Best posts made by Romeo
posted in BFG - General Discussion read more

So, having spent a few hours with the Imperial campaign now, I've got some preliminary thoughts on the campaign. Let's start on a happy note.

The Good

  • It's nice to have some customization back, limited though it is.
  • The upgrade system for planets is cool.
  • The actual map layout is good.
  • Tying in to the above, the map movement is smart.
  • The upgrades panel is neat.
  • I appreciate that ships level up, though I dislike how it's handled.
  • It's nice to have Spire back, I'm glad the story allows for that.
  • The save is really quick. Not being facetious, I sincerely appreciate how quick it is to make a quicksave.

The Bad

  • I dislike how the ship upgrades work. There's no choice or really information given, you just randomly end up with different stats.
  • I'm personally not a fan of bundling the three non-Chaos humans together. Would've been nice to have individual campaigns for them down the road.
  • Maybe it'll change later on, but I'm not crazy about always fighting Chaos. More variety would be nice.
  • I don't care for the timer at all. Let me play on my own pace.
  • There's a lot of things that aren't explained until they happen. I made the mistake of thinking I could take on an enemy with a displayed strength of ~300 with my two ~200 strength fleets. Until the battle screen popped up, and it informed their effective strength with turrets would be past 450 strength.
  • There's still a lot of typos and missing data. I had to laugh that every sector had sector listed twice (Cadia Sector sector).
  • Remove the mandatory completions to do campaigns. I'd already done the Tutorial campaign three times. I've now had to do it a fourth time. And if I don't refund, I can look forward to a fifth time.
  • There's still a lot of unlinked XMLs, which is a little concerning this close to release. Admiral Spire has a skill that apparently doesn't do anything as a result. Not sure how this wasn't noticed.
  • The amount of currency produced at planets needs a bump. Not a huge one, but even having conqured 75% of my region, the amount of income hasn't moved much.

The Ugly

  • WHO IN THE HELL THOUGHT EVERY MATCH SHOULD BE TAKE AND HOLD? Seriously, I realize you've gutted most of the battle-types this time around for bALanCe, but what a horrible way to play.
  • Slightly tied in to the above, but platforms & stations can essentially be auto-losses. I've played more than a couple matches where the enemy essentially starts with three zones under their control, meaning your only hope is to hope you can kill them before they win through points.
  • I know RNG should be expected to make most maps, but compounding this with the Take and Hold mechanic gets very repetitive after a while. I only played about three hours last night, and by the third hour, I was looking forward to autoresolve opportunities rather than having to play them.
  • I know it got mentioned in the Bad list, but again, way too much information is obfuscated. I had several planetary traits that I couldn't get more information on. Prior to turn 7 I had no idea where the Battleplans came from, and what difference it made spending them. I had no idea how much my crews were being replenished. It's a little frustrating to have 938485 things going on in a strategy game, and no data on half of them.
  • While I genuinely appreciate the amount of work that must have gone in to the campaign mechanics, this still feels like less game than BFG1. Even with the campaigns, I have less customization, less game types, less races to play with... Just less STUFF. You really, really need a concrete post-release plan if you want my money, because I can't support this as is.
posted in BFG - General Discussion read more

Pretty sure Guard mode makes you FIX BAYONETS.

posted in BFG - General Discussion read more

Just want to say I love this community, but as of this moment, we're all in competition. There will be no mercy. ๐Ÿ˜ƒ

posted in BFG - General Discussion read more

@ctravisty said in The Capture Point game mode needs to be Subjected to exterminatus:

Personally I like the capture points, in that they make fleets that aren't just 'bring the biggest damage' viable, but if the majority of games are being won by escort caps i think the points to win should be increased such that cruisers have a chance to move to capture points after the main engagement.

I think there's a happy middle ground somewhere in there where the two strategies would each stand a chance of winning.

That's not really a concern in BFG anyways. You're still going to have the nimble as all hell Eldar/Dark Eldar, who might not compete on raw stats, but can flank the enemy to death. You're still going to have the Tau, who again, are sub-obtimal in a close-range fight, but can snipe out particular threats before the battle really gets going. You're still going to have variety in how fleets fight. But Take and Hold washes away an alarming amount of those strategies. If you're a slower race, you're basically always fighting a desperation fight, because fast races will set a win timer for themselves. It's also made certain ship classes - chiefly Escorts - in to 100% necessities. They aren't just a piece of your army, used to scout or harass stragglers. They're the single most important part, running around taking over the objectives while stealthed.

Frankly, I'm not a multiplayer guy, but I'd rather lose due to being outmanuevered, outsmarted and outplayed, rather than losing because a countdown timer ended the match.

posted in BFG - General Discussion read more

@beernchips said in Well boys and girls, I'm out.:

@ those crying about chasing escort, if you still have so many ships that you crushed the fights, why you don t just cap 3 VPs and hold them until you win instead of chasing something faster than you across all map?

Off the top of my head:

  • If you took too long to take over the points, the opponent will still continue to gain points even with only 2/5, possibly still giving them the win if they started taking them over early.
  • If you've only got one or two line ships left, you can't hold three points.
  • Most obvious point: Because it's a long, boring way to win.
posted in BFG - General Discussion read more


How odd that you use those examples, because we already had that stuff in BFG1, yet no one complained about them (The closest we had to an issue was actually the opposite of one of your points: Eldar were practically useless at Data Recovery). Possibly due to the fact that there were other options for playing beyond "sit on this point and wait for a win timer to finish."

Again, instead of fighting people tooth and nail about them not wanting to play your favourite little game mode, why not let them play something they actually enjoy? Shocking prospect for a game, I know, but I think it could work.

posted in BFG - General Discussion read more

@canned_f3tus said in Where the hell is ship customization?:

I think saying that BFGA 2 will be half a game is a bit unfair. Compromises have to be made and theres gotta be a balance. I dont know how the campaign content will be. But hopefully it will be good. There is plenty of coop replayability.
And the PVP aspects of the game will be easier to work with.

Personally. I think the multiplayer is everything but gutted. They streamlined some features yeah but they added depth to others. For example added more mechanics to some abilities like fighters and escorts. Bigger fleet cap also adds a whole nother level of strategic depth to the game which hasnt been seen before in a BFGA game. We have more flexibility and options in creating fleet lists.

The whole costumisation system and small fleet cap in the previous game just forced people to play strict meta or get raped hard on ladder.

I think you are putting far to much stock in a game feature that was meant more for eye candy than anything else. You felt like it provided depth and options when it really didnt matter ultimatly especially if you arent playing meta.

I said for singleplayers, BFG2 will be half a game. It might sound cruel, but I genuinely believe that. In BFG1, I had:

  • +Ship Customization
  • +Ship Upgrades
  • +Ship Progression
  • +Fleet Progression (For every one of the six races included)
  • -Only six races

In BFG2, I have:

  • +Twelve races
  • +Better fighters/bombers
  • -No ship customization (Excepting the Admiral)
  • -No ship upgrades (Excepting the Admiral)
  • -No ship progression at all
  • -Fleet Progression, sorta (And only for five of the twelve races included)

And that's to say nothing of littler things that have been lost for the multiplayers (Ability to modify files and tactical cogitator, right off the top of my head). I'm happy for you that there's a huge amount of effort been paid to your niche; Understand however, that it came at the expense of the only niche I cared about. And maybe you wanted to be a power gamer, so you didn't give a crap about any option but the best option. For the rest of us, there was something fun about speccing out a ship for a specific role, and then watching it get stronger over time. All the stuff you bring in your defense (Multiplayer, meta, PVP) is stuff that I absolutely could not care less about. Again, saying to singleplayers that there's going to be a more intense meta means sweet f-all to us. We're getting half a game.

posted in BFG - General Discussion read more

Listen, I get that Tindalos has a raging hard-on for multiplayer this time around. But that stupid Easy Anti-Cheat means you can't modify anything in the game, otherwise it prevents the game from booting. Can we request that failing the Easy Anti-Cheat (Hereafter referred to as EAC) does one of the following instead:

  • Disable EAC if booting the game offline.
  • Disables ranked multiplayer access.
  • Disables ranked multiplayer access and achievements.
  • Disables all multiplayer access.
  • Disables all multiplayer access and achievements.
  • EAC asks if the player wishes to boot as a modded game, which can do one of the above.
  • Give us a separate directory for mods that EAC doesn't check, and put a mod option in the main menu of the game.

I recognize the first BFG wasn't exactly mod friendly, but it wasn't straight up antagonistic about it like BFG2.

posted in BFG - General Discussion read more

Three things I'd (Personally) do, and this from a singleplayer perspective, not a multiplayer one:

  • Remove the debuff for repairing, and massively increase its speed. No one is punished for their shields recharging, why are we?
  • Massively increase their DPS.
  • Increase their cost to account for the previous two changes.
posted in BFG - General Discussion read more

One other option would be to make attacking with troops take away troop value from your own ship. Make it more of a risk vs reward system.

posted in BFG - General Discussion read more

@beernchips said in Well boys and girls, I'm out.:

LOL no one complained about kitting in BFGA1? or about convoy? Are you real?

Are you? 99% of the threads in the BFG forums had nothing to do with those, no. Compare that to the fact there's three threads on the very first page referencing the Capture Point system.

posted in BFG - General Discussion read more

@brn4meplz said in Well boys and girls, I'm out.:

Well, not that I want my actions to make up anyone elseโ€™s mind. I expect you all to be self directed individuals.

I also did a refund today. The forums were definitely helpful in reaching my conclusion. Seeing some developer responses helped push me off the fence(and clearly, not in a constructive way)

Iโ€™ll see how the game goes post launch and follow its news. I can be hopeful for it. But Iโ€™m a realist at heart. Iโ€™m not willing to wager my time on this currently.

Hope you guys all make decisions that speak to you. And please exterminate the Tyranids.

Yeah, you're in the same boat as myself. Going to be refunding on release I suspect, there's just too many steps backwards from BFG1 to throw my money at it. If things get better later, I'll repurchase it then.

posted in BFG - General Discussion read more

I would love a "non-plot" 4th campaign, that literally just gives me a giant galaxy with every race in it, and tells me to go conquer everything. Let me pick my own faction (Since there's no story to tailor), and go to town.

Would be the closest thing we got to Skirmish Progression from the first game.

posted in BFG - General Discussion read more

@botbot said in How to get multiplayer right in BFGA 2?:

@bellumvinco I think the best course of action with regards to this is removing the whole idea of fleet repairs and the upgrade meta-game. I do like the idea of a progression system attached to multiplayer, but I think it should be cosmetic or tiny upgrades like Company of Heroes 2's bulletins.

With 12 factions balance will be tough for sure, however making non admiral ships function more like regular RTS units with less variables in terms of different upgrades, abilities, crew score etc should make it achievable. Balance doesn't have to be absolutely perfect for a fun competitive scene, just near enough. I think leveraging different points costs for ships as well as having their base stats to tweak will mean that they can hopefully finesse it into a good state.

What do you guys think about having a pool of actually designed and static maps?

I don't think I could disagree with this any harder if I tried. The upgrades are great fun, and frankly I'd like to see repairs play an even greater part in singleplayer - it would help force fleet diversity. For multiplayer-only, sure, strip the game to the bone in the name of balance. But that shouldn't be a game-wide implementation.

posted in BFG - General Discussion read more

I think that as a Canadian who speaks English and French I should be automatically accepted. Right? ๐Ÿ˜›

posted in BFG - General Discussion read more

...Did you seriously start an entire thread to whine about the fact you weren't picked?

Almost none of us were. Get over it.

posted in BFG - General Discussion read more

@kadaeux said in The mistake of necrons/tyranids:

@romeo said in The mistake of necrons/tyranids:

Hell, if we're talking about padding out the rosters, I'm more curious about the Dark Eldar and Tau Merchant Fleets. Both have me cautiously hopeful but nervous.

Well the Tau merchant fleet doesn't really need any padding out, I think they had ships covering most of the roles, plus access to the mercenaries. What I struggle with when it comes to the merchant fleet is... how they're going to make it relevant.

As for the Dark Eldar, they literally have to pad out that roster given officially it only had two ships :p

I've said it before without any proof and I'll say it again without any proof (Because I'm a moron): Give the Protector fleet the "proper" T'au warships (Like the Custodian, for example) so that they're the slow snipers we all know and love. Then give all auxiliaries to the Merchant fleet. This will both give the two defined roles (The Protector fleet being vulnerable snipers, the Merchant fleet being a hodgepodge of oddball ship designs), and give the Merchant fleet a reason to exist.

As for the Dark Eldar, my concern isn't that they won't pad them out - I'm sure they will. I'm just worried they're going to feel like "spiky Eldar ships" as opposed to their own unique thing.

@nemesor-xanxas said in The mistake of necrons/tyranids:

@romeo I think we saw a new Druhkari ship at 0:25, neither the corsair nor the torture class have bottom spike like that in any picture I could find. I naturally am waiting more eagerly for the necron fleet, I want a carrier and will complain relentlessly until I have one!

See, I ain't nervous about the Necron at all. We know about that fleet already, and their "playstyle" is also super well-known (Super expensive, super powerful), so I'm sure they'll be a slam dunk for Tindalos. The Dark Eldar in comparison were basically unrepresented in BFG, so we have neither pre-existing fleets to look at, nor how they'll differentiate it from the other two Eldar factions.

posted in BFG - General Discussion read more

@kadaeux said in Sell me the Game:

@imperator said in Sell me the Game:

@romeo said in Sell me the Game:

All joking aside, the interaction between fans and Focus Home is just about the worst I've seen from a videogame company - they're as bad as Valve in that sense. Putting a dedicated individual on keeping fans in the loop would cost very little (Compared to huge marketing blitzes), and would so just so much to keep people enthused all on its own.

You clearly never had any interaction with EA.

Eh, yes and no. EA is happy to interact with their fans. The trick is learning to sift the truth from the gilded turds. And in all fairness, as much as I hate to say it, they actually have pretty decent tech support that communicates. I wanted to get my C&C 10th anniversary attached to Origin because downloading is so much easier, it wasn't working, so I sent a mail to tech support. Got them a photo of my keys and they gave me the total C&C collection to my account including a few bits the 10th anniversary didn't have. (Including C&C 4 which does not exist and was uninstalled less than 5 minutes into that sh*t stain of a product.)

EA are a company that needs to be taken down a whole shedload of pegs, but I can't usually fault their customer interaction outside of the outright lies and bullshit.

Yeah, EA has a bunch of faults, but communication ain't one of them. I've never had a negative experience in having to deal with them.

@iyagovos said in Sell me the Game:

@romeo We're here and reading your posts, but when there's not a whole lot to say about the game at the moment (which is the case for Battlefleet Gothic: Armada 2), we don't have to communicate with you ๐Ÿ™‚

Is there absolutely nothing that can be shown? Because supposedly the game releases in three months. It's weird that you can't show us a new ship design for the Dark Eldar. Or pick one of the 12 factions and give an overview about how they play. Or show off literally anything.

I'm not trying to call any one individual out, but the wound from having been strung along for a year and a half on the old game without being told a damn thing is still fresh. It's super hard not to look at the current radio silence on the second game as being precisely the same thing.

posted in BFG - General Discussion read more

@wowu5 said in Sell me the Game:

@romeo said in Sell me the Game:

Is there absolutely nothing that can be shown? Because supposedly the game releases in three months. It's weird that you can't show us a new ship design for the Dark Eldar. Or pick one of the 12 factions and give an overview about how they play. Or show off literally anything.

I'm not trying to call any one individual out, but the wound from having been strung along for a year and a half on the old game without being told a damn thing is still fresh. It's super hard not to look at the current radio silence on the second game as being precisely the same thing.

Agree, and I think it isn't Focus' fault primarily. For another RTS published by Focus, the Wargame series by Eugen System, the dev were much more open about their game development. I liked most about the "Unit of the Day" thread on their forum, in which new units were previewed regularly months before the release of the base game/DLCs.
It seems Tindalos is the one who is so shy to reveal anything and keeps the game content as secret as the existence of the Grey Knights on Titan.

Well in that case, yeah, FHI needs to start poking and prodding Tindalos for stuff to share with the community. I'm not saying they need to spoil every surprise in the game, but we've gone weeks without literally anything. And hell, the last thing we did get - the release window - was dug up by the community, not shared by Tindalos.

The fact they're looking at the thing the community hated most from the first game and thinking "yeah, we should do that all over again" is completely mind-boggling. I have no idea why they insist on foregoing interest and pre-orders to do this silent nonsense.