Hydro
Educated
- Joined
- Mar 30, 2024
- Messages
- 642
CoH/DoW comparison is pretty thin. I think of it as a classic character with different skills with the skills being his squad members e.g. adding antitank or sniper.CoH/DoW
CoH/DoW comparison is pretty thin. I think of it as a classic character with different skills with the skills being his squad members e.g. adding antitank or sniper.CoH/DoW
You could attach leaders to units in DoW and they gave units personality in scripted scenes.It looks like Dawn of War/Company of Heroes (Warcraft 3?), but maybe it will be more fleshed out.Squad leader is supposed to be the personality.So, infantry in Menace is more akin to RTS model; Company of Heroes and Dawn of War come to mind.Players can field two fundamentally different units, namely infantry squads and vehicles. Each infantry squad is led by a squad leader who also represents the unit in combat and is a distinct character who acts in events and more outside of combat.
The size of infantry squads can vary between 1 and 9 elements but will mostly be around 5. The unit shares one health pool, and one element will perish with a certain amount of hit points lost. This will reduce the unit's firepower as more and more fighters drop.
Vehicles have more personality than infantrymen, maybe because they are more valuable in gameplay.Vehicles also have a health pool, but instead of losing elements, a vehicle will collect “defects,” aka injuries. Defects range from an overloaded targeting computer to a disabled engine or might even lead to a catastrophic explosion, instantly wiping the vehicle out.
they mentioned that the squad leader has personality, and actual characters that interacts outside of tactical phase
so it's like CoH/DoW but the Leader unit is unique (much like Characters being attached in Warhammer 40,000 board game from my understanding)
These leaders were pretty static RPG wise with a limited amount of improvements available.You could attach leaders to units in DoW and they gave units personality in scripted scenes.It looks like Dawn of War/Company of Heroes (Warcraft 3?), but maybe it will be more fleshed out.Squad leader is supposed to be the personality.So, infantry in Menace is more akin to RTS model; Company of Heroes and Dawn of War come to mind.Players can field two fundamentally different units, namely infantry squads and vehicles. Each infantry squad is led by a squad leader who also represents the unit in combat and is a distinct character who acts in events and more outside of combat.
The size of infantry squads can vary between 1 and 9 elements but will mostly be around 5. The unit shares one health pool, and one element will perish with a certain amount of hit points lost. This will reduce the unit's firepower as more and more fighters drop.
Vehicles have more personality than infantrymen, maybe because they are more valuable in gameplay.Vehicles also have a health pool, but instead of losing elements, a vehicle will collect “defects,” aka injuries. Defects range from an overloaded targeting computer to a disabled engine or might even lead to a catastrophic explosion, instantly wiping the vehicle out.
they mentioned that the squad leader has personality, and actual characters that interacts outside of tactical phase
so it's like CoH/DoW but the Leader unit is unique (much like Characters being attached in Warhammer 40,000 board game from my understanding)
That is what get me worried. Not women in combat roles in board game. Its not real guys. Chill out.Units can see and shoot through all buildings and assets smaller than 3x3 tiles. Only larger structures or objects will block all lines of sight and fire. There has been a lot of development, testing, and trial and error behind this decision.
CoH and DoW (one of the sequels) could level up leaders and attach specialist weapons.These leaders were pretty static RPG wise with a limited amount of improvements available.
Same goes for squads.
Yeah, I know. Leveling up though was pretty nominal being rather a “choose an upgrade/item”. Specialist weapons like flamethrowers or plasmas indeed changed the capabilities of a squad, but again was pretty limited in options.CoH and DoW (one of the sequels) could level up leaders and attach specialist weapons.
Static compared to JA2 and X-COM - sure.
Sounds a lot like the painful decision to cut interiors from Battle Brothers becauseThat is what get me worried.Units can see and shoot through all buildings and assets smaller than 3x3 tiles. Only larger structures or objects will block all lines of sight and fire. There has been a lot of development, testing, and trial and error behind this decision.
they mentioned that the squad leader has personality, and actual characters that interacts outside of tactical phase
so it's like CoH/DoW but the Leader unit is unique (much like Characters being attached in Warhammer 40,000 board game from my understanding)
From game's Steam-page:they mentioned that the squad leader has personality, and actual characters that interacts outside of tactical phase
so it's like CoH/DoW but the Leader unit is unique (much like Characters being attached in Warhammer 40,000 board game from my understanding)
FFFFUUUUUUUUUUCCCCCCKKKKKKKK!!!!!!!!! Why the fuck can't they have randomly generated characters. I don't want yet another tactical squad based game that I am probably not gonna play because they have "Unique" pre-set characters characters.
You are just assuming or making this up, right? The devs haven't actually said this? Please tell me that's the case.
Pike is the model marine – loyal to the Republic, and a professional soldier, unwavering in the face of adversity. Rewa suffers from the trauma of past scars, a violent rage constantly boiling beneath the surface. Lim owes Pike for saving his home colony, and distrusts non-Marines – but he'll have to learn to meet them in the middle as the going gets rough. Every squad leader in MENACE has a history and personality, and as their commander,
Each playthrough features a selection of characters from a massive pool – learn how individual backstories are tied together and prepare to navigate the unique combinations of each run. Stories unfold in unexpected ways as your squad leaders push from engagement to engagement. Watch them crumble under pressure from a cataclysmic threat, and do your best to train them for the fight against the MENACE.
I'd argue that's what made Battle Brothers so strong. It is also what made Jagged Alliance so interesting: it wasn't an RPG, but in some ways it was more of an RPG than most self-proclaimed RPGs we see nowadays. Having less of that may turn out to be not so good for MENACE in the end. Then again - as some people already mentioned - it did work for Dawn of War and similar games, so maybe they can land on that crowd instead.Even Battle Brothers was only "half-CRPG" or "almost-CRPG" and this one is supposedly even less so.
Love this. Nameless soldiers are essentially hit points for the real characters. So I don't have to worry as much about losing a beloved merc, yet I still get to see high-stakes battles with heavy losses on both sides. Cool design.Each infantry squad is led by a squad leader who also represents the unit in combat and is a distinct character who acts in events and more outside of combat. The size of infantry squads can vary between 1 and 9 elements but will mostly be around 5. The unit shares one health pool, and one element will perish with a certain amount of hit points lost. This will reduce the unit's firepower as more and more fighters drop.
I can't understand why they abandoned BB, because they have a STEADY twitch fanbase and steady playerbase. And for it to grow allyou have to do is to make some DLCs and content. Yet they choose to abandon their most profitable game and develop a new one in a most generic setting with the most generic mechanics. I see a clear repetition of Darkest Dungeon 2 debacle.
They said they wanted to do something new, and I can respect that. I've had periods in my job where I did the same thing for 2-3 years and it can get old. Not like I wouldn't have continued to do it to put food on the table, but it's always been nice when something new came up and I got to learn things.I can't understand why they abandoned BB, because they have a STEADY twitch fanbase and steady playerbase. And for it to grow allyou have to do is to make some DLCs and content. Yet they choose to abandon their most profitable game and develop a new one in a most generic setting with the most generic mechanics. I see a clear repetition of Darkest Dungeon 2 debacle.
Games aren't meant to be developed forever. They are meant to be finished. Games as a service is a modern day abomination.
...which they did?I can't understand why they abandoned BB, because they have a STEADY twitch fanbase and steady playerbase. And for it to grow allyou have to do is to make some DLCs and content. Yet they choose to abandon their most profitable game and develop a new one in a most generic setting with the most generic mechanics. I see a clear repetition of Darkest Dungeon 2 debacle.
*Laughs in Path of Exile, Starcraft, Hearts of Iron IV, EUIV, Stellaris, Farming Simulator, Stardew Valley etc.*
Becasue capitalizing on initial success is for loosers. Successful guys start new franchizes, new games, new titles.
you misspelled "dark omen"So, infantry in Menace is more akin to RTS model; Company of Heroes and Dawn of War come to mind.
You mean "dark women"? Come on, not this again.you misspelled "dark omen"So, infantry in Menace is more akin to RTS model; Company of Heroes and Dawn of War come to mind.
This is why you will lose in Ukraine and everywhere else. Cringe weak loser who plays with digital barbies shooting guns, get cucked to death by better men. It's an HONOR of our generations to CRUSH boomer shabbo scum like you and your jewish lords like Zed Duke of Banville during our lifetimeAlways the case. "Don't you think both sides are just as bad" types somehow always lean very far towards the woke. Concern trolling or whatever they call it.You support one side in the culture war, while pretending to be above it. You try to shame people by acting as if they're ridiculous when they acknowledge that there is a culture war, but we both know that you aren't saying a peep when game devs, politicians, actors etc. etc. sit on twitter and explicitly state that they hate white men. You downplay anything that one side does in this stupid fucking culture war when it's the current year and we know for a fact that it's ideologically motivated.You don't have to participate in a culture "war," friend. You can acknowledge that both sides of the political divide are trying to get you worked up over woke shit and you can wish a pox on both their houses.Now that we're in the middle of a culture war, such things acquire much larger importance.Since their inception computer games had women combatants, and it never was a problem. On the contrary it added to a setting.
You're disingenuous, manipulative and hypocritical. You argue in bad faith. A genuinely awful human being. At least stand for the things you believe in, instead of this manipulative pretending-to-be-neutral bullshit. All of the above applies to anyone else doing this slimy "it's so silly that you get triggered by hearing a woman" act, too. No, it's not hearing a woman that's making people lose interest in the game; it's seeing that the devs are pushing the same tired "strong women in roles that men are logically suited to" propaganda that they've seen a thousand times. They've seen it and they know that it means that the devs are fully infected by the culture war. If you were as neutral as you pretend to be, you'd be just as tired of seeing it.
Anyway, it isn't just that there's muh wahmen.. as always with retarded woke crap, it looks like a circus checklist. Gotta have a nig, gotta have a tranny(esque) and so on. So obvious they're ticking off boxes and it always looks fucking ridiculous.
Your very post proves you are just as bad. You are terribly racist and misogynist.
Fortunately you and your ilk don't represent the right in general, but you make a very good example of how when the SJWs say that the people who oppose them are all racist misogynistic white nationalists, they aren't entirely off the mark.
The more you rant and rave any time some work of fiction is not dominated by white characters conforming to traditional gender roles the more you provide them an easy example to point to to claim they are correct about how terrible the people who disagree with them are.
If you stuck to legitimate criticisms of SJW; adding in racial and gender diversity where it doesn't make much sense (historical settings or changing the race/gender of pre-existing characters), adding pronouns, hamfisted political viewpoints included in settings/narratives to push the SJW agenda, or even unrealistic over representation of homosexuality in more realistic settings; you would be able to make the sort of claims you would like to against the 'both sides are just as bad' argument.
Instead, you push a narrative of white superiority, male superiority, and are against the very idea of diversity or tolerance.
So yes, you are just as bad, dummy.
Although, the cultural left has a much higher percentage of radicals and their radicalism is much more readily accepted, while the radicals of the cultural right, such as yourself, are much less representative of the overall cultural right. Most of those on the cultural right reject your ilk.
Although, these days most of the remaining active culture warriors on the right side of the culture wars do tend towards such radical views. The more moderate ones having been exposed enough to the radicals to have caused a majority of them to have disassociated with it.