Is it worth getting?

[*| Lion Heart |*]

I loved supreme commander..sup com 2 was kind of wattered down, but I liked it...

How is this game? It feels like a unit spam kind of game, is it?
Do units feel expandable? Or valuable?

does the game have any good turtling structures? As in hard to destroy, powerful structures?

[BLISS]

the game relies on conquering sectors , you have different kinds of structures to defend your territories but there's nothing that can't be countered. I loved supcom and I'm having a blast with this game. Gameplay is overall slow like supcom , you can spam t1 or go fast t2 , have superunits like supcom and economy is luckily a bit less important than supcom which sometimes turned into a macrofest.

[democles_pl]

Meh, I just got it working, finally, by accessing it out of Steam. For reasons I guess?
Supreme Commander and TA are better and more interesting I think.

[BLISS]

this game has nothing less than supcom except navy

[centaurianmudpig]

Buy this if you want to see the game evolve beyound what SupCom and TA ever did. You can get dozens if not hundreds of hours out of it now. This is an RTS I can get behind.

[*| Lion Heart |*]

Originally posted by centaurianmudpig:

Buy this if you want to see the game evolve beyound what SupCom and TA ever did. You can get dozens if not hundreds of hours out of it now. This is an RTS I can get behind.

Well I dont have much time to game...so I doubt ill play it for hundreds of hours...my "gaming" times are past me...frankly I dont think I played a single game in over a year, but I liked what i saw with ashes back when I saw it before its release.

So whats the difference between this, and its expansion? Is escalation the vanilla? or an expansion? It kind of confused me...also, are the dlc's worth getting? It felt like they are a money grab for some maps?

Ill be playing mainly vs the AI, and perhaps some multiplayer, but I doubt it due to limmited time...
I am debating between this and the new anno game...

[centaurianmudpig]

Originally posted by Lion Heart:

Originally posted by centaurianmudpig:

Buy this if you want to see the game evolve beyound what SupCom and TA ever did. You can get dozens if not hundreds of hours out of it now. This is an RTS I can get behind.

Well I dont have much time to game...so I doubt ill play it for hundreds of hours...my "gaming" times are past me...frankly I dont think I played a single game in over a year, but I liked what i saw with ashes back when I saw it before its release.

So whats the difference between this, and its expansion? Is escalation the vanilla? or an expansion? It kind of confused me...also, are the dlc's worth getting? It felt like they are a money grab for some maps?

Ill be playing mainly vs the AI, and perhaps some multiplayer, but I doubt it due to limmited time...
I am debating between this and the new anno game...

You've already asked this question in another topic which has been answered.
http://steamcommunity.com/app/507490/discussions/0/1620599015875781464/

DLCs also add a single player scenario. It depends if you are interested in more multipler/skirmish maps and singleplayer content. They are by no means 'essential', nor a money grab. They add value and are inexpensive. How much of a value they add depends on the individual.

[Demerzel]

I just bought the game. Played the tutorial and a few story mission.

4 story campaign. Voice acted.

It's totally worth it.

The game is incredibly responsive. The unit's movement is very satisfying.

The game controls and UI are also very intuitive. I can move hundreds of units easily.

I haven't bought the dlcs...

[*| Lion Heart |*]

Originally posted by Demerzel:

I just bought the game. Played the tutorial and a few story mission.

4 story campaign. Voice acted.

It's totally worth it.

The game is incredibly responsive. The unit's movement is very satisfying.

The game controls and UI are also very intuitive. I can move hundreds of units easily.

I haven't bought the dlcs...

Do you think the units feel like cannon fodder where you basically swarm the enemy?

I loved sup com, 1, and 2, but I hate starcraft....

From what I saw it feels like ashes is a wattered down version of sup com...but I might be mistaken...

[BLISS]

it's not watered down. Supcom offers a bit more in terms of tactical possibilities but it relies a lot more on macro/eco. I like Ashes because you think more about strategy and less about economy. It's like you take supcome and give it some coh flavour. For me this is the perfect mix.

[*| Lion Heart |*]

Originally posted by ✪ BLISS ✪:

it's not watered down. Supcom offers a bit more in terms of tactical possibilities but it relies a lot more on macro/eco. I like Ashes because you think more about strategy and less about economy. It's like you take supcome and give it some coh flavour. For me this is the perfect mix.

I see how that may be appealing, with coh I hated the fact that the game forced people to go out and expand to cap points. It basically pushed the players out to rush for point control.

Vs lets say having people play the way they want to, for instance if someone is a turtler, and preffers to build a strongly deffended main base, with economy being securely sitting in the back of the base....and just creating a frontline with massive deffences, and playing that way...

having few yet more powerful units, vs hundreds weak and spammy ones...where each of their "lives" is meaningless....


I mean thats who I sometimes took some games, like coh...

does anyone know of a guide , or youtube video that describes the upgrades? I saw in some videos some "abilities", but it was unclear to me how they work, and their beenfits...and I see no real mention of it on the main site, unless I missed it...

[BLISS]

I'm sorry but every RTS I can think of right now (starcraft , company of heroes , supreme commander , age of empires,homeworld and so on) force you to expand through the map and take resources/territories. No one wants a game where you sit in your base , it is basically anti-strategy. In ashes and many other games , though, you can be punished for expanding too much. But fighting for capturing resources/strategy points is basically the core mechanic of any standard RTS game.

[*| Lion Heart |*]

Originally posted by ✪ BLISS ✪:

I'm sorry but every RTS I can think of right now (starcraft , company of heroes , supreme commander , age of empires,homeworld and so on) force you to expand through the map and take resources/territories. No one wants a game where you sit in your base , it is basically anti-strategy. In ashes and many other games , though, you can be punished for expanding too much. But fighting for capturing resources/strategy points is basically the core mechanic of any standard RTS game.

Well Yes...I know the RTS genre well...been around playing thigns since the original settlers, dune, and warcraft days...so I know how things work, my point is games like coh punish the player for not playing the way the developers wanted them to. sup com allowed players to expand, or build fabricators, which allows one to for instance concentrate on defences, and strong turtling positions.

AoE, or stronghold allowed one to build cities, with very strong walls, that toko time to demolish, allowing for trurtling...most games since then if they ever use walls were weak...
my point is that most rts games force players to be agressive and rush the opponent than think tactically, and lets say let the oponent come to them while they build a super solid defence system, then wipe then enemy then go in for a kill which is fun to me, and I bet others...

aka, turtling is fun....yet, so overlooked, even the turtle dlc that I see feels a bit...weak in this regard...or perhaps I saw no reall info on it online that has details.

[BLISS]

I understand what you like . You can play this game defensively , you can increase your metal income and build turrets, this is very similar to SupCom.

Let's say that at a certain competitive level , what you want to do is impossible , because the player playing offensively has obviously more advantage because he should be able to get more income. Even in SupCom playing defensively was 100% loss , at least vs >1500 elo player.

[*| Lion Heart |*]

Originally posted by ✪ BLISS ✪:

I understand what you like . You can play this game defensively , you can increase your metal income and build turrets, this is very similar to SupCom.

Let's say that at a certain competitive level , what you want to do is impossible , because the player playing offensively has obviously more advantage because he should be able to get more income. Even in SupCom playing defensively was 100% loss , at least vs >1500 elo player.

Are there any structures / units that create shields?
I really loved the sup com style where one could "hold off" at some position while being bombarded. While still being able to build defensive structures in the meantime, or multilayered shields, and regenerating them, or builfing new overlapping them.

[*| Lion Heart |*]

Originally posted by ✪ BLISS ✪:

I understand what you like . You can play this game defensively , you can increase your metal income and build turrets, this is very similar to SupCom.

Let's say that at a certain competitive level , what you want to do is impossible , because the player playing offensively has obviously more advantage because he should be able to get more income. Even in SupCom playing defensively was 100% loss , at least vs >1500 elo player.

Also, I just stumbled upon this video:

I think you , or others might agree with it:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dAl7BP7pivc

It just offers an additional "leyer" of gameplay enjoyment vs the usual, and quite boring rushing mechanic, that unfortunetly started to dominate the RTS industry decades ago. VS preplanned, way of outsmarting the oponent, vs just spamming him or her with as many units as fast as possible....I enjoyed the good old days where turets/defensive towers were harder to destroy, and had some value, and could dish out quite a bit of damage vs weak/meadium type units...and dealt more damage than regular units but lacked mobility.