Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
Discussions Rules and Guidelines
Report this post
And to your question apparently there is armor system be it a basic one, not sure how it works myself...
I would like to note maps are actually bigger. I went back to homeworld 1 and 2 to measure. They might feel smaller due to the megaliths though.
There is unit spam i would say in skirmish (due to overly abundent resources and simultanous build queues up the wazo) but there is still a rock paper scissors meta in the campaign. Wargames has you specialize based on artifacts so its a little different.
There is an armor system where you do more damage in the rear. (i think its the rear hemisphere in general)
There is actually a ballistics system, dont know how well its implemented though as im not an expert on this.
Your right there is a small selection of maps.
Tech is definitely simpler.
Unit abilities have been improved since the demo and generally provide tradeoffs in stats but they could be better. I like about 50% of them. They work better in wargames were you have less units to manage.
I would check out the campaign. The story is not particularly good but i love some of the missions themselves.
If you aren't specifically in love with homeworld, and just an RTS fan, and this looks interesting, go play the old ones and wait to see if they turn this game around in the next year, or abandon it.
I'll address your questions imo:
-Tiny maps are in skirmish and some wargames maps, but its understandable for wargames. In Skirmish the other player is already on top of you and your right into the thick of battle right away fighting for resources. Long gone are the long engagement battles from a distance. I think they will add larger maps, but be more difficult for some lower end players with all the large ass constructs they have have on the maps.
-Definitely would like module/subsystems, but the other day I was just looking at ships upclose and noticed the carrier has "footprints" where modules shouldve been in or was suppose to be implemented in(?)
-Balancing, eh yeah it can definitely be tweaked, but that also depends heavily on the ships
-unite spam, it's always like this for any RTS
-Ship designs looks fine, but yes on wanting a variety of more interesting ships for tactics. I did noticed they reused a progenitor ship skin, but just changed the colors. The Vaygr ships were more interest and edgy in design.
-Wargames will have more factions, but I don't know why they are adding factions when the campaign mentioned anything about them. Unless its for lore purposes for buildouts. There are some fleet buildouts in wargams for specific fleet configurations
-Using the XYZ axis for strategy is still in there, but not really significant, eg; unite spam
-Ballistics... there is "sniper ships" or "Artillery" ships which are basically long range with a "seige" skill that makes their range further, but slow moving and such at close combat.
-Wargames have a small map rotation
-tech tree definitely fails, unlike the originals were they give you a story how you are obtaining some tech, this doesn't really delve much into it. They gave it a shortcut as in "oh they have this tech, lets copy it" vs "steal this ship and research how this works, and implement it a mission later"
-Some skills or bonuses that was part of the fleet formations are gone and were made into skills with a CD
The campaign is really important imo which gives the immersion and mindset why each ship matters and how or why you should use the ship for certain situations, but the campaign was lacking that. It was about individual characters rather than the race or political issues like the other games, even though it has weak and world character building now.
-no there are no modules.
-balancing depends on what your looking for. if you want rock paper scissors than no. The balance seems to be based more on the weapons on a given ship. However any unit can attack anything. Effectiveness depends on the target.
-unit spam. all rts' like this allow unit spam. including past HW. Albeit it is faster on the small skirmish maps.
-There are less ships. Most of them are more functional though. This goes back to the rock paper scissors thing. I would describe the game as being more "realistic" in not having over specialised ships. This comes down to your opinion though.
-Yes units have directional armor. You can hit ships very hard from behind with bombers and missiles.
-Ballistics do exist.
-there are too few maps right now.
-The tech tree functions the same way, but there aren't as many ships so its small.
-Unit abilities are not extreme. They temporarily enhance something in exchange for something else.
-The story sucks, but the campaign missions are fine. Luckily you can skip the cutscenes.
-all controls that people are saying aren't there actually are (they were to lazy to figure it out).
Essentially this games criticism comes down to this game isn't HW2 so it sucks. A lot of revisionist history is at play. Yes, don't expect the same thing as past games. This game is more about fleet manuevers. Lonely units are at severe risks. Groups of ships in actual military formations are better off. Some of the automated functions of units have been shifted to manual. Kinda like HW1/cata formations and stance have increased functionality.This game isn't bad. People just didn't do their research(before buying and then in game) and bought something they shouldn't have.
I'm not saying there are not some issues, but honestly I've been playing and having good fun with the game. The AI is fairly decent and even on easier modes isn't inactive (often as not easy AI will just sit there and do nothing - this AI is very active!)
Honestly I'd say give it a whirl just don't go in expecting HW2. Honestly a lot of features feel closer to an upgraded Homeworld 1.
Oh also seeing the motherships anti-fighter guns blazing in the air after fighters is so freaking cool. Seriously this game is very pretty and I feel not enough are appreciating that.
The game has also a roadmap ahead well into 2025, that's 12 months of dropped content, additions, patches, and implementation.
We also are having on board the original authors of Homeworld, so cannot gets better than this.
There're new elements introduced that few might dislike, but every Homeworld game has introduced new elements into the game. That's how the game evolve.
Very disappointed to see how few have reacted so feral about the great work that has been done so far and the unnecessary rant for nothing posts.
I was going to buy it day one like all the games but the 8 hour campaign / lack of compelling story feedback and the degree of overall polish caused me to pause.
I will still buy it, but only once its had many patches and additional content.
I'm sadly not really surprised after witnessing Homeworld Remastered's release and steam forums in general.
Are you sure you understand what I mean by ballistics? In Homeworld 1 projectiles were physical entities that responded like real world ballistics. This is instead of the more popular way of coding weapons where you have - Visual Effect>>% chance of hitting target.
This was one of the reasons why Homeworld Remastered received so much flak on release.
Tech tree may function the same way in theory but it is vastly different. Not just in UI but how there don't seem to be different ways of going through the tech tree - build orders.
I.e Please correct me if i'm wrong but it seems like you have to do A > B > C > D. Unlike in Homeworld 2 to where you could choose to skip B > C and go straight to A > D
Unit abilities seem...boring. Again compare to Starcraft 2 where every ability/upgrade is important in it's own context instead of relying on simple +1 boost to attack -1 to defence type abilities.
Controls - As long as they fixed the jank that was in the Demo i don't mind to much, I did have problems with the controls even when setting everything to as 'classic' as they could be.
I agree from what I've watched the campaign does seem to suck