to your standard map it is possible to bring forth more variety, just to name the few: give player only unit-production facilities and refineries, and forbid to build any structures; leave them in the center of the map with the sizeable force and allow to replenish it only through destruction of enemy bases (this already partially is in game), but without any base or ability build base; disallow the player to produce any unit at all, while retaining ability to construct buildings and gaining forces through fixed intervals of time; construct allied bases on place of destroyed enemy ones. And all of this would require at most addition of script system of some sort (which, admittedly is rather serious task to complete, but one that is, as I believe, a bare necessity when/if it comes to public map editor) and at least doable with only the tools that were already demonstrated in, ahem, campaign.
4b) One of the main problems with campaign maps and challenges presented is their repetitiveness, and I just don’t know what to add to this.
5) Overall, however, game does seem to be in right order for stated intents. Ready player two?
And here are my thoughts about “coming soon?”:
Ah, fantasy faction, second of the intended six. While its game mechanics seem to be mystery (oh, will they still use oil?), I have some problem with the faction itself. I understand that it supposed to be that archetypical all-that-is-fantasy mashup, and I don’t see any problem with its discoherency towards ”renegades” (I’m sorry, I just can’t take this name seriously in this context), since chosen art-style allows for this and yet still will retain harmony. I see problems within the faction itself as it seem that in struggle to depict everything that is fantasy, components that were chosen are unfitting in regards to one another. While elements like mages are universal and will fit any fantasy line-up, the overall “evil” look of HQ, skeletons and catapult appears to conflict with the depicted elf/rogue and more neutral-ey design of the barracks(?). While my assertion may be false, i will still state, that this faction needs to retain more of an integral style.
While I don’t know at what point in development this faction is (it’s kinda hard to decide based on that sketch alone), I’ll make few suggestions based on assumption that it still isn’t decided - if only for the sake of mind-equilibristics.
First, and foremost, I’d took a good, long look at HoM&M 1-3 (no, not only because I’m part, as insignificant as I am, of that series community). NWC took the craft creation of standard fantasy factions and elevated to the point of art. Take a major theme: first, fantasy archetype, then main creature in line-up, it’s face (not necessary the most powerful one) and finally only a drop of real-existing culture. After that add atop of that two - three tops - minor themes composed in the same way. This way one will get faction that will be fully fantasy one: not expy of existing culture in this brave new world with such people in it, but rather thing of its own that’s still relatable. It's very basic explanation of only one aspect of difficult task of building faction for HoMM. Why I mentioned it here? Well, I believe it may help to look at the problem from another POV, which may prove productive. Indeed, it’s hard to suggest anything without knowing the intended game style and unique mechanics, but overall, I think, main problem is in how disjointed the line-up is. From here I see two possible ways: either more or less minor changes to make all units look the part, or some changes in unit line-up that will cut out some fantasy concepts but will make faction on the whole more coherent. I reckon something in between of HoMM2 Wizard and Sorcerer with a hint of Necromancer might work, yes.
And here is pair of my suggestions in regard to what we have here and now, that I haven’t seen already elsewhere:
1) Togglable zone-of-building overlay to be able to lay buildings faster and more efficient.
2) Shortcut for selection of every unit of the type of unit that is already selected by player that is in direct view (or on the whole map should the button be double pressed).
That’s kinda all, since it already dragged for far too long. Sorry if your time was wasted.
