New RTS in development. It's being developed by King Art Games (people behind Battle Words: Chronos) for PC, X-Box and PS4. Its setting is diesel punk World War I.
Details are scant, but King Art has said the game will feature a dynamic storyline and open, sandbox-style levels. It will also feature cover mechanics and dynamic destruction pitting infantry units against towering mechs. Inspirations include the Company of Heroes and Men at War series.
i actually really enjoyed men at war, it had an interesting single player. The setting looks interesting and original, although I don't think we know enough yet about the fundamental rts mechanics to make a call if it'll be good or not
On November 10 2016 21:06 Endymion wrote: [...]although I don't think we know enough yet about the fundamental rts mechanics to make a call if it'll be good or not
It's an RTS designed for consoles as well. No, thanks.
On November 10 2016 21:06 Endymion wrote: [...]although I don't think we know enough yet about the fundamental rts mechanics to make a call if it'll be good or not
It's an RTS designed for consoles as well. No, thanks.
On November 10 2016 21:06 Endymion wrote: [...]although I don't think we know enough yet about the fundamental rts mechanics to make a call if it'll be good or not
It's an RTS designed for consoles as well. No, thanks.
I wouldn't mind a casual RTS with good story.
In almost all genres, for me, gameplay is the most important part. That definitely applies to RTS games.
On November 10 2016 21:06 Endymion wrote: [...]although I don't think we know enough yet about the fundamental rts mechanics to make a call if it'll be good or not
It's an RTS designed for consoles as well. No, thanks.
On November 10 2016 21:06 Endymion wrote: [...]although I don't think we know enough yet about the fundamental rts mechanics to make a call if it'll be good or not
It's an RTS designed for consoles as well. No, thanks.
You realize SC1 had a console version right?
Which was released years later, it was clearly not designed for consoles. So what's your point?
Looks insane , great concept and i will most def enjoy playing such a theme if executed remotely good , I've became way more easy to please with video games now days , gone are the days where i expect a game to have great replay value or MP , give me one good fun run and I'm happy .....
On November 10 2016 21:06 Endymion wrote: [...]although I don't think we know enough yet about the fundamental rts mechanics to make a call if it'll be good or not
It's an RTS designed for consoles as well. No, thanks.
You realize SC1 had a console version right?
Which was released years later, it was clearly not designed for consoles. So what's your point?
That it's possible to have a RTS with console versions that isn't a watered-down cluster fuck on PC.
I highly suspect this will be a base building, resource gathering APM cluster fuck. probably story oriented skirmish. Screenshots reminds me Close Combat series for some reason.
On November 10 2016 21:06 Endymion wrote: [...]although I don't think we know enough yet about the fundamental rts mechanics to make a call if it'll be good or not
It's an RTS designed for consoles as well. No, thanks.
You realize SC1 had a console version right?
Which was released years later, it was clearly not designed for consoles. So what's your point?
That it's possible to have a RTS with console versions that isn't a watered-down cluster fuck on PC.
If you fail to see the difference, which was even addressed in my first post, I really can't help you.
On November 10 2016 21:06 Endymion wrote: [...]although I don't think we know enough yet about the fundamental rts mechanics to make a call if it'll be good or not
It's an RTS designed for consoles as well. No, thanks.
You realize SC1 had a console version right?
Which was released years later, it was clearly not designed for consoles. So what's your point?
That it's possible to have a RTS with console versions that isn't a watered-down cluster fuck on PC.
If you fail to see the difference, which was even addressed in my first post, I really can't help you.
I don't need nor want your help. I'm fine on taking the game as it ends up existing rather than dismissing it purely because it's going to have a console port. You're free to do as you please.
Iron Harvest has been released. It seems pretty good. The focus is very much on unit and battle management with very limited basebuilding. General consensus seems to be that if you miss Company of Heroes and Dawn of War 2 than its worth. Anyone been playing it?
On September 06 2020 19:18 PassiveAce wrote: I like how the polish cavalry is OP in this game xD
AFAIK they are not there yet with the multiplayer part. Lots of balance issues, lackluster maps, ranked ladder, ... are still worked on. The main factor to get this now is the singeplayer, which is labeled "the best RTS singleplayer since the release of Starcraft 2"
Haven't played it myself but I'm very intrigued by the steam punk mech'ish scenario and the campaign and story
On September 07 2020 18:58 Harris1st wrote: Haven't played it myself but I'm very intrigued by the steam punk mech'ish scenario and the campaign and story
Iv been having fun with the multiplayer. Ranked is arriving in a few weeks but quickplay is still plenty fun. There's no major balance issues at launch like sc2 launch 4gate or mass reaper. I haven't run into anything that made me think it was unfair, but iv only played like 7 or 8 multiplayer matches and I haven't lost yet.
The pace is much slower than sc2 so I feel like I can fight two battles at once and manage my base without getting super sweaty. Armies don't melt in a matter of seconds so it's certainly a much more relaxed experience. A fight between two basic troops that are both in cover can take over a minute before theyr both low on health and need to retreat. This means that there will often be several fights going on simultaneously but you have plenty of time to split your attention compared to SC2.
It's probably one of the most dumbed down rts' iv seen in terms of basebuilding and tech but honestly I like it that way since it let's me focus on map control and micro. The limited choices in terms of buildings and the removal of resource gathering with workers makes it much easier to learn and execute your build.
I like how timing attacks have been built into the core mechanics of the game through the "reserve" system. Before the start of the game players pick a hero and a number of units to receive instantly and for free when they buy one of the two tiers of population cap tech called "reserve." Hero units in Iron Harvest are not one-man armies like in warcraft 3.
It's true there's only three 1v1 maps at the moment but the devs September roadmap claims there will be more in a matter of weeks. The ones that are available now are well made and unique with each encouraging different playstyles (For example, the Winter map has many choke points that are perfect for a barbed wire and landmine defense while the Desert map is much more flanking friendly and favors fast units )
Tl;dr it's a well made, dumbed down rts that the starcraft vets who are reading this post will be able to jump into and get a bunch of wins in without getting sweaty
i havnt finished it but i like what iv seen so far and people talk about the campaign and story as one of the strongest features. the story is about the unstoppable geo-political and nationalistic forces that sweep young people into wars, and how those who survive are terribly affected. pretty good story about ww1 imo
On September 07 2020 23:20 PassiveAce wrote: Iv been having fun with the multiplayer. Ranked is arriving in a few weeks but quickplay is still plenty fun. There's no major balance issues at launch like sc2 launch 4gate or mass reaper. I haven't run into anything that made me think it was unfair, but iv only played like 7 or 8 multiplayer matches and I haven't lost yet.
The pace is much slower than sc2 so I feel like I can fight two battles at once and manage my base without getting super sweaty. Armies don't melt in a matter of seconds so it's certainly a much more relaxed experience. A fight between two basic troops that are both in cover can take over a minute before theyr both low on health and need to retreat. This means that there will often be several fights going on simultaneously but you have plenty of time to split your attention compared to SC2.
It's probably one of the most dumbed down rts' iv seen in terms of basebuilding and tech but honestly I like it that way since it let's me focus on map control and micro. The limited choices in terms of buildings and the removal of resource gathering with workers makes it much easier to learn and execute your build.
I like how timing attacks have been built into the core mechanics of the game through the "reserve" system. Before the start of the game players pick a hero and a number of units to receive instantly and for free when they buy one of the two tiers of population cap tech called "reserve." Hero units in Iron Harvest are not one-man armies like in warcraft 3.
It's true there's only three 1v1 maps at the moment but the devs September roadmap claims there will be more in a matter of weeks. The ones that are available now are well made and unique with each encouraging different playstyles (For example, the Winter map has many choke points that are perfect for a barbed wire and landmine defense while the Desert map is much more flanking friendly and favors fast units )
Tl;dr it's a well made, dumbed down rts that the starcraft vets who are reading this post will be able to jump into and get a bunch of wins in without getting sweaty
Gameplay-wise it's pretty much Company of Heroes. If you played that you'd be right at home.
There are some streamers playing it, just not many since RTS genre isn't super popular now and it's not been released by some huge studio.
It's a pity though, game seems quite nice. I guess it'll be doomed to fade into obscurity though, like other amazing titles that are some of my most favorite RTS games ever made: Battlefleet Gothic Armada and Deserts of Kharak.
The price needs to be right for the climate, though. I haven't tried it because it's $70.00 (Canadian) and I don't feel like pissing away any amount of money, no matter how insignificant. If it's actually worth that amount, we're talking about a tragedy if it does fade into obscurity.
Otherwise, we're talking about an overextension by overvaluation on part of the dev.
It is indeed a bit pricey. I wonder if the devs thought they wouldn't have high sale numbers and wanted to compensate this way? It's a terrible idea in my opinion since I think they'd rake in more if the game was actually cheaper (like $30-40) as more people would be inclined to at least check it out.
EPT![[image loading]](https://cdn0.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/7Ofq9po6_gzmFDszfe55FX501AU=/800x0/filters:no_upscale()/cdn0.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/7403909/iron_harvest_art01.0.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://cf.geekdo-images.com/images/pic3163924_lg.jpg)
?
