xyphonic

[quote who="EdWood110" reply="37" id="3774507"] People crave RTS games, yet when they come out they are not super successful. Grey Goo, the Act of Aggression which had a C&C Generals kind of gameplay, those were supposedly all games players wanted. Act of Aggression even listened to their player base and released a second version of the game after a lot of work, for nothing. FAF is going strong, yes, because Supreme Commander is the best RTS there is but

Awesome!

Stoked. Too bad about no new expansions, definitely been wanting some new Ashes content.

[quote who="Timmaigh" reply="3" id="3729258"] It is vastly inferior to Sins:Rebellion. [e digicons]:P[/e] I agree though, there was no better RTS game lately, at least i am not aware about anything. In past few years i bought Homeworld Remastered, Deserts of Kharak, Act of Aggression, Grey Goo, Cossacks 3 and Empires Apart...HW, while awesome, was the same old game, so no point to compare, Cossacks 3 was pretty much the same, C1 in new graphics, Desert

Curious why you feel that. I think that as the game has evolved, its a better pure strategy game than anything I've played in the last few years.

Interesting analysis. Unrelated follow up question - anything new coming from Ashes?

I think what you've said is true (especially the delayed gratification bit) and I think there is two more big reasons: First, RTS only works on PC while FPS can be played on all platforms. Given how many people don't have gaming computers (but do have PS/Xbox) that reaches a smaller market. As an example, Minecraft is one of the top selling video games of all time and only 20-30% of its sales came on PC. I don't know when GTA 5 came out on PC, but it only make sup 2.1% o

Interesting, thanks for sharing. The only one I wonder about is the "tidiness" argument. Does having it messier add a bit of complexity, especially because its harder to blitz through nodes. It makes the game slower, so having some "messy" maps could be beneficial.

I agree about the extractors. Might be nice to set them to auto-build too - although that might restrict the advantages of economic warfare as it would very easy to rebuild economic losses. So maybe not auto-build.

Positive review written. Love the new update.

cool!

1) I agree. I think the issue is less total control and more that army AI needs to be improved. That's something I expect to keep improving though. 2) You can have massive armies with the right map setup, but it's not common. I believe there were hardware restrictions that caused them to have to tone that down a bit (could be wrong). The idea of slowing down battles is interesting, I like that actually . Would also allow you to do more

1) Dreadnoughts. Like many here, I disagree that they need a buff. They're not very effective in ranked multiplayer because the maps are smaller. And that makes sense to me. How I like to evaluate the strategy of Ashes is: "Can I implement this real life strategy in Ashes?" So harassing, pincers, feints, brute force, air superiority, encirclement, etc. are all real life strategies that I've been able to use successfully. I love that.

[quote who="Orachin" reply="26" id="3653256"] Quoting xyphonic, reply 25 That just seems like a whole lot of negativity. Criticism/counter-point is certainly fair but it just seems you're just complaining about literally everything. I mean you little say "social media... ugh more idiots".

That just seems like a whole lot of negativity. Criticism/counter-point is certainly fair but it just seems you're just complaining about literally everything. I mean you little say "social media... ugh more idiots".

I think the issue RTS games are having, which Frogboy has alluded to, is that they're really hard to evolve. A well balanced RTS can be played for a long time which isn't true for most other game types. And 4x games have been able to expand the scope of the product. Starcraft is certainly one big exception, although it's riding off success in the RTS golden age and delivers both a strong campaign/story and strong multiplayer (in part thanks to a large bu

Appreciate the support.

The devs have made pretty clear the investment in the engine was necessary to take Ashes (and future games) to the next level. A contrast is Paradox which has under-invested and has Stellaris which really could use a better engine (and more content). Personally, Ashes is the most strategic game I've ever played on PC. A good contrast is Starcraft which is far more polished, has a better narrative and is more complex. But Ashes forces strategic thinking on a level

I agree. You have to figure a lot of it out via Youtube which doesn't occur to many people (or they don't want to bother). An alternative would be just having some videos explaining basic strategies (like 2 cap).

Yeah, I see a lot of players not using formations because of AI issues. I lost a match once because of it. It can be frustrating.

Hi, I go to the pre-order page for those who already have Ashes and am not seeing the pre-order price. Thanks.

1) I'm not going to get upset about $20 vs $10. That's silly and I'm wasting my time if so. Stardock dialogues with its players (which doesn't mean they do what we say). Their DLC is fairly priced and isn't from pulled features (hello Total War). 2) If you bought the original Ashes for $40 (or $X) then you were happy to pay that price at the time. I bought a pair of headphones for a $120, three weeks later they were $100. &nbs

Totally naive question, could Sins work on the Ashes engine?

[quote who="eviator" reply="26" id="3634467"] Quoting Frogboy, reply 25 Quoting eviator, reply 24 Just a heads up. I started about a dozen matches

That makes one of us that CAN play it...