RTS Things

[OneWhoKnows]

I don't expect anyone will read this, especially not the devs, but whatever I'ma vent. Thematically this is a great game. A massive opportunity with an amazing IP.
But man it needs some basic improvements to the RTS mechanics.

1. A shift based queue for orders: this is basic, even AOE2 allows you to shift queue multiple sequential orders for units.

2. LOS/Cover system: infantry combat is already wonky and made way worse by bizarre line of site/line of fire issues. If a unit is lying down shooting at you from 40m away, why cant the unit being shot fire back? Way too often giving an attack order leaves your infantry running at the enemy that is literally gunning them down. Building concealment especially needs to be adjusted. Moving into a giant concrete building should not lead to units getting spotted and gunned down immediately through multiple concrete walls.

3. Suppression: introducing unit suppression would allow for more combat interaction/critical's, while potentially reducing the need for RNG insta death. Reducing weapon lethality while balancing the impact with suppression would make combat more interactive. Just an idea but RNG insta death is a bad thing.

4. Unit preservation vs. replacement: Either the game is balanced to allow preservation of units or it must allow for unit replacement. I prefer the later, especially with how RNG the combat mechanics are. As it is, the frustration of save scumming permeates the campaign. Make some amount of units recoverable after destruction, or make the supply system support replacing losses. You should be making your campaigns with re-playability in mind.

5. Difficulty scaling: This is my STRONGEST recommendation. Adjusting unit damage/supply stuff is a very poor difficulty curve in the campaign. Changes in difficulty should really scale up the machines opponents unit numbers and squad sizes. It would be very on theme for high difficulty levels to make the machines an overwhelming tide instead of just having them more reliably one shot your units.

Anyway, great game, lots of potential. Make a Movement based campaign and I'd honestly spend $100 on it. Also FYI fighting the Cartel sucks, two wasted missions IMO.

[mhardisty]

Originally posted by OneWhoKnows:

I don't expect anyone will read this, especially not the devs, but whatever I'ma vent. Thematically this is a great game. A massive opportunity with an amazing IP.
..................................................................
Anyway, great game, lots of potential. Make a Movement based campaign and I'd honestly spend $100 on it. Also FYI fighting the Cartel sucks, two wasted missions IMO.

Well, let me say - the devs do read this!!!

Some good points here. I'll pass them on directly too the team.

[OneWhoKnows]

Originally posted by mhardisty:

Well, let me say - the devs do read this!!!

Some good points here. I'll pass them on directly too the team.

Hey, appreciate the response, that's great to hear. Since I've got your attention, a couple other suggestions for improvement:

6. Unit re-targeting: An issue in many RTS, but frequently vehicles will lock on to targets it cant yet fire at/see and set their turret facing them. Useful, until additional targets show up and the unit sits there aiming at a target it cant fire at while getting shot. Units ought to retarget and reprioritize targets, especially when fired at.

7. Auto-smoke: Many units with smoke grenades ought to use them automatically when they are engaged by something that they cannot engage themselves. The AI is rather obnoxiously good at this with the Cartel tanks smoke, but this could be a toggle-able option for all smoke units. Doesn't need to be perfect but even something rudimentary would reduce micro and frustration and make infantry smoke useful. Technicians auto smoking their burning vehicle and themselves would be amazing.

8. Friendly-fire restraint: It would be nice if your own artillery would refrain from dropping rounds on top of your units. A danger close radius would really reduce frustration.

9. Split decisions: I really like the decisions you get to make throughout the campaign, shaping your force. More split options that change the resources available, especially shop options, throughout the campaigns would be great. For example, siding with movement vs bandits vs integrators vs cartel vs founders providing significantly different forces to work with.

I've played through the campaign probably a dozen times, and am still rather shocked at how replayable it is once you get past the frustrations. Anyway, hope this is useful. Good luck with the DLC launch.

[Napster153]

Originally posted by mhardisty:

Originally posted by OneWhoKnows:

I don't expect anyone will read this, especially not the devs, but whatever I'ma vent. Thematically this is a great game. A massive opportunity with an amazing IP.
..................................................................
Anyway, great game, lots of potential. Make a Movement based campaign and I'd honestly spend $100 on it. Also FYI fighting the Cartel sucks, two wasted missions IMO.

Well, let me say - the devs do read this!!!

Some good points here. I'll pass them on directly too the team.

While we're here, toggling a night time mode would be appreciated, given that most of what makes the Future War grim is set in night time.

[Nelson]

Alright, here we go again...

Originally posted by OneWhoKnows:

I don't expect anyone will read this, especially not the devs, but whatever I'ma vent.

As Mark probably already indicated, this is being read.

1. Shift-queue already exists. Its a little different from AoE but it works.

2. LoS indicators would be a great addition, I agree. The rest of the issues is often down to weapon ranges and angles causing weird interactions. You end up getting a hang of it over time.

3. Suppression would be a neat system but there is very little "instakill RNG" in infantry firefights. Most infantry has enough health to take multiple MG or rifle rounds while snipers, 20mils and everything else that should reliably kill infantry does exactly that. Essentially, forcing a unit prone is your suppression system.

4. The game is balanced around you being able to lose 40-60% of your army and still being able to move on. You are given more free units than you can upkeep over the campaign and while replacing 1-1 may not always be possible, there are consistently substitutes available.

5. There is no scaling-issue if the main-menu gives you the option to make the game easier or harder. The game is best-balanced on realistic since all units play by the same rules there, every other difficulty is just to make it easier for you. And if in doubt, take the custom difficulty to customize your experience.

6. Yep, thats an issue but you benefit from it more often than not. You can hit pause, retarget and all is fine. Against Legion tanks, thats how you snack them with Kondo.

7. The AI micros its smoke launchers. Only your willingness (and practice) to hit pause and do so too dictates your chances to do the same.

8. There is no patent-recipe for this. Next person will complain that their artillery refuses to wipe out enemy units that are rushing their positions. My general advice is to always micro your artillery and never leave them on autofire - especially on a stance other than ambush.

9. I mean, you get a choice for a Movement or Founder heavy campaign, multiple decisions to affect integrator shops, ability to basically remove a shop, the option to go and conquer a lot of cartel vehicles, etc. Could always see more in future campaigns.

[OneWhoKnows]

Originally posted by Nelson:

Alright, here we go again...

Not sure why Im bothering to respond to what amounts to a bunch of excuses but here we go again.

1. There is no shift-queue, if something else exists it isnt explained in-game.

2. You miss the point. These are suggestions to improve the game. Ive "gotten the hang of it" and it still looks exactly like a bug.

3. There is a reason many wargames model cohesion and/or morale.

4. The game punishes you for losing a small set of units that are entirely irreplaceable until the end of the campaign. I dont really mind any more, but this clearly causes frustration.

5. You miss the point. These are suggestions to improve the game. The game is too easy for me at this point. Scaling up damage and/or crippling the player is not an enjoyable way to further scale difficulty. From the mods Ive tested, a great solution is to scale up the numbers on machines side, since the AI is only really good at throwing them at you. Adding scaling enemy numbers options would improve the game.

6. Saying a bad game mechanism benefits the player more that the AI is irrelevant. I dont care that it is abusable.

7. You again miss the point. These are suggestions to improve the game. Auto smoke would reduce frustration and make smoke more useful. It would be a good addition especially for infantry.

8. You again miss the point. These are suggestions to improve the game. If its possible it would be a good addition.

9. You again miss the point. These are suggestions to improve the game. Id still like more options to further challenge unit composition in the future.

[BumbleBee]

Originally posted by OneWhoKnows:

There is no shift-queue, if something else exists it isnt explained in-game.

Honestly, that's the only reason I didn't buy this game. Order queue feel essential for any RTS. Even the ones with pause mechanics.

[mhardisty]

I mean, we do have a movement order queue, (shift click to move), but yes, we don't have a 'attack' order queue...