I'll be pretty disappointed if for the life of the game capture points is the only game mode. I liked destroying/defending space stations, escorting transports, and even protecting the data (though that was my least liked game mode) in the first game, and a single scenario means faster boredom, and more rage from people who really don't like that one scenario.
Straight up combat is the absolute worst choice though, because it takes away a lot of the tactical choices provided by having a separate objective, which would normally lead to fleet experimentation, and fleets with variable ship types. Some kind of annihilation objective encourages pure math efficiency towards maximizing DPS, and survivability, and only cares about things like speed/stealth/boarding/ordnance when it is a heavy enough influence on the other two traits that it overwhelms just having more/better guns and armour.
We don't have plans for an observer mode in Battlefleet Gothic: Armada 2 at the moment.
To interview the devs, could you please send an email to us at email@example.com?
This quote right here has done more to sway me off the fence then anything else I’ve seen or read this week.
I don’t know what that says to you guys on a personal level but to me it says “there’s no plan for a future with this product, and multiplayer is not a concern”
You at least need either a replay system or an observer mode if you want to generate content/social media traffic for your community to bond over. And that statement seems to completely ignore that concept.
Why is streaming not enough to generate community content? It archives, it's watchable live, it doesn't require people to own the game. I can see why having replays is advantageous, and observers is nice in some minor way, but streaming serves both purposes in-and-of-itself in terms of generating content.
@fosil I would say that Imperials and Chaos, due to having a good number of special weapons (squadrons, torpedoes, nova cannon), have decent cruiser options for fulfilling those roles better, but in terms of firepower meets speed meets armour, a BC seemed to be mostly better, when I was playing. Of course, if all you can fit is a cruiser with your spare points, they're also not bad for that. Still think they're overpriced across the board.
Completely agree on, in particular, torpedoes being overpriced (even though squadrons have by far the largest cost in the game), since they're limited ammunition, situational, able to be dodged, need to be massed for real chances to get through, etc... Squadrons when played smart are pretty good, but I'd agree that the ships that do it are overpriced (particularly any ship that only has 1 bay, particularly cruisers with 1 bay compared to light cruisers with 1 bay, but the more expensive the ship with 1 bay, the less it's really worth, imho, because at that point your guns are doing so much more work, and the discount you'd get from just not taking that one squadron capacity is pretty large).
Also agree on points needing a look at across the board, on a case by case basis. There are definitely ships that are pretty much spot on, it's just that they then make the ships that are 15, 20, 30, heck, potentially even more expensive (though the high end is reserved for factions whose weapons aren't great, like Imperial lance ships, and Necron ships... had an ally bring a Cairn, Ork opponent had 3 BBs, with his help we wiped the one enemy, and heavily damaged an Ork ship, but I lost my fleet, and although his Cairn was untouched, the only reason it didn't die faster, was because the Orks spread out to try and corner him, letting him engage 1v1 with a BB. We actually won that one thanks to morale, and the various accumulated casualties, but if it had been the Orks vs. Necrons straight up, he'd have been doomed: it was so clear the Cairn was too expensive, by far).
@underdarklord the nids are absolutly set up to conquer as conquest as per their method increases their numbers exponentially, as for the necs having all the tomb worlds awaken is already a great fear amongst the powers that know more than a small fraction of what they are its already set up for them to go from 0 to 60 in month. The ynnari however have to birth a god before they would unify and start conquest so that is a stretch and tau are far to small to systematically amass enough forces to hold and control significant portions of the galaxy and while not to the same degree the eldar have the same problem as they are a relatively small force in the galaxy after the birth of slanessh. To say that necs, imps, and nids are the best positioned to conquer the galaxy would be true except i would contend that chaos is just as well positioned which is y i said they would probably be the first campaign dlc to be released if we got one.
side the main reason the ynnari route is a problem is because i dont think gw has decided weather or not ynnead is going to be corrupted or not or just how much effect he will have on slanesh. letting these guys dictate that puts GW in a position that if they try to go the other way they may face a larger backlash than they already do when they commit to a plot line.
The Tyranids increase exponentially... when they succeed and are never stopped. My point is that this hasn't happened. Necrons would be awful both awake and cooperating (or just awake and not getting in each other's way), which they are not. I have no problem with a campaign for either, I just don't get why you want to argue that the limitations built into the other races are somehow unavoidable, and inevitable, while the ones for these two are not.
There's also no need to decide if Ynnead is corrupt(able) or not for a campaign. Just don't take it to a point where that would matter. I refer you inevitably again to the fact there's no need for any campaign to encompass the entire galaxy, or involve complete conquest, or even progress the story on that kind of scale, just because the current campaigns seem to have chosen to go that route. That said, I've already agreed that GW interference would be an unsurprising reason for the Ynnari to not get a campaign.
your forgetting splinter fleets and nid fleets growing as they consume planets
and no not all hives would act the same as they all have their own way to deal with thinks, thats why they compete when they meet
its to see whos idea is best
the one that eats the other was right but still gets the information eaten
also, karsa orlong, great character, single minded and driven once he leaves his plateau
just because you wouldnt write them doesnt mean they are boring
and nids are far from boring even if you lack the ability to empathize with anything even remotely removed from human
you would applaud the characters in horror movies that run away from a train instead of just stepping to the side because "such emotion" while for me its just retardation that doesnt add anything to the story, those characters could have been left out and nothing would have been different except for some whiny background noises
but thats just different people preferring different characters
and im happy there are retarded humans for you to play and empathize with
now let me have a good and interesting faction to play in a campaign for once
because its not like every 40k game ever has had eldar every single time
I'm not forgetting anything. They do grow. They also get wiped out. Both things have happened. I didn't say all hives act the same, I said that the Tyranids, which are governed by a singular hive mind, are tackling a single problem. The reason hives differ, is because they have contradictory/competing information to the others, which competition between hives resolves for the Hive Mind, instead of having to be a philosopher.
My point isn't that I wouldn't write them, I would, particularly in a survival story, or a horror story. My point is that their nature as uncommunicative, singular, unknown beings makes them unable to be protagonists.
Of course I don't applaud characters who run directly away from a threat operating on some kind of linear track/route, when a simple move to the side would save them, don't be absurd. I DO however understand that those characters are trapped in a despair/fear loop that may be impacting their thinking, so as long as their deaths are fast enough, or some other factor mitigates the dumbness (the characters have become excessively afraid over time, have shown other illogical/stupid thought patterns due to emotion, etc...), I can at least accept the basis of their dumbness. How did you go from my 'emotion is a source of empathy, conflict, and character complexity', to 'all emotional actions are praise-worthy'? The point is that it often is not.
You can have an interesting, consuming, xenophobic, survival-of-the-fittest species, without it being as flat as the Tyranids. The Cravers from Endless Space are like this. But because of emotion, their own society's blindness, and prejudice, and the like, the Cravers are better equipped to be protagonists (at least to the extent that a 4x game can have one, even in ES2, which has a quest/plot line), than the Tyranids. The Hive Mind, the complete alien/outsider status, and more, are features that inescapably make them opaque to understanding.
I'm neither letting you, or not letting you, have a faction (interesting or otherwise). I'm pointing out that from a storytelling perspective, the Tyranids are a poor choice, that this is part of their nature, and that no amount of cool mechanics, unique fleet composition, or other things, can erase that. Then there's the unfortunate fact that the Eldar/Dark Eldar, and Tau, because of plot elements that allow their fleets to work together, had more potential in the mechanical show-off, fleet dynamic standpoint, while having the advantage from a storytelling perspective: my premise was, is it not odd that with all of that going for them, TWO flatter, less mechanically varied, races, one of whom is more equipped from a storytelling perspective than the other, got campaigns (out of three total)? Instead of having an argument against the strangeness, your claims are basically that Tyranids should get attention too, and their weaknesses as a story focus shouldn't matter. They should matter, they just didn't. That said, if you'd be willing to accept my view of your positions as basically "It is a little odd, but I don't care, because it's different enough, and I like the Tyranids in particular", then that's fine. Being strange as a decision doesn't mean it hasn't been made after all. Tyranids kind of do deserve the spotlight in games some more, but a story-driven environment (or at least story-driven for other factions) isn't the best for that. A game made with them in mind from the ground up, where you could control a single Hive faction. It would be heavily decision based, on targets, on evolutions, on strategy (undermine with cults more, focus on assaults more? Target lots of population/biomass, or start with less well-defended targets first?); a game where the strategy options are staggering, and the story can be weak to non-existent. They'd be ideal as a faction in a true 40K turn-based, strategic scale, 4x game.
As to Karsa. Karsa grows substantially as a character over time. Karsa sees humans as beneath contempt at first, but grows in that regard. He develops relationships, and experiences further loss outside his homeland. He becomes cunning in dealing with others, something that he is definitely not at first (doesn't see the need mainly, he's certainly capable). All of that is held together by the effective skeleton of his unwillingness to be a tool, and innate rebelliousness (ironically that trait is what draws some people to use him, which doesn't tend to work out for them). He is not an unknowable force that despises all others, and is set up as having the power to ignore them, including having no relationships. His ambition/drive allows for complex relationships, and interactions (such as the aforementioned people using him). 'Nids are not this.
@underdarklord dark crusade is not the greatest example of grand strategy but its still fits the discription it is a rather broad genre. As for your lore you forget that all the necrontyr did ally together to fight the old ones and when the c'tan convinced them to go into the machine bodies they took away most of their free will only a few maintained most of their personalities so getting them to band together would only take a few, ill be it politically opposed, characters to band together. The massive expansion of the warp would be a suffecient catalyst just like the old ones were. As for the necs footprint if they awaken from the tomb worlds they would have plenty of troops to launch a massive conquest and with their tech they would do it quickly also add in the fact that their forces do no face the same level of diminishing returns that other forces do. For someone that seems to like throwing out the word lore breaking you seem to forget a lot of lore. As for the tyranids in lore most of the tyranid forces have yet to make it to the milky way all thats been in countered is the "scouting" tendrils i use quotes because its not the best word to discribe them but it someone conveys that they are just the first ones to make it. as i am sure you know the tyranids were attracted to the milky way when the pharos was overloaded. And their is evidence to suggest that they may have bio ships seeded throughout the imperium when they found the bio ship under Nusquam Fundumentibus.
I didn't forget everything. I was using your own argument, the current state of the lore indicating a certain status quo that GW would want to maintain, and not unsettle: currently the Necrontyr are not some monolithic effective entity, and have a lot of contradictory ideas about how to proceed, between dynasties, and that's important. I agree that the current events would probably see some unification, if not complete unification over time, but that's not the current state. Ditto the Tyranids being a greater threat in the future, that's totally true, but it's not the current state. One of your arguments against my points that an Ynnari campaign would be good from a gameplay and story perspective, and that a Tau campaign is feasible, and has many of the same advantages, was, to paraphrase "the current state of the lore doesn't allow it", but now you're coming back against my point that the lore is similarly modified if you want to make Tyranids or Necrons CURRENT galaxy conquering opponents, and I'm baffled at the turnabout.
As to throwing around the term "lore breaking", I didn't do that a lot, and I did it in reference to your own argument that certain things in the lore wouldn't reflect certain types of campaigns (as mentioned above): I could care less about what makes/breaks the 40K lore (I was unwilling to wait more than a decade for the 13th Black Crusade to have real consequences, I played in that global campaign). My point is that you seemed to care, when it was other factions whose campaign implementation in this game might differ, but only those factions it seems.
baals ecosystem was tyranid based before humans ever landed on it
ultramar has nid lifeforms all over the sector
nids dont eat everything, they might seem so but to think that means you see claims from the imperiums perspective as fact
they are not
humans are fallible
nids arnt mindless
they are farming orks right now
and there is more to life then emotion
emotion is just misfiring chemicals, there is nothing admirable in that
nids have a goal, a real goal, not some silly mortal whim or a fad
Of course there's more to life than emotion, and more importantly, there's more to decision-making, but that's the point: humans have to balance empathy, and accomplishing the military objective; humans have to overcome emotion to make logical decisions, and then they may screw it up. The struggle to do what is best, which yes, actually often IS based on emotion (even when the emotion isn't the best reason, or sole drive), is the struggle that humans have to suffer. A perfectly rational, single objective, single mind species isn't mindless, and doesn't struggle with that kind of decision-making, but it ACTS in such a way that if you have the same information as it does, a computer could make the exact same decisions, because it is based on a specific drive, and all available information. That is cool, and it's scary, but it also lacks every element of every story you've ever read. Even the un-emotionless among humans are constantly afflicted by the consequences of a society that doesn't operate on the same drives, and any story about them is affected by it.
There is a reason that characters who are written with a single drive, and who don't have complexity (due to relationships, conflicted emotions, social constraints) are called 'flat'. I'm not going to get into a huge literary analysis argument, but suffice to say, while 'flat' characters are not bad, they don't make good protagonists, because their simplicity does not reflect reality, and they have less of a connection to us as complex people. The Tyranids are 'flat', and are so no matter their unknown internal motive (because what they DO is destroy all other life, and don't communicate), and no, a planet having a Tyranid ecosystem doesn't somehow stop this from being true, neither do instances of them 'farming' Orks: how is this not them destroying other life, to perpetuate themselves (survive), and an indication of a strategy based on the unique biology of Orks (hence they've 'evolved')? It is their very nature, as alien, as uncommunicative, that makes them this way, and they would have to change in order for these facts to change. I wouldn't want the Tyranids any other way, would you?
chaos campaign would have to be reverse progression
start with full fleets and everything and then endure for as long as possible
if it would need to build up like good campaigns do it wouldnt feel like a black crusade
chaos isnt bringing dark mechanicus forgeworldships with them to build and recover
so has some weird difficulty's if your trying to make a campaign for them have a good progression feeling
Why would it have to be like this? What stops them from conquering planets, recruiting Ad-Mech, and bringing Dark Mechanicus ships with them? The lore/plot of the status quo? First, that would be pretty dumb of them. Second, conquering territory is something Chaos does pretty well (may I refer you to the Sabbat Worlds Crusade). Third, any lore that needs handwaving to make a Chaos incursion grow, is needed to make a galaxy-conquering Tyranid threat grow as well (interestingly, this is NOT true if you simply reduce the scale of the conflict, where EoT Chaos may still act the same on a smaller scale, while Tyranids conquering/consuming in a localized section of galaxy would make sense and fit current story restrictions).
@imptastic Dark Crusade is hardly grand strategy. Total War is, but as I said, we'll have to wait and see if this game manages to approach Total War levels of customization, and map control/manipulation, and resources (I seriously doubt we'll see a substantive diplomacy system, which is already a hit against this game being GS). I never thought anyone suggested it could be a 4x, I just felt it was necessary to make the point that it won't be, to emphasise that it's scale is unlikely to be so huge that it would automatically discount a smaller scale being used for smaller factions or stories.
The Necrons going on a major unified campaign would be pretty lore-breaking. Even if there's a huge civil war element to represent the fact the various dynasties don't get along, Necrons, as the race that has one of the smallest presences in 40K in terms of conquering or otherwise owning territory, other than the Drukkari (who don't do that usually), and the Tau (who are in a tiny corner) making huge territory gains is already lore-breaking. Obviously the Tyranids consuming huge chunks of galaxy is pretty lore-breaking too (they usually make decent inroads, against fairly undefended systems, but only once have approached major lore-changing status, when they went after Macragge, which just functioned as an excuse for the ultra-smurfs to show off). You said it yourself, these are 'what if' scenarios, and there's no reason to claim that one 'what if' is too lore breaking, when another is just as discordant with the status quo. That said, it wouldn't surprise me if this WAS a driving reason knowing GW, and it's basically the one thing I doubt any company would admit.
@underdarklord nice analysis
I think the game will be a bit of an hybrid. While we have a lot of the classic rts staples, there are no base building, resource harvesting or tech trees making it more of a tactical game during the battles.
The campaigns open up a lot of possibilities and we will have to wait and see but my guess is that we are going to get a bunch of scripted missions that drive the story forward plus a host of optional missions with the purpose of expanding you dominion/fleet.
So not truly a starcraft style campaign nor a true 4x.
That's cool with me though.
This is the exact kind of campaign I expect, and have expected. Doing two villain races, for this style of campaign, but not the main one involved in the story element in progress, is what baffled me in the first place. The Imperium/Chaos divide is the main plot, why not let players choose their side? Instead if they want to go villain, they're forced to pick between two very specific styles of fleet, neither of whom are motivated by the main plot, but rather their goals conflict with those goals.
@imptastic You misunderstand. I know that's what the three campaigns that have been announced are going to be like. It's still not 4x or GS level (though it's closer to Europa Universalis, in terms of systems, since armies and simple things like taxes are your main concern in that game, so maybe I could be convinced to call if grand strategy once I get a more hands-on feel for it). I think the make/break point on it being grand strategy is if there's any kind of economy outside simple make x/turn, and if there's some kind of diplomacy system (including at least rudimentary territory exchange). 4x scale would require in-depth tech trees, diplomacy of course, probably some kind of city/planet upgrades system, a variety of resources, trade, a degree of open-endedness, and at least two non-military non-storyline victory conditions (4x are not really story games, they're open sandbox complex strategy option simulators).
I'm not saying anything against what it IS, that's set. I'm saying that it didn't have to be that way, and that outside of that preconception, there are a lot of good options for telling a story. I definitely don't expect this to change at all either. That said, it would have been childs-play if designing 'what-if' scenarios as story, to do a Ynnari ascension campaign, or Tau major expansion campaign (or even an Ork Waaagh, however more boring it would be). The Ynnari are even intimately tied into the Fall of Cadia, and the reinforcement of the Imperium (which obviously Tau/Orks are not, both avoiding Chaos like the plague, largely unfriendly with the Imperium, and in the Tau's case, being far away), if for some reason you want to absolutely make any campaign involved in that plot thread. So it's not like the way they seem to have chosen to develop their campaign somehow eliminated the other factions as choices.
The game is definitely sounding a bit Total War/Dark Crusade style: take territory, make sure to defend it, there's some unique stuff (buildings/heroes/units), but I have yet to see if we'll have even the depth of Total War tech trees, or hero options/leveling.
@fosil Yeah, the problem is definitely less distinct in 1200, but I'd argue it's why DE aren't likely to take many escorts ever (they are quite pricey, and can interfere with purchasing ships of the line easily; they also don't have the unique niche of silent-running that escorts/LCs do in the other armies). They'll take one or two, if their tactics of choice need longer range vision, but that's about it. Depending on loadout, a single lighter ship (LC or even just Cruiser, chosen for the role) as a scout might be just strictly better (if only because it can survive a little better).
In 2v2 some strange strategies open up, but DE are ultimately sacrificing a lot to do that shield tanking (at a minimum their position is more easily known), and given the front-firing of Eldar ships in general, and thus the difference in how they have to manoeuvre can lead to collisions (obviously not between two players who speak together, and are familiar with each other, but in quickmatch trying that seems risky). I think the best part about the DE and multiplayer is the potential for hammer + anvil tactics.
@imptastic I just don't see why the campaign has to be about complete galactic domination, or even domination. This is not a 4x game, this is not even a grand strategy, despite your use of the word (Stellaris is grand strategy: unless there's going to be a TON more features in the campaign than I have any faith in this dev to produce, there is no way it approaches that scale): this is an RTS, with the potential for persistent units. It is best compared to similar games, like DOW: Dark Crusade, or Starcraft. While a map, with territory, and similar mechanics are nice, they aren't even necessary (though some kind of army manager is).
A tight, objective driven, campaign, with opportunities for internal drama, and a few key choices (combined with the army organisation choices), is all you need. There can be 'bonus' combat, like in Dark Crusade, via defense of territory, bonus objectives, etc... but they aren't necessary to make a good story. Tau would make a good campaign because there are a lot of 'small' domains that are still large (galaxies are damn huge), and yet don't affect the broader story that GW strangles into stasis for so long. Ynnari would be able to have a good campaign because there's an epic quest, clear objectives, and opportunities for major alliances between groups that are ever in conflict (and in the case of this game, that means co-existence of assets). Necrons are, not great from a ship/asset use perspective, but at least they can have somewhat interesting, dynasty building, political power-gaming internal issues, and more, from a story perspective. Orks are a bit flat, but stand-outs like most Warlords, are able to be pretty interesting, even if most of their army is not. Chaos is basically as varied as the Imperium, as long as they don't focus on the zealots (Abaddon, Kharn, most of the primarchs, and others) for the story, in which case they become as boring as Ultra-smurfs are at their worst.
im just going to try and be polite and say your ideas about nids are oversimplified and ignorant
they are the best race in the 40k universe and everyone should love them if they would just look beyond their exterior
You're not being polite, you're just making a claim without evidence. Tell me how the Tyranids are different than a single-minded driven (within splinters, they adhere to some kind of survival of the fittest mentality between splinters) force, where that drive is an ultimate expression of survival (take all the resources, live the longest)? Consuming planets beyond the point where any biology persists is SUPER DUMB for a long-term (read: eternal) survival strategy, but it's a great strategy for eliminating competition, or in other words, destroying all other life. So that's the Tyranid goal: destroy all other life, evolve into the best forms possible for survival as a group (the latter is the reason they have internecine conflict). If I'm ignorant, inform me, don't just say it and pretend you're doing me a favour in not supporting your position.
As to 'best race in 40k', from the perspective of uniqueness, they're pretty up there, they're also an interesting tabletop army due to their organic nature, but as to motive, they're boring: they are no better than animals, except that they intentionally operate as a varied group, instead of being an ecosystem that develops without innate cooperation. They don't struggle with a constant burning passion to commit far harder to their emotions than humans (Eldar), they don't persist in a universe that is innately hostile, and largely well established compare to them while dealing with unusual caste dynamics that aren't exactly fair, but may be the only way to survive (Tau), they aren't a large civilization separated culturally by the vast distances of space, struggling with the growing psionic potential of their species that greatly endangers them, but also is their only mechanism for overcoming the problems inters-stellar distances (and some enemies) present (Imperium), and they aren't an ancient civilisation that has hibernated through serious existential problems in the past, but who find themselves hugely outnumbered, surrounded by the psykers they so despise, and eternally suffering civil war due to, among other things, the egos of their ruling class (Necrons). Tyranids... kill/infect/consume, to survive, and to evolve, in order to keep surviving, and keep consuming. It has a certain purity to it, that's true, for a threat that can be truly terrifying, but as any kind of protagonist or even just point-of-view? They are basic as all heck, and lack any of the emotional qualities that makes a good story (fear, pride, envy, hate, hope, morality/conscience, sacrifice, revenge, joy, sadness, etc. . .). Can their victims be emotional? Yes. But there's no emotional investment possible in their emotions, because they have none. What makes a good villain (and I'm just not going to argue that you are playing the villain if you are playing Tyranids), is that they don't see themselves that way. The Tyranids don't see themselves as anything. They just ARE, and DO, based on a singular drive, not a complex assortment of interlocking, and constantly conflicting, drives.
@imptastic The Ynnari are friends with a tiny fragment of the Imperium. I'd be fine with including Imperial ships, particularly as allies, objectives, and the like, in an Ynnari campaign. They're not a huge faction, but they don't really have to be (no version of any campaign is going to be having 50+ capital ship fights) to tell a good story with them. Heck, there's no need to make their campaign based around domination of planets or systems, and it could be more wandering/completing objectives (I'm vaguely thinking Hordes from Total War: Warhammer here. Vaguely.), and interfering with other factions (including the other Eldar, and Imperials: they've got a justification for combat against any faction).
@underdarklord You might have heard that the tyranid campaing is a story told from the perspective of their victims. Could be an interesting twist to the usual formula. I am personally happy there is a campaign for them out of the three.
Tau big guns and high tech are popular yes, but if the story is not centered on them they leave little space to tell a story because on a galactic level, they are a fart in the wind compared to the other factions.
Neat. Story told from perspective of victims. Okay. Still no opportunity for conflict that isn't dominance, none for alliances, no internal conflict. There's also nothing preventing the other stories from having victim-tales included, that would be enhanced by the more freedom you had in choosing the fate of those victims (Tyranids just eat them). A story told using victim perspectives is basically a horror, and there's a reason the POV in those is, most of the time (by that I mean most of the time during the story we're following a victim-protagonist) set with a/the victim(s): because we know the goal of the scary thing, even if we don't know its motives, and that goal is to kill/maim/end its target (plus, at least most horror protagonists are able to forge connections, emotions, and alliances, to justify seeing from their perspective, the Tyranids don't even have that).
The Tyranids make a good middle part of a story, a dark part, where things look doomed, but when you are literally playing to enforce that doom, it doesn't make the personal stories of who you're dooming more interesting than a story that is embodied from your own perspective, and opportunities for conflict. Let's look at the popular Dawn of War: Dark Crusade for a comparison. You have a story for your faction, it's good, and you also learn more about the other factions, and their motives, particularly when you invade their stronghold, and at the end of the game when you learn about the consequences they suffer. That adds to an existing narrative, but if the faction you picked didn't have life to it other than 'win fights', then the already somewhat grindy campaign would become emotionless from the perspective of your own faction, the one you've chosen to play, and the one you are naturally inclined to connect to because your agency in the game derives from them. I'm not saying that the Tyranid campaign can't be enjoyable, or tell interesting victim stories even, but by the nature of the 'Nids, it cannot generate the same emotional highs and lows based on the agency of the point-of-view (which in games is uniquely your own agency) characters/protagonists. I can tell stories of my victims in a story-free (or mostly story free) 4x game like Stellaris, or Endless Space 2, through emergent narrative in a game, and am likely to be more invested, because I made a variety of decisions, not just 'consume all before me' to get to that point. Arguably, the kind of story you seem excited for, is actually much better in a non-game environment (think horror movie, or novel), than in a game, where the choice of subject here (Tyranids) forces a specific story, in an environment that is at its best when it provides more choice, and more freedom.
Well, that got longer than I expected. Didn't realize the horror connection until I started writing, and ditto the loss to emergent narrative that a singularly motivated entity creates. Sorry if I went on too long. The TL;DR is, I guess, that even if the victims are a source of story, that doesn't somehow eliminate the weaknesses Tyranids naturally have as a point-of-view.