View Full Version : Squads and Morale
5*General
28-12-2004, 17:13
I was wondering if there will be squads in Act of War. Squads seem to be the latest trend, and actually do work well. They're more realistic and stuff. Also makes some parts of micromanagment a tad bit easier. I like the way they did squads in Dawn of War, though I think they could have done the morale a little better. I'll go into morale later. But I'd hope there would be squads in Act of War. Hopefully they would be able to be reinforced, given heavy weapons, and would be able to accept attachments. Now for morale. Morale is another aspect of making a game realistic. I think in DoW, they could have made the morale better by simply making morale be a possible possitive. You can have like 3 squads obliterate like 10 or something, and yet the morale cannot go over the top, there is no positive aspect of morale. I think if your squad does some great feat (or just good) they should get a morale boost and be overall better in battle. Also, if a vehicle is near, there should be a boost in morale, and a drop in morale when the vehicle is destroyed. In any case, I was wondering if both these aspects will be included in Act of War.
No squads. Well not in the sence of a squad being one unit. check out the screen shots. View other opions on both these issues in the thread ( A Question About Infantry Units ).
Called in when things go bad
Long Live The Fighters
((( Remote Out )))
Squads suck and SSs show no squads.
AgmLauncher
29-12-2004, 23:32
I hate squads, the latest trend to go with squads is the biggest mistake ever. They are so inflexible and place WAY too much emphasis on the infantry.
Silver Hawk
30-12-2004, 02:53
Perhaps you forget that it is the Mechanized Infantry and Light Infantry that holds the line, not the Armored Division or the Helo Platoon. If they want to put importance on Squads then I say go for it.
I disagree with the whole idea of a squad of 5 to 10 men being 1 unit. I mean if you had to have a squad. Dont get me wrong i use squads too but only in the sence of picking any where from 2 to 10 individauls of my chosing to be in that squad then assigning that squad a hot key. Squads like the way you suggest are a waste of life and resoucres not only that but they lack any real tactics. Making a large scale cr@p game. I must say i agree with both ( Cymru ) & ( AgmLauncher ) on this particular issuse.
Called in when things go bad
((( Remote Out )))
5*General
01-01-2005, 15:40
I think the squads turned out very well in Dawn of War. I would like to see more squads thugh (higher cap). If it were balanced in a modern fashion, it would most likely greatly improve the game. There needs to be a bigger emphasis on infantry. There was too little in Generals. I think the seperate squad and vehicle caps were good. It forced you to have less vehicles, which ended up being good. Vehiclefest is another thing that kinda killed Generals... Notice how in the US army there are more guys not in tanks than guys in tanks. Squads add to realism, and also let you have greater diversity without having more units (aka, a Marine might be equipped with an M-60 instead of an M-16, or a LAW, or a sniper rifle. It adds to diversity and realism, and that is why I indicated DoW and not BFME.
Hardstuff
01-01-2005, 17:12
Originally posted by AgmLauncher
I hate squads, the latest trend to go with squads is the biggest mistake ever. They are so inflexible and place WAY too much emphasis on the infantry.
lol, yea right...
I am indifferent to squads or not... squads that you can configure (eg. Dawn of War) are great. But also so are games without squads.
Maybe a feature to combine them both... build guys, and have the ability to add them into a squad... agh... for some reason, that doesn't sound too good.
I don't care if there will be squads or not...
AgmLauncher
01-01-2005, 18:55
No, you've actually got a good idea there. If there was some bonus for combining them together (like the horde bonus for China in Generals), then they would be alright. As long as you're not FORCED to use squads, that's all that really matters.
5*General
04-01-2005, 00:01
I would take that. Benefits for squads would include stuff like commanders and boosted morale.
TanKilleR
04-01-2005, 11:15
I liked squads. In warhammer 40k you could build squads, and upgrade them. It was nice how they were not like meat sheilds like in Gen, and you could retrain more when one or two of them died. Haveing to wate for 10 guys to train while tieing up your barracks -vs- buying a squad, and going off to fight is way better :tup:
BOMBLORD
04-01-2005, 16:22
it will be relly good if the squad thing will be like in dawn of war.I just hope that they will not screw it up some haw.
Take Generals, add DoW, stir for ten minutes, and some flavour of your choosing, and enjoy. Addable with any units, going up to only a certain ammount, upgrades like the Horde upgrade and you can add any unit. That sound good?
BOMBLORD
05-01-2005, 21:54
sounds very good.averyone with his decisions and tactics.I hope that it will be realistic,as on every 4 reguler soldiers,you will automaticly gain a machine gunner (m60,or m249)or for the arabs,you will get a soldiers armed with VSS on every 4 reaguler soldiers.and that a medic will have a 1:6 rate or something like that.or just follow the dawn of war way
But don't tie them together so they cannot fight alone, otherwise they draw attention.
AgmLauncher
07-01-2005, 20:03
Originally posted by TanKilleR
I liked squads. In warhammer 40k you could build squads, and upgrade them. It was nice how they were not like meat sheilds like in Gen, and you could retrain more when one or two of them died. Haveing to wate for 10 guys to train while tieing up your barracks -vs- buying a squad, and going off to fight is way better :tup:
Not really. What's the difference between manually buying ten guys and having them all come out at one time? How can you "tie up" your barracks by building the thing it was meant to be building in the first place. One squad of 10 guys is too easy to control. You could accomplish WAY more with 10 seperate guys in ZH but it requires good micromanagement. Squads are too inflexible.
Personally I agree that squads should be put in because it adds to the sense of realism. A game that really did squads well was Blitzkreig - although infantry where abit easiy to kill in that game I hope that AoW fallows with that and a realistic damage system. Im am sick of the Generals unrealism where tanks can shoot at each other with like 10 shots without exploding and where infantry are very minor - have atleast some realism - if an Abrams shoots at a consortium tank (say a T72? 55?) then it should die in not more than 3 shots. Original Generals videos had it like this and that looked sweet. Now Generals is a good game and all - just in my mind a little bit to unrealistic in the damage system and a few other areas. Like why the hell are chinese Red Guard using bolt action rifles? That really really bugs me seeing as China stopped using those around 30+ years ago and the only reason would be either: A) the Military had major major MAJOR budget cuts and im sure AKs would be the cheaper seeing as they dont make bolt action rifles as a standard weapon that much anymore or B)The game creators has a little to much to drink.
Kampfgruppe
08-01-2005, 02:44
the ability to group as squads or separate. Both occur anyway. Blitzkrieg is great because you have that ability. Codename Panzers, while another great 3d rts, only allows groups of soldiers to move and it's a bit campy
bomber666
08-01-2005, 05:13
i personally don't like squads unless u can choose what units and then hot key them. and the morale thing is a pretty good idea to play with
Yea Codename panzers was in my mind a step backwards from blitzkreig - the damage system is horrible - even more unrealistic than Generals. I agree that if they used blitzkreigs system where infantry come as squads but you can dispand them into individual soldiers that would be cool (I'd personally use them in squads for the realism though). What is the size ratio between the various units in this game? And moral is interresting - but im not sure if it is right to implement it.
AgmLauncher
08-01-2005, 19:49
No one can talk about realism in an RTS game when you have tanks that do virtually NO damage to infantry. If you're going to start with realism start THERE, not with squads. Or in reality, a squad of guys isnt going to be shooting at the same target. They'll be shooting at different targets. And the commander of the squad (in essence your mouse click), has the ability to tell them WHAT to shoot at on an individual basis. Squads in RTS games actually REMOVES that bit of realism. Individual units are the only way to go in RTS game. Squads take away too much micro and combat efficiency.
I totaly agree. You must first appreciate and understand micromanaging before you can discuss realism. Miromanaging is the best and most realitic way to play RTS games. Squads are for newbie players willing to accept a large # of casulties, lack any real tactics and need squads or wait i mean hordes of squads to take care of things all by them selfs. So if thats the case and the squads or computer are pretty much playing the game for you what is it that you aculaly get to do?.. Build the squads tell them where to go while sitting back grubin on a bucket of chicken and watching the show? Talk about lazy I get stupider and fatter thinkin bout it
Ok I know I was being hard and called you guys noobs so i take that back but the rest of the stuff i said still stands and I think i know what it is you squader guys are looking for. You guys are looking for a game slash movie. Where I could see squads be used like that in the sence of they would fend for them selfs pretty much just watching them fight with very little managment. I personaly would rather micromanage I like having complete control of gains, loses and every indivdaul unit in my campaign. Now that im on to you squaders theirs diffinetly room for both types of games in the gaming world but know this and i repeat miromanaging is the best and most realistic way to play RTS games not to mention more fun and honorable.
Called in when things go bad.
((( Remote Out )))
bomber666
08-01-2005, 23:51
i agree with remote in a sense as i like squads but in a way hate them. As u can't choose a target for every unit instead they all shoot at 1 enemy.
Achilleus
09-01-2005, 03:32
u devinietly can see that there are no squads at the clips u can see in inet.
so what u care about? Why u continiue Talk about squads?
thx good there are no squads.
Well I care for three resons First for the sake of argument and voicing my own opion. Second so that the screen shots of future RTS games continue to show no squads. Third because an honorable opposing force continues to fight for what the believe in. I continue fight to convert all beliefs that micromanaging is the way to salvation convert or be distroyed ( lol ) thats good stuff.
Long Live The Fighters
((( Remote Out )))
vBulletin® v3.6.9, Copyright ©2000-2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.