This Game Screams for a Global Campaign Map ala DoW1/Risk

[Plutonious]

I picked up the base game during the holiday sale to try it out, as I'm a big 4X fan and like the 40k setting. However, as a single player only person, this game really just doesn't have much content. If you've played a lot of 4X games before, this game really does nothing to differentiate itself from the crowd other than being in the 40K universe.

Other 4X games have deeper, more multilayered systems that interact with map generation that help keep the single player experience engaging, as every game will play out pretty differently. This game doesn't really have these interactions, as the tile bonus and strategic resource system is pretty bare bones. I'd be fine with this, as not every game has to be a carbon copy of every other game, if there were other systems that helped differentiate one game from the next. But there really aren't. Obviously the combat is leagues better in Gladius than a game like Civ, but the rest of the game plays exactly the same every time you load it up. The game desperately needs something to make the single player experience engaging.

This is where having some sort of global campaign map would be ideal, similar to something like what was in the original Dawn of War (or risk if you want to go super simplistic). Spit balling a few ideas: You could have a huge campaign map with all the factions on it (that I guess slowly expands and gets larger with each faction DLC), or you could customize it and only have X factions present. Each tile/zone could have 2-3 base factions present in addition to the main province controller (with perhaps the tile owner starting with an advantage), maybe sometimes more for critical tiles (that end up being larger skirmish maps). As an example, a neutral tile might feature a city and have imperial guards and necrons present, while a more forested area might feature orcs and eldar with extensive webway connections. You could go with a barebones mode to start with, where each tile adds some static bonus (additional starting resources, resource income, tech, buildings, units/heroes, whatever) and leave it at that. Event this would help the singleplayer experience dramatically.

Or you could add layers to the system- have say a resource system on top of the global campaign map that could be spent to upgrade provinces/tiles. For example, a tile that represents an area rich in ore/minerals/whatever have upgradable mines that increase their bonuses. You could also have systems to represent degree of control of a province/tile and how built up the starting base is for the controlling faction- say that when you first take over a province/tile, you have only marginal control with the default skirmish start if someone were to attack you for the tile (i.e., nothing but a couple of units) and the several base/neutral factions that were initially in a tile would still be present. However, you could spend some sort of resource to build up a province/tiles infrastructure and governing systems that reduce/remove the neutral factions while also making your own starting setup larger; perhaps tiles/provinces would provide an income that would change as tiles were improved. Maybe infrastructure would increase income, but something like bureaucracy to increase control of a province would be variable, with small improvements helping incoming but exercising large degrees of control on a province being more expensive.

It would also be good to integrate armies into such a system, where an army can be customized/expanded as you grow with new units. Armies would take upkeep, so there would be a balance between different unit types and also how many armies you could support, meaning you need to expand and upgrade your territories to maintain your armies. Armies would be required to attack new territory, but you would start with the units in the army on the campaign map- you could also perhaps attack tiles with multiple armies, to be able to take on tiles that have been heavily built up by the enemy.

I'm sure smarter people have better ideas or alternatives to something like a global map. This game just needs something to help the single player experience out.

[Theorden]

Just bought it as well and was surprised that there is no Campaign, basically it's a 40k Skirmish game I guess? I bought it for a deep discount so it's not a problem, I was just surprised.

[DasaKamov]

Originally posted by Theorden:

Just bought it as well and was surprised that there is no Campaign

Every faction has a built-in campaign, comprising of story quests, goals and rewards.

[TemplarGR]

No offense, but this is yet another "why this not Dawn of War 4?" post. "It had it in DoW, therefore it should have it here". I am not saying such a mode wouldn't be a fine addition, but i don't think it needs it and "screams" about it.

[Teufels Beitrag]

Actually a Campaign a la Panzer Corps would be nice. Like having the units that get names transfer in diffrent scenarios.

[DasaKamov]

Originally posted by Teufels Beitrag:

Like having the units that get names transfer in diffrent scenarios.

That wouldn't make sense in Gladius, because A) units already get custom titles once they reach a certain level, and B) there are no "different scenarios" that exist in this game.

[Cursed Hawkins]

Originally posted by DasaKamov:

Originally posted by Teufels Beitrag:

Like having the units that get names transfer in diffrent scenarios.

That wouldn't make sense in Gladius, because A) units already get custom titles once they reach a certain level

This also happens randomly when units are built.

[ShouteN]

I disagree with you. Gladius shines at combat area, games are much faster, which is a good thing. We dont need complex systems here. 4x war game, thats enough.

All i want even more factions.

[Plutonious]

Originally posted by TemplarGR:

No offense, but this is yet another "why this not Dawn of War 4?" post. "It had it in DoW, therefore it should have it here". I am not saying such a mode wouldn't be a fine addition, but i don't think it needs it and "screams" about it.

Honestly I dont care about DoW. DoW2 was mediocre and DoW3 was a dumpster fire- the series is dead. The only link I made there is because the expansions to DoW1 had a global campaign map, which really added a lot of depth and replayability to the single player experience.

The problem with this game is the singleplayer is barebones, with limited replayability. The combat simply isn't good enough to make me want to play the game solely because of this, and the 4X systems in place are significantly dumbed down versions of every other game in the genre with no depth. This leads to every game playing exactly the same as every other game.

I don't buy games to play multiplayer. Currently the single player experience here is lacking to say the least. Luckily I only bought the base game so it was only a few $$ and not the end of the world, but I'd be pretty annoyed right now if I had bought all the DLC before realizing that the only thing the game offers is a skirmish mode on the same few map types over and over. The whole point of the OP was mentioning a system that would add some much needed content on the single player side of the game. Right now Gladius is just objectively a bad game if you're only going to do singleplayer, it absolutely does need something to breathe some life into it and add replayability.

[TemplarGR]

Originally posted by Plutonious:

Originally posted by TemplarGR:

No offense, but this is yet another "why this not Dawn of War 4?" post. "It had it in DoW, therefore it should have it here". I am not saying such a mode wouldn't be a fine addition, but i don't think it needs it and "screams" about it.

Honestly I dont care about DoW. DoW2 was mediocre and DoW3 was a dumpster fire- the series is dead. The only link I made there is because the expansions to DoW1 had a global campaign map, which really added a lot of depth and replayability to the single player experience.

The problem with this game is the singleplayer is barebones, with limited replayability. The combat simply isn't good enough to make me want to play the game solely because of this, and the 4X systems in place are significantly dumbed down versions of every other game in the genre with no depth. This leads to every game playing exactly the same as every other game.

I don't buy games to play multiplayer. Currently the single player experience here is lacking to say the least. Luckily I only bought the base game so it was only a few $$ and not the end of the world, but I'd be pretty annoyed right now if I had bought all the DLC before realizing that the only thing the game offers is a skirmish mode on the same few map types over and over. The whole point of the OP was mentioning a system that would add some much needed content on the single player side of the game. Right now Gladius is just objectively a bad game if you're only going to do singleplayer, it absolutely does need something to breathe some life into it and add replayability.

This is just your opinion, this is not a universal fact. Gladius is not an "objectively bad game if you play single player". I only play single player and i find it very fun and i have played it for thousands of hours and plan to play more. A campaign map wouldn't add much to the experience for me, just more busywork. I play the game to enjoy tactical turn based battles in Warhammer 40k, and the game delivers.

You are not the only one who has played the Dawn of War franchise. I have. The only single player campaigns i really enjoyed were the original and the Winter Assault ones, you know, the ones without a campaign map. I tried to enjoy the campaign map in both Dark Crusade and Soulstorm several times, and just found it was a tacked on underdeveloped shallow mini-game because they couldn't be bothered with providing a proper story campaign. It had no depth at all, just the illusion of depth, and added nothing of real value to the experience for me.

Of course you are entitled to your own opinion. Perhaps you don't find value in detailed turn based 40k battles. Perhaps you don't find value in that this game has more factions than Soulstorm, and each faction is significantly more complex and with much more units than any Dawn of War, including air units. You just bought the game, only the base game at that, and you came here to say "it is objectively a bad game", like all of us are fools here and don't know anything about video games and have been playing a terrible game all along. You are entitled to your opinion but your opinion is shallow and a dime a dozen. Personally, you can enjoy what you want, i don't care. But do not use the word "objectively" when you don't even realize what it means.

[Plutonious]

Originally posted by TemplarGR:

Of course you are entitled to your own opinion. Perhaps you don't find value in detailed turn based 40k battles. Perhaps you don't find value in that this game has more factions than Soulstorm, and each faction is significantly more complex and with much more units than any Dawn of War, including air units. You just bought the game, only the base game at that, and you came here to say "it is objectively a bad game", like all of us are fools here and don't know anything about video games and have been playing a terrible game all along. You are entitled to your opinion but your opinion is shallow and a dime a dozen. Personally, you can enjoy what you want, i don't care. But do not use the word "objectively" when you don't even realize what it means.

I do know what objectively means, thanks!

But how is it not a bad game? The management portion of the game has zero depth. There's no difference in map types, there's no impact of terrain and strategic resources on how you play the game, and the research and building system overall is incredibly simplistic. I guess the point is to basically make the economic side of the game just continue on in the background, get the game rolling quickly, and make the overall focus on the combat. But then we get to the combat. The problem with the combat is it's the same combat system that anyone who has played recent 4X games have already done a million times by now. It does nothing new and just is not engaging, unless you're a huge 40k fan and the setting is what's driving your enjoyment. But then there's other games, even 40k games, that simply do combat better too, like Battlesector. So what is Gladius doing that makes it stand out from everyone else in the genre? Currently it seems like... nothing?

And of course I only bought the base game. Why would I pay over $100 in DLC for a game blind? Or drop even more money when after trying it out I found the game incredibly shallow and an empty husk with zero replayability? While the factions are diverse, simply adding factions isn't adding gameplay to me, because the core issues with the game are still there. New factions don't address the main faults that I have with the game- the incredibly shallow macro side of the game and the fact that there's no interaction between any systems present in the game with the map generation. When your only game mode is skirmish and the map has no impact on the game, it means that every game plays out pretty much the same after you've played the faction a couple of times and figure out their mechanics (when facing the AI of course).

[Theorden]

Originally posted by TemplarGR:

Originally posted by Plutonious:

Honestly I dont care about DoW. DoW2 was mediocre and DoW3 was a dumpster fire- the series is dead. The only link I made there is because the expansions to DoW1 had a global campaign map, which really added a lot of depth and replayability to the single player experience.

The problem with this game is the singleplayer is barebones, with limited replayability. The combat simply isn't good enough to make me want to play the game solely because of this, and the 4X systems in place are significantly dumbed down versions of every other game in the genre with no depth. This leads to every game playing exactly the same as every other game.

I don't buy games to play multiplayer. Currently the single player experience here is lacking to say the least. Luckily I only bought the base game so it was only a few $$ and not the end of the world, but I'd be pretty annoyed right now if I had bought all the DLC before realizing that the only thing the game offers is a skirmish mode on the same few map types over and over. The whole point of the OP was mentioning a system that would add some much needed content on the single player side of the game. Right now Gladius is just objectively a bad game if you're only going to do singleplayer, it absolutely does need something to breathe some life into it and add replayability.

This is just your opinion, this is not a universal fact. Gladius is not an "objectively bad game if you play single player". I only play single player and i find it very fun and i have played it for thousands of hours and plan to play more. A campaign map wouldn't add much to the experience for me, just more busywork. I play the game to enjoy tactical turn based battles in Warhammer 40k, and the game delivers.

You are not the only one who has played the Dawn of War franchise. I have. The only single player campaigns i really enjoyed were the original and the Winter Assault ones, you know, the ones without a campaign map. I tried to enjoy the campaign map in both Dark Crusade and Soulstorm several times, and just found it was a tacked on underdeveloped shallow mini-game because they couldn't be bothered with providing a proper story campaign. It had no depth at all, just the illusion of depth, and added nothing of real value to the experience for me.

Of course you are entitled to your own opinion. Perhaps you don't find value in detailed turn based 40k battles. Perhaps you don't find value in that this game has more factions than Soulstorm, and each faction is significantly more complex and with much more units than any Dawn of War, including air units. You just bought the game, only the base game at that, and you came here to say "it is objectively a bad game", like all of us are fools here and don't know anything about video games and have been playing a terrible game all along. You are entitled to your opinion but your opinion is shallow and a dime a dozen. Personally, you can enjoy what you want, i don't care. But do not use the word "objectively" when you don't even realize what it means.

I don't agree with him that the game has no value because it doesn't have a campaign, the map itself does seem to have a campaign system with the quests, they just didn't set it up as a campaign system with a tiered map system that slowly teaches you the mechanics of the game.

I'm currently on my 3rd map restart, I added 2 AI allies by turn 60 they have 3 cities, 15 units including mechs and siege tanks and my single city has negative 15 loyalty and I have 1 space marine.

I'm trying to figure out how the AI was able to build, I think it's tech priests, which can build cities, and has the resources to build so fast while I'm basically almost sitting still? Maybe I'm doing something wrong?

I added a bunch of mods to boost my production to see if maybe that helps, idk?

[Plutonious]

Originally posted by Theorden:

I don't agree with him that the game has no value because it doesn't have a campaign, the map itself does seem to have a campaign system with the quests, they just didn't set it up as a campaign system with a tiered map system that slowly teaches you the mechanics of the game.

I'm currently on my 3rd map restart, I added 2 AI allies by turn 60 they have 3 cities, 15 units including mechs and siege tanks and my single city has negative 15 loyalty and I have 1 space marine.

I'm trying to figure out how the AI was able to build, I think it's tech priests, which can build cities, and has the resources to build so fast while I'm basically almost sitting still? Maybe I'm doing something wrong?

I added a bunch of mods to boost my production to see if maybe that helps, idk?

There's a space marine topic just a few threads down on the front page where Templar gave a lot of tips. Space marines only get 1 city, they can't build more. You use your fortresses to exploit resources on the map that are too far away to grab from your main city. Make sure you build things on terrain where it gets bonuses if you can. I found it was a good idea to get the techs that let you expand the tile radius you can exploit, along with orbital relays (increased building production rate), pretty important to get as early as you can as SM since you only get the one city. Space marines should be drowning in loyalty though- did you build heroes? The chaplain in particular basically makes it impossible to go negative on loyalty.

[Theorden]

Originally posted by Plutonious:

Originally posted by Theorden:

I don't agree with him that the game has no value because it doesn't have a campaign, the map itself does seem to have a campaign system with the quests, they just didn't set it up as a campaign system with a tiered map system that slowly teaches you the mechanics of the game.

I'm currently on my 3rd map restart, I added 2 AI allies by turn 60 they have 3 cities, 15 units including mechs and siege tanks and my single city has negative 15 loyalty and I have 1 space marine.

I'm trying to figure out how the AI was able to build, I think it's tech priests, which can build cities, and has the resources to build so fast while I'm basically almost sitting still? Maybe I'm doing something wrong?

I added a bunch of mods to boost my production to see if maybe that helps, idk?

There's a space marine topic just a few threads down on the front page where Templar gave a lot of tips. Space marines only get 1 city, they can't build more. You use your fortresses to exploit resources on the map that are too far away to grab from your main city. Make sure you build things on terrain where it gets bonuses if you can. I found it was a good idea to get the techs that let you expand the tile radius you can exploit, along with orbital relays (increased building production rate), pretty important to get as early as you can as SM since you only get the one city. Space marines should be drowning in loyalty though- did you build heroes? The chaplain in particular basically makes it impossible to go negative on loyalty.

Well why is the AI able to build multiple cities and I'm not? The tool tip even says Tech Engineer's are able to build cities. So my enemies and allies have infinite cities and I'm stuck at 1?

[TemplarGR]

Originally posted by Plutonious:

Originally posted by TemplarGR:

Of course you are entitled to your own opinion. Perhaps you don't find value in detailed turn based 40k battles. Perhaps you don't find value in that this game has more factions than Soulstorm, and each faction is significantly more complex and with much more units than any Dawn of War, including air units. You just bought the game, only the base game at that, and you came here to say "it is objectively a bad game", like all of us are fools here and don't know anything about video games and have been playing a terrible game all along. You are entitled to your opinion but your opinion is shallow and a dime a dozen. Personally, you can enjoy what you want, i don't care. But do not use the word "objectively" when you don't even realize what it means.

I do know what objectively means, thanks!

But how is it not a bad game? The management portion of the game has zero depth. There's no difference in map types, there's no impact of terrain and strategic resources on how you play the game, and the research and building system overall is incredibly simplistic. I guess the point is to basically make the economic side of the game just continue on in the background, get the game rolling quickly, and make the overall focus on the combat. But then we get to the combat. The problem with the combat is it's the same combat system that anyone who has played recent 4X games have already done a million times by now. It does nothing new and just is not engaging, unless you're a huge 40k fan and the setting is what's driving your enjoyment. But then there's other games, even 40k games, that simply do combat better too, like Battlesector. So what is Gladius doing that makes it stand out from everyone else in the genre? Currently it seems like... nothing?

And of course I only bought the base game. Why would I pay over $100 in DLC for a game blind? Or drop even more money when after trying it out I found the game incredibly shallow and an empty husk with zero replayability? While the factions are diverse, simply adding factions isn't adding gameplay to me, because the core issues with the game are still there. New factions don't address the main faults that I have with the game- the incredibly shallow macro side of the game and the fact that there's no interaction between any systems present in the game with the map generation. When your only game mode is skirmish and the map has no impact on the game, it means that every game plays out pretty much the same after you've played the faction a couple of times and figure out their mechanics (when facing the AI of course).

I think you want complexity and micromanagement, not depth. I disagree with your opinion that the city management "has zero depth". While it is not the focus, it is far better than any Dawn of War... Including the campaign maps in it.... Optimizing your cities takes a lot of practice to get right, and each faction needs a different way to do it. Sure, it is not as complicated as other 4X games and does not provide win conditions, for example science victories, because war is the focus. But saying it has zero depth is wrong. How many hours have you played the game, and at what difficulty? Beat the game at impossible difficulty solo, to show us the achievement, then we will talk... All i see is a person who doesnt' even understand how the game is played, and thinks he has it all figured out.

As for the combat, i would gladly take your recommendations regarding 4X games that have better combat than Gladius. Name examples... Because i have been a fan of 4X for decades and i can't find many that could be considered comparable. I know what games you are going to propose beforehand, and i am prepared to tare to shredds your opinion, that is why i am asking.... Because you think you are the only one who has played them.... Again, if you find the combat in Gladius shallow, beat the game at Impossible, solo. Show us you at least understand how the game is played first...

As for Battlesector, seriously, i am a huge fan of 40k and wouldn't touch it because it is barebones. The only good thing it has is better graphics.

It is fine if you don't enjoy the game, and no one ask you to buy any DLC. Hell, even refund the game and don't touch it again, we don't care. I take an issue with saying it is "objectively bad". It is not. You are not the center of the universe and your opinion is not objective, scientific fact. It is just your opinion, that you formed playing a couple of games vs AI on the base game, possibly at a low level of difficulty. 4X games are not that simple and you can't understand them in depth so soon.

Like i said, you seem to confuse depth, with complexity and micromanagement. With "STUFF" to do, buttons to press on the UI. "LOTS OF STUFF=BETTER GAEM". So i suppose Chess is a bad and shallow game, because it does not have "lots of stuff" going on, just 32 pieces on a simple board.... And no city management....

Also, what you propose would have pretty much zero benefit. What kind of benefit would a campaign map provide to the way Gladius is played? Give you some more reinforcements and a boost at resources before each map? Give you a reason to play more maps, because you have some kind of "grand campaign objective" to complete? What is the point? If you want to play more games of Gladius, just setup more games, you don't need a campaign map to incentivize you to play a "bad game", in your own words... If you find Gladius "an objectively bad game" right now, a campaign map won't make it better, it will just force you to play the "objectively bad game" more times in order to paint an overworld map with your color.

[TemplarGR]

Originally posted by Theorden:

Originally posted by TemplarGR:

This is just your opinion, this is not a universal fact. Gladius is not an "objectively bad game if you play single player". I only play single player and i find it very fun and i have played it for thousands of hours and plan to play more. A campaign map wouldn't add much to the experience for me, just more busywork. I play the game to enjoy tactical turn based battles in Warhammer 40k, and the game delivers.

You are not the only one who has played the Dawn of War franchise. I have. The only single player campaigns i really enjoyed were the original and the Winter Assault ones, you know, the ones without a campaign map. I tried to enjoy the campaign map in both Dark Crusade and Soulstorm several times, and just found it was a tacked on underdeveloped shallow mini-game because they couldn't be bothered with providing a proper story campaign. It had no depth at all, just the illusion of depth, and added nothing of real value to the experience for me.

Of course you are entitled to your own opinion. Perhaps you don't find value in detailed turn based 40k battles. Perhaps you don't find value in that this game has more factions than Soulstorm, and each faction is significantly more complex and with much more units than any Dawn of War, including air units. You just bought the game, only the base game at that, and you came here to say "it is objectively a bad game", like all of us are fools here and don't know anything about video games and have been playing a terrible game all along. You are entitled to your opinion but your opinion is shallow and a dime a dozen. Personally, you can enjoy what you want, i don't care. But do not use the word "objectively" when you don't even realize what it means.

I don't agree with him that the game has no value because it doesn't have a campaign, the map itself does seem to have a campaign system with the quests, they just didn't set it up as a campaign system with a tiered map system that slowly teaches you the mechanics of the game.

I'm currently on my 3rd map restart, I added 2 AI allies by turn 60 they have 3 cities, 15 units including mechs and siege tanks and my single city has negative 15 loyalty and I have 1 space marine.

I'm trying to figure out how the AI was able to build, I think it's tech priests, which can build cities, and has the resources to build so fast while I'm basically almost sitting still? Maybe I'm doing something wrong?

I added a bunch of mods to boost my production to see if maybe that helps, idk?

I agree that Gladius is very bad towards new players learning the game. I had the same issues years ago when i first installed it. In fact, i dismissed the game as trash back then as well, i found it shallow and not well made, until i tried it again sometime later.

In any case, if you are playing Space Marines, you cannot build a second city, it is one of their restrictions. Other factions can use their "builder" unit (it is different for each faction) to consume it and build a city. Techpriest Engineers do it for Astra Militarum, if you are playing them. They have the ability button to found a new city, but you need to pay a price in resources that increases with each city you have. Also, new cities need some distance from other cities, IIRC 4 tiles. If you have the resources you can build the city on a valid tile. Tech priest engineers need their own building in order to be produced, Cult Mechanicus (it also produces research, at a lower rate). You need to research Cult Mechanicus before you can build it.