Should it be a new Dawn of War or something similar to Total War?
If similar to Total War how would you balance the factions?
Should the map be galaxy size,a single star system size or single plane size?
Should it have space battles or not?
If Dawn of War what changes or old mechanics would you like to see?
>>45015637
>RTS
>Total War
Total War is Turn Based Strategy you fuck.
>>45015637
This is really the only true answer.
>>45015664
Obviously he refers to the real time aspect of combat.
Total War games are, after all, lauded as a "hybrid TBS-RTS game".
>>45015664
You forgot about the battles didn't you?
>>45015637
we should avoid galaxy sized its too much to work with lets keep it at maximum a subsector
>>45015686
Do think we will SupCom3?
>>45015686
Supreme Commander is utter shit
>>45015732
Correction: Supreme Commander 2 is utter shit.
Forged Alliance is the second best RTS I've ever played, right behind Total Annihilation itself.
>>45015725
What about something similar to Star Wars: Empire at War approach to the map?
>>45015728
forgot the *see between will and Sup.
it should be like Company of Heroes (1)
The missing link between dawn of war 1 and dawn of war 2, and superior to either.
>>45015728
>>45015791
Most likely not, and good riddance. They'd just cock it up.
>>45015732
>>45015752
My idea was that the grand, semi-strategic nature of SupCom1 battles would be a godsend to Warhammer's various armies. Perhaps it could be less economy-focused, but the grandiose scale has to stay.
Just imagine how potent a marine force could be on a SupCom-sized map where they have access to drop pods and/or thunderhawks. Or how glorious it would be to mass up Russes as IG to face the Tyranid Horde.
And so on and so forth.
>>45015637
Dawn of War.
And fuck planet maps, just give a campaign story like the original Dawn of War.
>>45015877
>And fuck planet map
The fuck you talking about! Dark crusade had map conquest and it was the best one!
>>45015877
>>45015912
What if every battle on the map was like the special resource maps? Ie, every map is unique due to special objectives rather than just being a basic skirmish.
Also, add this: >>45015858
>>45015794
I agree.
It should be like dow1 in game play dow2 was shit compared.
But add in all that sweet coh physics; eg tank armour as well as hp; ability to take over terrain buildings and for some factions (orks / ig) create bases from them. Plus directional cover and destructible terrain.
Hands in the air about whether you would want to have tw style army building then battles; probably would stick to dow garrison and rts approach. With maybe tw build and limited use of units in bfg style battles when you try to annex an enemies planet.
>>45015965
I think you use TW style base building, you choose an outpost or stronghold and upgrade it, said location now provides new, or upgraded units to deploy in battle, but you keep the DoW/CoH unit deployment instead of the TW style.
Then you can deploy lots of troops mid-battle without worrying about losing your entire army.
Have regional battles both around bases and in them for overall control of a region, said region provides either unique bonuses or general enhancement for your forces/resources.
Commanders should be kept like older TW installments, where you don't need a commander to send out armies, but having one provides useful bonuses, and they can take part in the battle, gain experience and even be killed. Then you could keep the Wargear from DoW and tie it to experience level and regions owned/resources held, so you would need a commander who has seen plenty of combat, while controlling a mechanicus facility, and then you could get artificer armor or weaponry for that commander.
>>45015964
Would the resources in the said map carryout into the campaign like the special abilities you gain after conquer enemies stronhold in the original DoW.
>>45016099
I love it.
>>45016099
>Commanders should be kept like older TW installments
>[DESIRE TO SEND OUT COMMANDER-LESS ARMIES TO GAIN FREE GENERALS INTENSIFIES]
>>45016099
Hmmm this could be an interesting way of thinking about it; but how would you decide the tech level of the attacker and the ability to build if you are linking it to campaign map buildings?
Would probably be easier to keep it as it is now with the requirement to build buildings during the rts part to then build troops.
>>45016241
You could easily make it so you set a stronghold to attack rather than an individual army, so that instead of building an army and marching them out, you say "x attacks y" and the technology and buildings from "x" apply to the attacker's side and the defense has closest stronghold for the opponent who controls the area for its tech level.
It provides more metagame than sitting down and building the same buildings every encounter and deploying the same troops every encounter which DoW always ended up like.
So then when you have someone who can deepstrike and they target a place in the back of your lines set up for extra resource production/war expansion and not much defence you have to rely on natural defense and garrison advantage rather than building the same stuff, to deploy the same units, all the time.
>>45016368
So it'll be more like RISK in the way that regions attack regions.
>>45016430
Yes, just like how Dark Crusade worked. Pay attention.
>>45016099
You could actually keep the armies in, just make them exclusively elite units rather than mooks.
You don't need an army of 1000000000 guardsman, they are going to be there when you set up, but they aren't going to have a dozen baneblades and an assfuckload of Russes on hand, that's the "army" you are driving around.
You can train and add generic troops to the army, but you should only do that to pad numbers or otherwise bulk up your army for a preemptive strike.
Best of both worlds?
>>45016580
Except not, because there was no metagame in Dark Crusade.
It was "attack region, build quickly to get to Termies with assault cannons" or whatever OP unit you had for whatever faction. The retinue was pretty much useless, the garrison was also not the most useful. And taking the regions provided nearly no tactical benefit save for two or three locations which instead just broke the game clean in half.
You didn't prepare beforehand for that, you just went into a battle, did what you always do with little to no variation, mainly because you didn't have to, there was nothing stopping you from not just building nothing but a fuckload of your best unit.
Out of topic but what about a rogue trader game like elite dangerous or star citizen?
>>45016223
It would be kinda logical tho, your sergeants and other lower officers get hardened in battle and shit and then you got heroes.
>>45016368
Actually interesting, the troops you can muster during battle could also be drawn from your cities/garrisons recruitment manpower (or reserves). So if you are in your territory you got large amounts of troops to deploy fast, but if you are deep in enemy territory you have to wait for them to arrive, but that delay could be reduced by mechanizing your reserves.
>>45016670
>>45016368
>>45016430
I like this idea that you get the tech level of the territory you are attacking from / defending. Certain factions like orKS ig nids having a starting force already in the area at the start of the game on defense actions would be cool; while other factions able to not have to attack regions directlynext to the region is cool like marines and Eldar.
I would probably make it so that you required a Co. To attack and the rts Goal was to kill the opponents Co. To take the territory; as they are the requestor / director of forces in the area.
>>45017023
Inquisition reasons.
>>45017023
Oh I know how about the hero system for the imperium like the system in warhammer total war but instead of only the faction leader changing the army changes as well.
>>45016368
What about when you conquer a region what should you do with the population or there should there be some special cases? Should the imperial guard exterminate a region that was once was held before by another imperial faction, should the imperium even have diferent factions in the game?
>>45017066
>>45017172
There are different IG regiments and commanders, as well as SM chapters.
While it may complicate things, you could theoretically have an all-guardsman-party or nothing but SM duking it out.
Not all of them agree with each other or how to deal with things.
>>45017172
>What about when you conquer a region what should you do with the population or there should there be some special cases
Imperium factions and eldars never exterminate each others pops on capture but exterminate all the others. Other factions exterminate 50% of the pops on capture but the 50% others get converted to the faction (it represents xenos and heretic "settling in", or tyranids nomming it, or necrons enslaving them)
>>45015664
Nigga what are you smoking? Clearly OP means the battles
>>45015765
That's what I was thinking, that would probably be the best way to handle it imo
Any good downloads for Dark Crusade?
>>45015637
Base building need to go die in a fucking hole. It favors spamming units and cushions you if you lose something important.
Total War meanwhile would just be an RTS version of the tabletop, and far more brutal.
>>45015637
I think it should be like Company Of Heroes.
>>45015965
>dow2 was shit
>coh is what I want
wat
>>45017841
firestorm over kronus?
>>45021040
if anything ideas from coh2 would be great in dow3.
like a dedicated reverse button
trueSight
Vaulting over cover.
>>45016099
Dawn of Company of Total War Heroes
>>45021320
I like how TW took dynamic LOS and added it to r2, attila and arena.
>Total War-style gameplay but with buildable bases and reinforcements. Can start out with either entire armies deployed as a quick battle or build/collect resources
>Total War "naval battle" mode replaced by space combat
>Commander/Hero units
>Army 1: Space Marines with Ultras, Fists, Iron Hands, White Scars, Dark Angels, Blood Angels, Space Wolves, GK, Raven Guard, Black Templars, and Crimson Fists skins and special units.
>Army 2: Imperial Guard with Cadian, Catachan, Krieg, Vostroyan, Valhallan, Mordian, Armageddon, Elysian, Tanith, and Praetorian skins and special units
>Army 3: Mechanicus/Skitarii
>Army 4: Sisters of Battle
>Army 5: CSM with Black Legion, Emp's Children, World Eaters, Word Bearers, Night Lords, Iron Warriors, Death Guard, Thousand Sons, and Red Corsairs skins and sub-units
>Army 6: Chaos Daemons
>Army 7: Chaos Renegades (Traitor Guard/Cultists/Mutants/Beastmen/Dark Skitarii/etc..)
>Army 8: Orks
>Army 9: Eldar with Harlequin, Corsair, and Exodite allied units that can be recruited
>Army 10: Dark Eldar with Harlequin and Corsair allied units that can be recruited
>Army 11: Necrons
>Army 12: Tau
>Army 13: Tyranids
>Titans available for all sides
>Expansion is the Horus Heresy, with Crusade-era skins and units and Primarchs as characters
My wet dream
>>45021654
>only one ork faction
Pfffffft
>>45022157
>A mod/gamemode gives you roughly 70% of a map as a conquered Imperium.
>Every single other player in the game is an Ork Faction
>Objective: Survive.
>>45022157
Orks would have all the Clans + Freebooters skins of course
>>45023177
Then after a while the nids show up and eat hallf of the ork territory.
Here comes a new challenger.
What do people have against DoW2? I think the base-building in 1 was pretty overrated. It was such a simple, minor feature that i don't get why everyone thinks the 2nd was dogshit without it.
As for the combat, what's the big difference?
>>45023894
Its because you can only ever have four squads on the field in the main game, barring scripted mssions. This goes against the grain of 40k where the fleets of some armies will block out the sun. By dropping the management aspect of an RTS they took away an integral game mechanic that adds to the scale of a match. Building your base, amassing an army and kitting them out with the best gear is all part of the fun. Not only that, DoWII focused greatly on characters but they chose to focus on Space Marines, which are probably one of the most boring factions in the game.
Besides that, the missions were very bland and unoriginal, heavily relying on the uniqueness of the setting to get by. It mostly consisted of land on the opposite edge of a map with your chosen squads, fight your way through a map of enemies and fight the boss. Thats it.
>>45024233
I was talking more about the multiplayer.
Are people's problem with DoW2 mostly just based around the campaign?
>>45024565
Im not sure, im aussie and can never get a good match in niche multiplayer games like DoW.
>>45024565
campaign
don't expect /v/ to play anything that isn't mario competitively.
>>45024565
>mfw their logic is that DoW2 is a Moba because of last stand's popularity.
>mfw I have no face
>>45024584
>mfw their logic is that DoW2 is a Moba because of last stand's popularity.
Well, when you really think about it, it does seem very similar to a moba.
>>45024624
well if an RTS game is now a moba with multiple units, /v/ needs to be gassed.
>>45025037
When hasn't /v/ need to be be gassed?!
>>45021040
I hated the way thw campaign worked; and multi player wasn't as much fun. I know they updated dow2 with similar mechanics but at the same time they ripped out the heart of the original game.
Still played them but wasn't nearly as much fun as dow or coh.
>>45025408
I would prefer this:
No bases or anything during rts; you call I'm troops from you orbiting ships, during the overview turns you can spend resource points dependent on how much land / what land you control to upgrade you flagship / fleet to increase troop a replenishment rate during battle and/or variety. Plus research upgrades excetra for hero's and units.
During the rts you land on the map and have to regenicide the enemies commandeer or hold points that are critical to the area.
Building creation is limited to bunkers etc.
Like in coh with the branch abilities each hero has a tree of special moves to call upon be it air strikes etc.
>>45025499
Each faction has its troops materialism differently; marines drop pods and thunderhawks; ig in transports, eldar gates, nids spores; orks crash landing etc.
Would have every faction in the campaign; with diplomacy having modifiers based on the factions eg ig almost no chance of being allies with nids; but easier with marines sisters etc.
Remove the way flyers worked in dow and have them as in dow where there are called in super sonic across the map drop bombs troops what evs and leave, can. Still be shot down on the way, if they are the cool down is increased / activity doesn't happen.
>>45015637
Either be like CoH or Men of war assault squad.
My dream 40k game would be something like Combat Mission, but just a little bit more game-like instead of a full blown hardcore simulator.
I just want something similar to Red Alert 2 and Generals Zero Hour campaign and skirmish.
>turtle in your base
>slowly upgrade your tech while resisting minor attacks
>counter attack with mid tier to establish a few forward minor outposts for extra resources
>turtle
>when you have a massive army just start steamrolling shit
Massive armies, varied factions and several playstyles for each faction (at least something like Zero Hour) and really detailed customization in the campaign.
I just want to turtle as IG until I've got a massive army of super heavy tanks supported by artillery. Or distracting the enemy with Marine flyers, drop podding shit behind enemy lines and then converging everything into a giant blob of destruction.
>>45025931
This.
It would play nicely into the tabletop origins of the game.
>>45015637
It should be a mix of Total War and Company of Heroes.
>>45015637
I would like something close to Wargame, massive maps with objective zones and bringing in assembled forces.
>>45026597
A spacemarine inside a spacemarine.
>>45026611
I'll be honest, they've grown on me, and it makes me hate myself.
>>45026628
I don't blame you even the Emperor found them adorable.
just make it like x-com but closer to tabletopwitch all races and rules and withour retarded titans and other "big stuff" that is shit in 40k .
>>45026611
Still waiting for dreadnoughts piloting Knights piloting Titans...
>>45027091
Row row fight the powah!
>>45026597
I agree with this, something in thing in the style of wargame or World in Conflict would be the dream as it could fully utilise the apocalypse stuff and have a actual warzone.
>>45027091
You called?
>>45021654
why did you even both typing all that shit out. You could have just said armies for each race, and subfaction within the race.
Is there a gameplay reason why people wouldn't be okay with just having the tabletop rules for the computer?
I mean, I understand from a business perspective why they'd never do this (3/4 people would never buy models again), but hypothetically, why not just do this?
>>45027366
I dunno, possibly because for a computer game they would not be particularly suitable; they are not especially interesting, unlike say bloodbowls, and neither are they so complex that they would benefit being handled by a computer. In that way, it would probably be better to generate a different system that was better suited with more inherent complexity.
>>45016670
As a high elo player for DC and SS this post miffed me.
>>45015637
What about asymmetric factions: IG or orks can build bases and recruit troops, while SM or SMC have a fixed (or almost fixed) amount of troops for the campaign and can just place automatic weapons at best.
