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
I for myself didnt play Ascension, but afaik it has no Map Editor.
So to me, even if i don't play MP until, i have infinite possibilities to create Maps for myself or play the custommade playermaps in SP.
Ascension is very good too but rules are little bit different than the boardgame. But he is more vidéo game oriented than SH 2013.
SHT is for me really bad about gameplay cause the new card system + new rules broke the MP and the SP gameplay too. The AI is bad, the campaign uses same map and the évolution of arines/stealers is not interresting. The only good thing is the map editor and graphics.
The balance is perfectly fine, it's just that SM are more touchy to play (one error can cost you the game) while the Genes are more confortable : the learning curve is far more steep for the SM than the Genes.
As some SH veterans already said here around : this game is about bringing the right gear and squad composition for the right map, and then play tactically right to manage the risks and adapt to the RNG (always have a plan B).
You seems to not have played a lot, because you cant be more wrong.
The new card system, once assimilated, is really great and add a lot of flavour to the base rule set. It adds chapter differenciation, odd mitigations, and a little interesting decision layer each turn. With very few it achieve a lot, it's a very good finding from the dev. From all who have played it during beta, I have seen no criticism on it, beta players seems to like it (while a lot were very reluctant about it - me for example).
The campaign does use a lot of maps, scenarised ones for the storyline (the 'true' ones), and smaller skirmish ones for the 'random encounters'. I fully agree that the last ones are too easy (due to IA - see after) and repetitive (devs said there are 12 differents skirmishes map for random encounters, maybe it's bugged I have seen only twos differents). But the good news is : you can fully skip it if you want.
Then the Genes AI. It has already been discussed a lot here, and it's true that in some cases the AI is far too careful, leading to very boring mission. What is strange is that on others situations/map, the AI is agressive, will trade your OW, put pressure and finally be pleasant to play. Sounds like hidden AI bugs to me. But apart from this too careful OW behavior, the AI is pretty decent. It tries to trigger jam or block a corridor sometime for example.
Map editor and graphics are good yes, but I think the map editor lack some options yet. Hopefully in the future they will come.
I never encountered severe problems with the AI before then, it seems to work great with the map editor when you give the stealer player options instead of, well that's the only corridor you can go down to get at the marines, so er... on you go. It becomes quickly obvious in the campaign that something fails in the stealer AI, quite often. It could be a logistical events and checks structure that needs reviewing, or it could be a case of tweaking percentages, or a combination of several issues.
I didn't expect to see the same map again during the campaign, but actually it doesn't bother me too much I had already thought about reusing maps for my fan made campaign (coming soon hopefully if I can get the time to work on it.)- but you definitely need to alter the objectives and startpoints and so on to stop it feeling overly cheap. It would be easy enough a write the narrative where you go back through previous maps after the metagame changes the objectives and focus etc. I also think there may have been a bug with the random selection, I've only seen 2 or 3 when there's apparently a pool of 12 or so.
It's disappointing to see the usual army of negative posters (not that they haven't got several justifiable points) The Devs are communicative, have acknowledged every real issue, and have promised they are doing their best to sort it out. At this stage I can't ask more than that and I am more than reassured that they are good to their word.
It's a shame for sure it wasn't perfect on launch but then what is?
As for the OP question, if you want any sort of RPG levelling for your marines, so that they become prominent characters in the narrative then it seems obvious that Ascension is the game for you because that just wasn't in the design goals of this game. If you want to be able to create endless maps, and thereby write your own narrative, play competitive multiplayer etc. then :Tactics has all this while the others don't.
Totally agree
We are currently working on fixing bugs regarding the AI, and improving its overall quality
Actually no. The campaigns have 26 unique, fully narrated and voiced missions. What you are refering to are the horde maps that you can find between missions, and are partially skippable.
In this regard we are working on adding new horde maps and implementing ways to prevent fighting on the same map several time in a row.
I say let's give the devs time to make some future DLC then we can really compare both games.
Even so Tactics is well made and we can see how much dedication the developers put to make it things done well.
Though I wish to have the freedom of customization in campaign as we can have in skirmish,and the choice to play with the other chapters the campaign as well.
That is exactly what the SHtactics devs do
Ascension (A) VS Tactics (T):
A - more chapters of Spacemarines and each chapter has its own characteristics, campaign;
T - now 4 chapters, which are not much different from each other (campaign only for Blood Angels ...now, for the time being)
A - more control over the situation and weapons, it is possible to manually reload the weapon and cool, there is no dependence on the cards;
T - minimum or no control, dependence on cards (I don't play because of it
with "hard machine gun" and "plasma gun")
A - AI is very good, actively attacks, and there is an opportunity to stop the direction of attack by blocking of the respawn;
T - AI in campaign now clever and cautious, smarter than terminators ;) does not attack if it understands danger or defeat (is bad)
In Tactics only good thing is the map editor and graphics, and apotecary.
But Ascension the best and better ....for the time being...
I very wish Ascension remaster and DAW Soulstourm remaster in new graphics :)
Why in the wars of SH series not chapter of Deathwatch? (Kill team of Terminators from Deathwatch with 1 of Ultramarines, 1 of Imperial fists, 1 of Blood angels, 1 of Salamanders, 1 of Space wolves (+ Dark angels and Raven guard). That would be great!
9 chapters of Spacemarines in SH:
--Ultramarines
--Salamanders (Vulkan is alive! onwards Salamanders, into the fire of battle, unto the anvil of war!)
--Space wolves
--Blood angels
--Dark angels
--Raven guard
--Imperial fists
--White scars (but better Black templars)
--Deathwatch
That would be great!
but only not Blood ravens )))